Logical Substitutions Relationship Edition

Which quote below is a myth busting reasoned defense and which one is a hideous attempt to normalize the profane and immoral.

“But above all, polyamory is less about sex specifically but rather pursuing relationships with multiple partners. While there’s no one way to be polyamorous, as the Atlantic points out, these relationships are often stable, loving and no less serious or committed than two-partner relationships. And the functional nature of The Poly Life highlights just how thoughtfully constructed these relationships, including those that involve families with children, can be.”

“But above all, pedophilia is less about sex specifically but rather pursuing relationships with young partners. While there’s no one way to be a pedophile, as the Atlantic points out, these relationships are often stable, loving and no less serious or committed than adult relationships. And the functional nature of The Pedo Life highlights just how thoughtfully constructed these relationships, including those that later involve families with children, can be. “

Lacking a Basic Ability to Reason

If this article is representative of our culture’s ability to draw distinctions, western civilization is finished.  It is titled, We Asked Men to Draw Vaginas to Prove an Important Point.  You can tell from the title alone you are not reading the work of a great intellect.

In any case, what is the point she is making that is so important?  Could it be that people in general have an abysmal knowledge of anatomy only slightly worse than geography?  If you thought that you would be wrong.  Our dyspeptic writer’s main point is the following:

“Clearly, and unfortunately, the average male doesn’t know the first thing about a woman’s body, and some are suffering the very real negative consequences of this ignorance. Need proof? In 2014 alone, approximately 75% of anti-choice bills — laws that legislate only a woman’s autonomy — were sponsored by men.”

Did you get that?  Do you follow her point? Lack of knowledge in matters of fact map into the domain of ethics.  So if I only understood the structure of the highway system I wouldn’t be trying to pass laws against drunk driving.  Let’s change her quote around and shift into the new context.

“Clearly, and unfortunately, the average person doesn’t know the first thing about our highways and roads, and some are suffering the very real negative consequences of this ignorance. Need proof? In 2014 alone, approximately 75% of drunk driving bills — laws that legislate only our personal autonomy — were sponsored by people ignorant of our roads.”

Would that be a rigorous argument against drunk driving?  Of course not because it disregards the potential harm of drunk drivers who lose control of their vehicle.  No amount of knowledge of our highway system or width of the roads can change or will change that.  The legislature doesn’t want you driving drunk because you may kill or injure someone.  In the same way, deep knowledge of a women’s vagina does not change the fact that an abortion takes life.  Your humanity is not determined by your state of development or your location.  Moral reasoning depends on matters of what one should or shouldn’t do not simple matters of fact.

Instead of concerning herself with men’s lack of knowledge of female anatomy perhaps she could learn basic morality.  There is a principled, logical, non-religious argument against abortion on demand that requires minimal knowledge of women’s reproductive organs. It is concerned with the nature of the thing to be killed and not the composition and structure of its carrier.