Women as moral agents?

Matt Forney:

“If abortion is murder, then women who get abortions are murderers who need to be thrown in prison. I can’t believe I have to argue this. If you make abortion illegal and DON’T punish women who abort their babies, how the hell do you enforce the law?

Mind you, I’m agnostic on the abortion issue myself. This isn’t a matter of whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, it’s a matter of how the law works.

“Pro-life” conservatives who talk about how women who get abortions are “victims” are morally indistinguishable from feminists and SJWs. It’s the same logic feminists use to justify decriminalizing prostitution while severely punishing men who solicit hookers.”

 

My comment:

Precisely. And it shows how scared they are of holding women to any kind of standard.

It is this attitude that has made so many Western women spoiled and childish.

Perhaps women are indeed inferior morally as well as physically and mentally. But let’s be honest about it.

Advertisements

21 responses to this post.

  1. Reblogged this on Eyes of the Mind.

    Reply

  2. Posted by Sherlene on April 6, 2016 at 4:38 am

    Perhaps you are not trying to include and insult all women as being morally inferior. I hope not as there are many women who already stand bravely to defend the life of the unborn child. There are also women who stand bravely to defend other women and children from the clutches of the pornifiers too. Maybe we’re in the minority, but we’re still standing.

    Reply

    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on April 6, 2016 at 4:50 am

      Sherlene, the women who have taken moral stands are few and ineffectual. A man could grow old waiting for women to reject these evils en masse.

      I used to believe that women were moral. I now suspect that without masculine ethical and religious guidance, they are mostly not.

      Sorry. Women moral? 50 million dead unborn children would suggest not.

      Reply

      • Posted by RichardP on April 7, 2016 at 5:01 am

        Julian – please be careful here. The Bible tells us that the Gate to life is narrow, and only a few will find it. The majority will travel the road to destruction. That covers men as well as women – and much of masculine ethical and religious behavior is seen as filthy rags by God. I don’t think God buys into the argument that women are worse sinners than men. (Specifically, in this instance, for every abortion there is probably a man who should not have been having sex with the woman; immoral behavior on the part of the man.) Jesus’ rejection of the Scribes and Pharisees tells us what he thinks of much of masculine ethical and religious guidance. (Ignoring the whole Catholic Priest thing here.)

        From a different standpoint, Jesus said that, unless one becomes as a little child, they will not see heaven. Which creates an interesting situation for those who accuse women of being nothing more than grown-up children.

        Consider also that every woman who conceives understands that she is creating life only that it might die. What woman realistically expects to give birth to eternal life? So a woman’s perspective is going to be different than a mans perspective from the get-go. If the life being created is going to die, what does it matter that it dies sooner or that it dies later? And, if the majority of those born are going to end up on that broad path to destruction, which is the more moral choice? Give birth, so that they most likely end up on that broad path to destruction? Or prevent the birth, so that they don’t end up on that broad path to destruction? For those who truely believe what the Bible says, the most moral choice may not be what we automatically expect it to be (although I expect most abortions are not motivated by this logic).

        The statement that man looks on the outside, but God looks on the heart, tells us that much of life is not as black and white as we would like to think it is. “Being moral” isn’t what gets us into heaven (see the thief on the Cross beside Jesus). But I also realize that Catholics have views on this that I don’t know about, since I’m not Catholic.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on April 7, 2016 at 5:06 am

        My point was that women are clearly no more moral than men. Arguably they are the weaker vessel. I suspect the reason why women are rightly excluded from religious authority in the Catholic tradition is precisely for this reason.

        I don’t believe fewer women than men will reach Heaven or that they will be in lower places. But I do think women have more difficulty in finding the moral path on their own.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on April 7, 2016 at 5:11 am

        As for your argument on abortion I find it pretty bizarre and lawyerly. You seem to be arguing that it is better not to be born at all. I would say that God made women for one main reason: to produce men and women who could grow to love Him and see Him in Heaven. If a woman fails in that function, through her own fault, she has truly failed.

      • I quote RichardP: “Consider also that every woman who conceives understands that she is creating life only that it might die. What woman realistically expects to give birth to eternal life? So a woman’s perspective is going to be different than a mans perspective from the get-go. If the life being created is going to die, what does it matter that it dies sooner or that it dies later? And, if the majority of those born are going to end up on that broad path to destruction, which is the more moral choice? Give birth, so that they most likely end up on that broad path to destruction? Or prevent the birth, so that they don’t end up on that broad path to destruction? For those who truely believe what the Bible says, the most moral choice may not be what we automatically expect it to be (although I expect most abortions are not motivated by this logic).”

        Going by this logic, Christianity might as well be a death cult. Why have children? Why not kill them all before they can sin? This sort of thinking is heinous and depraved. And if women can be excused for murdering their children on these grounds, why not men too? “If the life being created is going to die, what does it matter that it dies sooner or that it dies later?” I think it matters rather a lot. Murder wouldn’t be a crime if it didn’t matter when we died. I suggest you review the Ten Commandments, RichardP – they’re the foundation of our society and our laws.

  3. Culpable, but limited moral agency is the logical conclusion.

    Reply

    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on April 7, 2016 at 8:28 am

      That is indeed a possibility. Women may inherently lack moral imagination. Notice how everybody wants to exculpate women, as if they somehow lack moral agency. RichardP here is a case in point. (I do thank him though for his polite disagreement – I had one person visit who was simply insulting – his comments were ignored.)

      Reply

  4. […] a recent comment here I […]

    Reply

  5. Matt makes moot his argument from the get go: “If abortion is murder.” If.

    Even where abortion is illegal, I’m not sure it’s legally defined as murder (or even similar). So even if women who get illegal abortions (even if they’ve been impregnated through rape!?) should, I’m hypothesising, be punished for doing so, should they be tried as murderers? I highly doubt any anti-abortion laws would dictate so. And in the case of women who’ve aborted a pregnancy conceived by rape, legally punishing them could be a case of further victimising an already twice victimised woman.

    Reply

    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on April 7, 2016 at 10:33 pm

      I think Matt’s fundamental point is that if abortion is criminalised, women should have a share in the punishment. If women are to be credited with moral agency, this seems appropriate.

      Very few abortions involve rape. It is clear that the huge number of abortions performed every year are done largely for convenience. The situation is a classic example of holding women to a very low standard.

      Reply

      • Yes, a share. Takes two to tango, as they say. And many more unwanted pregnancies, I suggest, occur in partnerships that are totally not equipped to raise a child. In such cases I’d argue social intervention should occur, and not necessarily legislation, whether an abortion is to or has or not.
        And obviously an abortion for the sake of mere convenience is an abhorrent concept.

  6. Posted by Julian O'Dea on April 8, 2016 at 8:21 am

    For those with FB access, there are some seeds of hope in the attitudes of the women here:

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1154055601280886&id=269271846425937

    Reply

  7. Posted by Julian O'Dea on April 8, 2016 at 8:01 pm

    https://thesunshinethiryblog.com/2016/04/08/womens-lack-of-culpability-in-the-areas-of-sex-relationships-and-reproduction-its-a-western-civ-thang/

    Sunshine thinks it is widespread illogicality and that is my theory too. I suppose one could argue that it is a case of “hating the sin not the sinner” but is this precept ever applied in the case of men?

    I have always wondered at the Christian propensity to treat women as sinless whereas scripture actually implies they are morally weaker and more likely to stray. Perhaps that is somehow factored in and people just have lower expectations of women.

    Reply

  8. Posted by Julian O'Dea on April 9, 2016 at 1:03 am

    Possibly relevant to the attitudes of contemporary women in the West:

    http://blackpoisonsoul.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/an-unhappy-picture-of-damaged-goods.html?m=1

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: