I think this is a fair description of intersectionality as it is often practiced, but a terrible one of intersectionality the academic idea.
The point of intersectionality is that the various axes of oppression are orthogonal and can't be compared, ie that racism and sexism aren't the same thing and you can't say that one is worse than th…
I think this is a fair description of intersectionality as it is often practiced, but a terrible one of intersectionality the academic idea.
The point of intersectionality is that the various axes of oppression are orthogonal and can't be compared, ie that racism and sexism aren't the same thing and you can't say that one is worse than the other. But that what you can say is that the combined racism and sexism suffered by a black woman is more than the sum of the racism suffered by a black man and the sexism suffered by a black woman. That's where all those ugly portmanteau words ("misogynoir", etc) come from.
But it has definitely been abused to try to measure different oppressions against each other, which is annoying because the original concept was that this was intrinsically impossible.
On the specific case, it's really individual rights against group rights. Individual women are pregnant and can exercise their right to choose. The Down's fetus is not a person with individual rights (if you think they are, then you're probably pro-life), so there's no single individual losing out. But if, as a statistical group phenomenon, the vast majority of Down's births never happen, then Down's people as a group are ceasing to exist.
People have the right to be members of groups, but does a group itself have rights? Even to continue to exist?
Yes this is precisely the conversation that must happen. I wouldn't describe myself as pro-life because I don't think I ought to be allowed to make pregnancy decisions for other people in the majority of cases. (I don't think abortion should be a primary form of birth control.)
That being said, the group rights vs individual rights issue is exactly what's happening in current politics with the increasing demand for "equity" over equality of opportunity. There's an interesting confluence between some portion of the larger Black population and pro-life beliefs because abortion is being branded as Black genocide.
And to your question does a group have rights, even to exist? Members of minority groups (including women) have specific protections under the law, so there's a potential argument to be made that if individuals of a group all have the same specific rights, then the group itself has rights. Because if the individuals within it didn't exist, neither would the group.
I think this is a fair description of intersectionality as it is often practiced, but a terrible one of intersectionality the academic idea.
The point of intersectionality is that the various axes of oppression are orthogonal and can't be compared, ie that racism and sexism aren't the same thing and you can't say that one is worse than the other. But that what you can say is that the combined racism and sexism suffered by a black woman is more than the sum of the racism suffered by a black man and the sexism suffered by a black woman. That's where all those ugly portmanteau words ("misogynoir", etc) come from.
But it has definitely been abused to try to measure different oppressions against each other, which is annoying because the original concept was that this was intrinsically impossible.
On the specific case, it's really individual rights against group rights. Individual women are pregnant and can exercise their right to choose. The Down's fetus is not a person with individual rights (if you think they are, then you're probably pro-life), so there's no single individual losing out. But if, as a statistical group phenomenon, the vast majority of Down's births never happen, then Down's people as a group are ceasing to exist.
People have the right to be members of groups, but does a group itself have rights? Even to continue to exist?
Yes this is precisely the conversation that must happen. I wouldn't describe myself as pro-life because I don't think I ought to be allowed to make pregnancy decisions for other people in the majority of cases. (I don't think abortion should be a primary form of birth control.)
That being said, the group rights vs individual rights issue is exactly what's happening in current politics with the increasing demand for "equity" over equality of opportunity. There's an interesting confluence between some portion of the larger Black population and pro-life beliefs because abortion is being branded as Black genocide.
And to your question does a group have rights, even to exist? Members of minority groups (including women) have specific protections under the law, so there's a potential argument to be made that if individuals of a group all have the same specific rights, then the group itself has rights. Because if the individuals within it didn't exist, neither would the group.