Why being raped *IS* just as bad for a prostitute. A simple analogy.

To all the people who think that being raped is not so bad for a prostitute, and that offenders should be treated more leniently.  Generally the reason given for this is that prostitutes engage in sexual conduct all the time, so therefore sex within the context of rape is not so traumatic.

I would like to offer an analogy to show that just because you do something all the time, having it done against your will is traumatic no matter what it is.

Most of us can swim.  Most of us don't mind diving under the water, in fact most swimmers enjoy it.  If you're the kind of person who enjoys swimming, or even if you don't enjoy it so much but you can get under the water if you have to (to rescue your phone from the bottom of a pool for example) try to compare the voluntary going under the water and coming up for air at your leisure, to being dunked by an arse-hole who does not know when to stop.

Imagine being pushed under when you weren't ready, and even if you managed to get a breath in, imagine being held under so that even if you wanted to take another breath you couldn't.  Imagine that the person doing this to you didn't think it was a problem, and didn't care about your suffering, hell, even thought it was funny!  Imagine fearing for your life when you realise that you will be be let up for air at the whim of merciless dickhead.

Imagine, after the arse-hole has had his fun, and you're staggering out of the water gasping for air, and cursing obscenities at the fuck-knuckle for abusing you in this way, that someone dismissed your experience with, "Well, it's not as bad for you, you're used to going under water." It wouldn't go down particularly well would it?

A near drowning at the mercy of another person is traumatic no matter who you are.  It may be *more* traumatic if you've never been under water before, I'm not denying that.  The argument is that no matter how many times you've been underwater of your on volition being forced under is traumatic, period.  And no matter how many times you've had sex, whether it be for love or money, being forced to do it is traumatic also.

Some people find this concept very difficult.  It is my profound hope that I have just made it a tiny bit easier. *bows* *crawls back under rock*

"Yes? or No?" When philosophy becomes the courtroom.

In a recent and lovely chat with my supie he was trying to prove a point and asked me to make a decision on a topic that I thought included one or more grey areas. "No, don't explain." he said "Just answer yes or no." In other words, do I believe a) or b)? I believed neither, but humoured him by choosing one of them prefixed with, "Ah, I see, we are in court now?" It was mildly funny at the time, you probably had to be there.

I did not emerge from that chat with my supervisor agreeing that representationalism about pain was a tenable position. I was not sure why at the time because sometimes, with me, things need to percolate before the solutions present themselves. In this case the solution presented itself during the walk from the car park over two weeks later.

It turns out the problem was the courtroom style of limited choices. Just how good is your philosophical position if you must force agreement from your opponent? The forced choice meant that one of the premises, rather than being a sturdy foundation for a conclusion, had become... crumbly... Of course this is not necessarily fatal to the overall argument, it might be an easily rectified dent, the position might hold just as easily without the premise in question. Nevertheless the point is that if I am forced to agree with an argument's premise I am never going to emerge from a discussion convinced of its conclusion and neither should anyone else.

What his request for my 'yes or no' answer should have highlighted was that we have a disagreement in what may be a significant area: he thinks the issue is a black and white one while I think coming down emphatically on either side is extreme and indefensible. If I am forced to choose what I think is the least problematic answer I have not technically agreed to anything other than a little congeniality for the sake of a quiet life.

It's something to watch for in my own arguments too, if I have to say to someone, "Just answer the question, yes or no." I might as well give the ground to my opponent straight away. If the premise is vital to your position it is much better to get a little sidetracked and delve into the grey area in question to convince your opponent of your premise. Your major point might be lost for a while but you'll still be arguing which, as far as I'm concerned, is the ultimate point of it all.

Why substituting words does not turn the tables on an argument.

Find believes that by substituting words in my stated belief below that she has "turned the table on my argument". The intent of this post is to show why I think she is mistaken.

(Find, I'm not sure whether you're a he or a she, I chose She, my apologies if I am wrong about that.)

Here is the refresher, for those of you who have forgotten, or who were not following the comments on that particular post:

Me - "I believe that whether or not to continue a pregnancy should be between a woman, her medical practitioner, and her own God. The law has no business meddling in private reproductive decisions."

Find - "Slight rewording:
'I believe that whether or not to rape should be between a man, his medical practitioner, and his own God. The law has no business meddling in private reproductive decisions.'
Please don't spout such illogical drivel when it it is so easy to turn the tables on it."

Me - That kind of retort is what we call an Appeal to Emotion.

Find - "Actually, no, all I did was substitute a few words using your logic. If my statement is an appeal to emotion, then, logically, so was yours!"

Ummm, actually, no. That only works if your substitution retains the truth of the premises.

We'll try it on a classic argument:

P1 Socrates is a man
P2 All men are mortal
C Socrates is mortal

Now, let us try some substitution, how about, "ape" for "man"?

P1 Socrates is an ape
P2 All apes are mortal
C Socrates is mortal

In this case, the argument is still valid (if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true) but it is now unsound because P1 is false. Socrates was not an ape.

... and one more example, how about "unable to bear children" for "mortal"?

P1 Socrates is a man
P2 All men are unable to bear children
C Socrates cannot bear children

In this case the argument retains its soundness as it is true that men cannot bear children.

If my statement, were an argument, which it clearly was not. (It laid out my preference for the way abortion ought to be handled. Premises leading to a conclusion were nowhere in sight.) Changing the gender to male, and the action to rape within the context of a reproductive decision was, as far as I can tell (and I have three years of university level logic) doomed to failure. Abortion and rape have less in common than Socrates and his ape cousins.

However, I may have a formal logic eduction, but I do not have your drive, Find, so perhaps you can come up with a valid argument against abortion which does not have its soundness compromised by those substitutions? Should be an interesting exercise if nothing else.

An example of a Pro-Life "Appeal to Emotion" argument.

This is a comment on another post, but I thought it worth reposting here. The commenter rewords my belief that an abortion should be between a woman, her medical provider and her own god:
________________________

Slight rewording:
"I believe that whether or not to rape should be between a man, his medical practitioner, and his own God. The law has no business meddling in private reproductive decisions."


Please don't spout such illogical drivel when it it is so easy to turn the tables on it.

You are denying the humanity of others.

________________________

At least they said "please".

I'm afraid no one with a background in logic or argument would call that turning the tables.

If I spout drivel then I modestly claim that it is better considered drivel than yours. I published your post specifically to demonstrate the kind of logic pro-lifers tend to use.

That is, a logical fallacy called Appeal to Emotion.

Rape is a horrific violation of a woman's rights in all circumstances; abortion is NOT a horrific violation of a woman's rights in all circumstances. Yet by comparing abortion to rape, the above commenter is trying to make abortion as horrific as rape. The argument, if it could be called that, relies on our abhorrence of rape to try to provoke the same abhorrence for abortion.

However, comparing abortion to rape is fallacious. Rape is sex performed against the will of the woman - it is assault. No doctor will perform an abortion on a woman who is specifically telling him not to, he knows that would be assault. If all women are aborting against their will, they aren't telling their doctors at the time.

Rape is the violation of the rights of a living, breathing, self-conscious human being with a full life and full knowledge of its pain and future losses. That is why it is against the law and people are sent to jail for it.

A foetus is only living at the discretion of the mother, can not breath on its own until at least 24 weeks (and even then it needs expert medical help), is not self-conscious and cannot possibly have any knowledge of its pain or losses. That is why women are not sent to jail for aborting despite the law in Victoria.

Abortion and rape are two very different things. Once we see that their argument falls over.

Even if I were to concede that the foetus was a child (which I won't), I would still maintain that a non-conscious, not yet born individual does not take precedence over a fully functioning conscious individual.

As for denying the humanity of others: The commenter holds the position that all human life is sacred, it's called "the sanctity of human life", it is a religious premise clung to by fundamentalists and does not actually reflect the value of the unborn in the bible (look up "abortion" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible for a better set of quotes and explanations than I can provide here).

This idea that human life is sacred from conception is historically very new, even for the Catholic Church. Until the last few hundred years (precise date escapes me, not going to look it up for you, sorry) ensoulment was at quickening, not conception.

Again, drivel? maybe. Illogical? rarely, and not this time.