Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > News & Issues > LET'S TALK FEMINISM

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

LET'S TALK FEMINISM

stuntddude replied...
Feb. 22, 2015 at 6:03 am

"If you support equality of the sexes, then you are (by definition) a feminist."
 
That's really not a valid (let alone good) definition of feminism, though. Feminism more or less boils down to a set of common values, goals, principles, etc. that are certainly not as simple as "don't be se xist." Also, like any label, it has a lot to do with how others identify you and how you identify yourself.
 
In any case, you make a good point. Calling ab ortion murder is factually not correct. Murder is defined as illegally killing another human. Existing law already makes quite clear that ab ortion doesn't fit that definiton.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
StoneGirl replied...
Feb. 24, 2015 at 12:37 am

I think my post got eaten by the filter, so I'll try again.
 
To be honest, I don't think it is good to base moral decisions on what laws have been made about them. Just because a law doesn't forbid something doesn't make it a good thing to do.
That being said, I am pro choice. Every woman out there should be able to decide what to do with her body.
I think the essential question here is: when does life begin? Not with a separate sp.e.rm or e.gg, surely. Women do not cry (out of saddness) every time they get their period and we do not mourn the thousands of sp.erm that don't implant in an eg.g. Why is it that a zygot.e, in that case, is considered life?
And consider this: Sometimes an embry.o, for whatever reason, does not implant itself in the u.terus(or whatever it is, the word escapes me now), and in some cases, nobody realizes that this supposed "life" never survived.
This is not a huge tragedy and death. it is just life.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
MercedesJ replied...
Feb. 28, 2015 at 2:21 pm

Everyone should be treated with respect.  

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Feb. 28, 2015 at 6:37 pm

"Just because a law doesn't forbid something doesn't make it a good thing to do."
 
This is not a claim that anyone is making. You could use to work on your reading comprehension and try to understand the arguments that are actually being put forth.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
StoneGirl replied...
Feb. 28, 2015 at 8:38 pm

Stunddude:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seemed like the point that you and JorySpoon were making was that ab.or.tion could not be called murder because nowhere in our laws does it say that life begins at conc.eption.
 


While this argument may work for judges in a court case, no one who is against abo.rt.ion will, upon hearing this, stop in their tracks and say, “Gosh, they’re right, I guess ab.ortion.s aren’t baby killings!”  More realistically, they’ll probably just try to change our laws.
 


What I was trying to say(in a roundabout sort of way), was that we shouldn’t use laws to support our arguments for something as emotional as abo.r.tion.  Instead, we should try to take a step back and realize the reasons behind those laws.  Once we do that, we can do our best to make the law support whatever our opinions are.
 


Saying that ab.ortion is not murder because the law does not make it so is a weak argument. People’s opinions matter more than the law because people’s opinions shape laws.  We should try to change people’s opinions by using stronger things.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Mar. 1, 2015 at 3:42 am

You missed the point entirely. Murder is defined as a deliberate, unlawful, premeditated killing of one person by another. Because it's legal, it by definition can't be murder. It's also true that it isn't killing a person, at least in most cases, but that isn't as clear-cut or undeniable as the fact that it's legal/lawful, so it's worth bringing up legality as well.
 
The point is that incorrectly calling ab ortion murder is either ignorant or disingenuous, probably both.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
StoneGirl replied...
Mar. 1, 2015 at 8:55 pm

Because it's legal, it by definition can't be murder. It's also true that it isn't killing a person, at least in most cases, but that isn't as clear-cut or undeniable as the fact that it's legal/lawful, so it's worth bringing up legality as well.
I assume you’re talking about a.bort.ion here.
The point is that incorrectly calling ab ortion murder is either ignorant or disingenuous, probably both.
I completely agree with that, but for a different reason.
My point is that when people call a.bortion murder, they usually do it while knowing that it is legally not defined that way. However, they are following their own set of values.  Nobody is arguing about the state of the situation now, they are arguing about how they think it should be. Therefore, your point is not really relative to the argument(if I got it right this time around)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Caesar123 replied...
Mar. 15, 2015 at 2:04 am

Thank you for defending me (to a degree) Stone Girl. I’m not stupid guys. I know my SCOTUS cases, and I know what Roe v. Wade says (roughly). I know legally a.bortion can’t be considered m.urder because of it, but in my opinion, spiritually as well as biologically, it should be. To say simply say: “this debate was decided in 1973, get over it.” is silly. Should we then have said “get over it” when SCOTUS affirmed Jim Crow in Plessey v. Ferguson or when they allowed child labor to go un-banned (and unregulated) by the fed in Hammer v. Dagenhart? Stone Girl is spot on, that opinion and our culture of the time is what drives the creation of laws which the courts then interpret. The fact that you guys don’t understand that makes me absolutely terrified for the civic future of our country, but hey, always room for improvement.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Mar. 15, 2015 at 5:57 am

"To say simply say: “this debate was decided in 1973, get over it.” is silly."
 
lmao you can't even read. I literally just explained this. Take your straw man back into the field.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Caesar123 replied...
Mar. 15, 2015 at 9:25 pm

I can’t even read? Wow, that’s funny! Perhaps you should review the points of the person you concur with before you go and cry “straw man”.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Mar. 19, 2015 at 6:50 pm

At what point in this thread have I said I agree completely with any other person's views on the subject?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Caesar123 replied...
Mar. 23, 2015 at 2:02 pm

At what point is this thread have I said that my first comment on the 15th was directed at you and not at you, JorySpoon, and others who agree with you as a blanket statement. But you know, way to get us all off topic and argue about semantics instead. You seem pretty good at that. Thinking as politics as a career?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Mar. 26, 2015 at 3:55 am

Your post on March 15 at 9:25 PM was directed at me, that's not even up for debate. Please don't waste your time trying to rewrite history.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Caesar123 replied...
Mar. 31, 2015 at 6:51 pm

Alright, look, this isn't even funny anymore. This c.rap you do, no one is buying it, and frankly I can't believe YOU think it works. Have fun living in your own little world.
 
HINT: Look at my post made March 15th at 2:04 AM!

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Mar. 31, 2015 at 7:07 pm

My post on the 19th was a direct reply to your second post on the 15th, which was a direct reply to my post on the 15th, which was a direct reply to your first post on the 15th. Your post on 23rd, which was presumably a direct reply to mine on the 19th, you pointed out that your first post on the 15th was not addressed solely to me, which has nothing to do with the post you were replying to at the time, nor is it really relevant to my post on the 15th. I'm honestly not sure what you think you're trying to prove, but whatever it is, you're doing a very poor job of it.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Amai-kun replied...
Mar. 31, 2015 at 10:45 pm

P-please, everyone, just calm down!

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
averageteen2000 replied...
Apr. 3, 2015 at 12:02 pm

People always seem to get feminism confused with radical feminism. While feminism advocates for equal rights for women and men, radical feminism advocate for actions that are rather central to an idea of women>men. Obviously, that isn't true (and vice versa). In conclusion, please don't assume someone is a radical feminist without first listening to their views and more importantly, don't assume that 100% of feminists are radical feminists.
P.S. I haven't read all the replies on this post- I just wanted to deliver this message in hopes of avoiding a potential argument.  

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Apr. 3, 2015 at 8:54 pm

averageteen2000, please actually look up the definition of "radical feminism" before making a post condemning it. Like most social movements named several decades ago (back when simply acknowledging the existence of a patriarchy was considered "radical"), it's not nearly as scary as it sounds.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
averageteen2000 replied...
Apr. 4, 2015 at 9:58 am

Oh ok, thanks! I'm extremely sorry for misusing the word- I believe my post was trying to potray the idea of sexism. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Apr. 4, 2015 at 1:02 pm

It's a common mistake. You still have a good point - people often mistake feminism for something it isn't. In truth, the belief that women are superior to men isn't any kind of feminism at all - it's just sexism.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback