Conversation

Aella
@Aella_Girl
An old poster arguing against women's suffrage. I'm particularly fascinated by outdated arguments for things we today consider completely beyond dispute - arguments for slavery, child beating, genocide, racism, etc. I feel like I'm doing "argument archaeology" or something.
Image
96
456
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Aella
@Aella_Girl
Not really? My mind doesn't change, but it does freak me out a little bit how good people were at rationalizing things then (and by extension, probably today too)
5
51
Aella
@Aella_Girl
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
Like, pro-slavery arguments were 'sane'-sounding. Most of what I've read relies on two main points - 1., if you're gonna be anti-slavery you have to change how you treat women/children/animals which is absurd, and 2., we're actively helping the enslaved, this is best for them
3
18
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Aella
@Aella_Girl
Replying to
@scullytaco
Ah I understand. Still though, you could take that exact same argument and reverse it - you're arguing for the evil of "removing agency from a woman's body" and everything you say about it is just rationalizing.
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Aella
@Aella_Girl
Replying to
@scullytaco
Right. I mean, I used to believe this - I used to protest planned parenthood even. I think your view is a logical extension of some type of philosophy about 'murder' and 'person' and 'rights'. I think the issue lies in the underlying philosophy, not in the logical extension.
1
Show replies
James Jameson
@jimjamesjameson
Replying to
@Aella_Girl
Notice how much more abstract "removing agency from women's body" is to "killing a baby". The less justifiable something is, the more abstractions are used to justify it. No person from the 1800s would think "agency of a women's body" meant "the right to kill a foetus".
33