Abortion arguments

GottaBigOne

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,035
Media
13
Likes
255
Points
303
Age
42
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Rights pertain to social interaction, it does not mean that all actions are right, or moral, but in a social setting the mother has the right to do it without being criminalized. Maybe thats where you're getting confused because you equate immoral with illegal, that is not the case. right are a bridge between personal morality and social morality, the social kind being more restricted. what it does is make free actions moral to society, but not necessarily to individuals, therefore an individual could see any act done by another human being as moral or immoral, but socially they could not force them to do anything otherwise. My point about the two criteria is that the fetus is not- just because it is still inside the womb and still hooked up via umbilical cord- surviving solely of the host. It is a separate entity which happens to be inside another entity. To me the killing of an animal for no reason (convenience is a valid reason to me, mice are a health risk) is immoral, but socially, to government, it is not, it is up to every individual to decide what is immoral to them, so yes, I do not argue that the woman didn't have a right to do what she did, but i still will view it as immoral for myself, but i won't ask that the government view it the same way. We do agree, you and I, except that you think that capitalism.org's social rights are made somehow sacred for everybody, that they are unjudgeable, this is not what capitalism.org means. It simply means that the woman should not be forced to do anything against her will, it does not mean we all have to accpet what she has done as perfectly moral.

P.S. No one has a right to tennis lessons. At least not in the way you are putting it


"If the rights fit, you have to acquit." Capitalism.com says she walks.
I agree. But she is not free from my judgement.
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
horribleperson said:
if you commit suicide it is not a crime, if you get caught trying it is a crime.
1. Wrong, it was still a crime in some states (seldom charged against a person surviving the attempt). It's not illogical in principle; it's just that you cannot convict a dead person. See also: a successful suicide bomber vs. that woman in Amman who confessed to a failed suicide bombing.

2. From Wikipedia: "By the early 1990s only two US states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification."
 

GottaBigOne

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,035
Media
13
Likes
255
Points
303
Age
42
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I was also thinking today about the claim that the fetus would need the mother's permission in order to be born. I think this claim is made with the assumption that the discussion is about an early term fetus, and is meant more as, the baby needs the mother's permission to be carried to the point of then having to be born, like I've said before, once the fetus gets to a certain size it has to be "born" or taken out of the womb most likely in its entirety, so to kill it beforehand would be senseless. just because the fetus resides inside the womb doesn;t mean the woman can morally (personal) do what she wants to it, it would still be cruel to treat a self-sustaining living thing like that.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
GottaBigOne said:
I was also thinking today about the claim that the fetus would need the mother's permission in order to be born. I think this claim is made with the assumption that the discussion is about an early term fetus, and is meant more as, the baby needs the mother's permission to be carried to the point of then having to be born, like I've said before, once the fetus gets to a certain size it has to be "born" or taken out of the womb most likely in its entirety, so to kill it beforehand would be senseless. just because the fetus resides inside the womb doesn;t mean the woman can morally (personal) do what she wants to it, it would still be cruel to treat a self-sustaining living thing like that.

GBO,
Of course its immoral and repugnant for the woman to do as I claimed. However, as you agreed in your previous post that it would be perfectly legal under capitalism.com. This is why capitalism.com falls short of being a complete legal and moral system.

In fact your previous post was extremely articulate and comprehensive. You were certainly firing on all cylinders when you wrote that. You rightfully state that althought things might be legal under capitalism.com, they might be very immoral. And for the first time in this debate you are clear that the "morality" of something would be a personal judgement and would not necessarily be derived from capitalism.com principles. You may have said that in the past, but whenever I asked where this source of morality would come from, you would go back and invoke capitalism.com principles. So we were stuck in a relentless circle of logic.

But your previous post set the record straight. I think you are saying that at best capitalism.com is a prescription for a very libertarian form of government that would hold individual rights as its foundational premise. This minimalist government would function only to ensure that the rights of each individual were not encroached upon by the actions of another. Everything else would be permissable in a strictly legal sense. For example, under this form of government, my client would be set free since she committed no crime. However, you rightfully (IMHO) point out that this behavior falls short of what could be considered moral by many peoples' definitions. So in addition to the minimial legal code you would hope for people to excercise behavioral self-restraint by drawing on their own personal sense of morality as a guide. Do I have that right?

JustAsking
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
JustAsking said:
GBO, [...] for the first time in this debate you are clear that the "morality" of something would be a personal judgement and would not necessarily be derived from capitalism.com principles.
GBO may have missed the point of his own thread. ;-) See also:

GottaBigOne said:
[...] by the way I thank you for actually sticking to capitalism.org's arguments, that was the whole intent of this thread [...]
 

GottaBigOne

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,035
Media
13
Likes
255
Points
303
Age
42
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Wow, exactly right. I finally did it, i finally was able to get myself across.

I have to clear one thing up. Capitalism is not a complete legal and moral system. It is a politics derived from an ethical position, it is not the ethical position or system itself. Objectivism would be the ethical/philosophical sysytem. But liek I said I don't want to get into Objectivism in this forum because I feel its preachy, and also because its pretty complex and I don't feel like wading through all the strawmen and misconceptions that people have about it. COnstantly having to explain Objectivism's principles in annoying at best, so I suggest if you are interested, which i doubt, but I'll give you a suggestion anyway; is to read "Objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Peikoff and Rand exchanged several letters in the "Letters of Ayn Rand", he probably had as clear an idea of her philosophy as anyone. My main objection to Objectivism is that it's not as completely fleshed-out as I would like, as in this instance.

Also, she goes on to say in a letter to someone who I can't remember now, she condemns her critics for saying that pure capitalism would lead to monopolies, which she claims hasn't been proven. I think by now we can see that it is true, her main flaw, for me, is that the doesn't recognise the greed aspect of human nature. The philosophies read well, but in practical application they lose ground.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
madame_zora said:
Peikoff and Rand exchanged several letters in the "Letters of Ayn Rand", he probably had as clear an idea of her philosophy as anyone. My main objection to Objectivism is that it's not as completely fleshed-out as I would like, as in this instance.

Also, she goes on to say in a letter to someone who I can't remember now, she condemns her critics for saying that pure capitalism would lead to monopolies, which she claims hasn't been proven. I think by now we can see that it is true, her main flaw, for me, is that the doesn't recognise the greed aspect of human nature. The philosophies read well, but in practical application they lose ground.

Yes MZ, you said it succinctly. That is the fatal flaw. The elegant simplicity of Objectivism is its main attraction, but simplicity doesn't guarantee anything when it comes to social systems. If the success of it depends on people creating and adhering to moral principles of their own, we know right away that it can't work all by itself. My fake court case is representative of what would happen in all spheres of behavior. Self interest seems to dominate no matter what utopia you attempt.

This suggests to me that the problem isn't with the legal system as much as it is with human propensity towards self interest.

[Rant]This is why Jesus suggested that the only hope for reducing misery and suffering in the world is to instill a personal value system that places the interests of others above the those of one's own. We tend to think of the Good Samaritan parable as a kind of Hallmark Card of a homily about being nice to people. When in fact, it was a crushing indictment on all utopias in which compassion and the interest of others are not the main concern. The Priest and the Levite who walk by the half-dead guy represent the epitome of Pharisaic utopia. By avoiding contact with the half-dead guy, they were obeying proscriptions laid down in Leviticus where the utopia is strict adherence to the Jewish Purity Laws. Their goal was to please God with their holy behavior and bring about his Kingdom.

We usually lack the cultural context of this so we don't realize that the Priest and the Levite would be seen by the audience as "very good" holy people instead of inconsiderate bad guys. In fact they are named as Priest and Levite because the audience would immediately identify them with the highest level of religious perfection. The audience would nod in assent to the notion that the holy men were walking to the other side.

We also lack the cultural aversion to the Samaritan who represents the most ungodly person Jesus could possibly name. Being a Samaritan he is immediately identified by the audience as a totally unclean Godless heathen and an outright religious enemy of the Jews. In 50 BC or so, the Samaritans defiled the Jewish temple with pigs blood and stuff in a kind of religious terrorism. In typical countercultural Jesus logic, though, he stands the whole problem on its head and raises the Samaritan up as a model for behavior and denigrates the holy men. Selfless compassion for the interest of others trumps all utopias, even those that are religiously motivated for the pleasing of God. I am sure his audience was dumb-struck by this. No wonder he was nailed to a tree.

Its no coincidence that he tells this parable after answering a question about what he thought was the greatest commandment. This is an undeniably a moment when he is establishing an important and revolutionary priority of Love over Law.

So this suggests that individual rights is not a fundamental principle for a social system. Not that its not noble, but its too simplistic. A better principle is the minimization of misery and suffering in a complex world full of moral ambiguity and human imperfection.

A good example is the practice of medical triage, where the goal is to maximize the benefit of whatever limited resources and capabilities you have towards minimzing misery and suffering. Its messy and there are no absolutes. Some people will simply die because you decided it was a better use of resources to treat another person.

When considering abortion, Jesus' parable suggests that all utopian pronouncement about the absolute sanctity of life of the fetus, or the absolute rights of the mother, etc. will end up in an inferior outcome when compared to a more practical application of compassion which seeks to reduce misery and suffering. Its much better to consider the potential for suffering of the mother and the baby and the community in a kind of triage tradeoff.

The irony is that Christian Fundamentalists get this entirely backwards. They are in fact, modern Christian Pharisees. Their claim for the absolute sanctity of life of the fetus from the moment of conception is just like the Priest and the Levite's ritualistic aversion to contact with the impure half-dead guy in the road. In both examples they are more concerned with "pleasing God" than reducing misery and suffering. This kind of thinking leads them to think that the morning after pill taken to prevent a handful of cells from taking root after a rape is far more evil than forcing the 14 year old victim to carry the baby to term and possibly have to raise it in abject poverty. (Or worse, to criticize the use of condoms!)

Similarly, the claim for absolute sanctity for the institution of marriage leads them to lobby for the one law that would prevent same sex couples from forming a legal lasting and meaningful relationship.

Equally utopian is the notion that the mother's rights are sancrosanct over all other concerns. This is the other side of the utopian coin and it leads to another kind of evil. It leads to the type of situation suggested in my fake court case.

So my opinion is that our current abortion laws are on the right track. The best we can do is make an educated guess at a good point in fetal development to declare it a viable baby. Abortions before that point are legal, and abortions after that are only legal in cases where the mother's health is threatened and it can be shown that sound professional medical triage concerns have been established. As medical science moves the threshold age of premature birth survival back we should probably adjust the legal abortion threshold accordingly.

Although this sounds so pragmaticaly Godless, as if we are playing God, this is exactly what Jesus is recommending in the parable. Reducing overall misery and suffering always trumps trying to please God with dogma-driven ideals or behavior. Gut wrenching compassion will always make the better choice even in when faced with moral ambiguity (perhaps especially when faced with moral ambiguity.)

Forgive me for my late night Christian rant, but I need to do this every so often to purge my frustration that Fundamentalist have made Christianity into something at best silly and at worst despicable. I am not proseletyzing. I just happen to find some of this 2000 year old wisdom to be extremely profound in the light of the human condition.[/Rant]

JustAsking
 

GottaBigOne

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,035
Media
13
Likes
255
Points
303
Age
42
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
madame_zora said:
Peikoff and Rand exchanged several letters in the "Letters of Ayn Rand", he probably had as clear an idea of her philosophy as anyone. My main objection to Objectivism is that it's not as completely fleshed-out as I would like, as in this instance.

Also, she goes on to say in a letter to someone who I can't remember now, she condemns her critics for saying that pure capitalism would lead to monopolies, which she claims hasn't been proven. I think by now we can see that it is true, her main flaw, for me, is that the doesn't recognise the greed aspect of human nature. The philosophies read well, but in practical application they lose ground.
The reason Objectivism doesn't "flesh out" every aspect of our lives,i.e. give us answers to all the questions we have about our society or lives is because it is an ethical system where rationality is the main virtue, using one's mind is the greatest achievment. Objectivism gives us the system to find out the answers but not all the answers, it is not an oracle spouting commandments from a burning bush. We have to find the answers ourselves using reason, which JustAsking and I have been doing for myself, i don't know how seriously he toook our discussion or if was just playing a game of "gotcha", i suspect the latter. what I think most people are dissatisfied with Objectivism is because it doesn't take them where they want to go. They have an idea about what morality is,e.g. that imposing morality on someone works, or is in their best interest, not realizing what a real morality would entail: choice. You can not force choice, you can not force morality.
But madam, I think it is unfair to say that we can all see that capitalism will lead to monopolies as we don't live in a pure capitalistic society, we have a mixed economy, and its precisely government interaction with economy that has created the semi-monopolies we see today. I know big ccorporations are vilified, b ut why??? Why do you really hate them??? Why shouldn't wal-mart be able to grow as big as it can, because it only grows so big because it is better than the competition, why shouldn't microsoft be able to develop a package of whatever it wants to seel, do consumers have a right to computers the way they want??? Thats ridiculous, thats like saying that people have a right to my paintings how they feel i should paint them, not how I paint them, and I have no choice in the matter of whether or not I want to do their commision.

What is greed?? What about making money do you despise? The only reason that businesses are able to do "dirty business" is because they have political pull in government, they can influence laws that drown out the competition. In free competition the cream always rises to the top.
 

GottaBigOne

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,035
Media
13
Likes
255
Points
303
Age
42
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Justasking: I really do not what I can say to you. To tell the truth I'm rather flabbergasted. Don't take that to mean that I think you are a bad person or anything, its just so incredible to me how some people can think (I'm sure you feel the same way about me). It just saddens me that people have this view of the human race as being inherently evil, and that if it weren't against the law to kill, or steal, or lie, then people would do those things pandemically. Where do they get this notion? Why do they think that people need to be forced to be good, that being evil is somehow the natural state of man? Ugh. I just don't see it. Not that I'm saying man is omnibenevolent, but I think the majority of man is.

I would really like to get into it about self interest with you, and minimizing misery and suffering but I feel like it would be to deaf ears (no offense). Its just that people have this notion that if people only thought o\about themselves then that would mean to toal disregard for others, as if self necessarily has to be pitted aginst others, as if cooperation weren't in someone's self interest. I.. Just.. amd really saddened right now, and I don't think I have very much more to say. I know I should say something, try something, but I don't see the point anymore.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
GottaBigOne said:
But madam, I think it is unfair to say that we can all see that capitalism will lead to monopolies as we don't live in a pure capitalistic society, we have a mixed economy, and its precisely government interaction with economy that has created the semi-monopolies we see today.

In the early part of the 20th century we had very little gov't regulation of business. It led to quite a number of monopolies against which we had to enact antitrust laws. I think the term "robber barons" was invented at that time. Complete free market capitalism is like Darwinian evolution. It can produce wonderful things, but at the great expense of other things. The most important factor in evolution is death. Its ruthlessly efficient and awesomely terrible.

JustAsking
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
ChimeraTX said:
The average person does not possess the ability to understand nihilism; religion fills a mental vacuum. ;)

Wow, we agree on something! I don't believe the "average person" is able to comprehend much about philosopy, and religion gives them a preset series of tenets on which to base their behavior in order to feel they are "good". In addition to that, religion has always sought to explain natural phenomena, which helps with the unanswered questions that people find such difficulty in just living with.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
GottaBigOneIt just saddens me that people have this view of the human race as being inherently evil said:
I think one thing that makes this difficult is that you have a tendency to think in absolutes, or in other words, "all or nothing". I never said that humans are inherently evil. But I did say that people are capable of evil. The truth is that people are capable of an entire spectrum from great evil to great altrusim. Our evolutionaly heritage has built into us a high degree of self-interest, which should be no surprise to anyone. If it wasn't for our creative conciousness, we would probably have as much altruism in us that the rest of nature does, which is very little.

You have to admit, that we all lie somewhere on a spectrum between Hitler and Mother Theresa. And at any given time, we move along that spectrum depending on a large number of things besides having our rights infringed on.

Its hard for me to believe that the only thing keeping people from being extremely moral is government infringement on their rights. If you don't believe that either, I would have to ask how rolling back the government to an extremely libertarian one would somehow create a highly moral voluntary society?

JustAsking
 

SurferGirlCA

Cherished Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Posts
1,242
Media
0
Likes
478
Points
303
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
Well, I hesitated about wading into such a divisive topic, but then I realized that's why we choose to post/read these boards - to be part of this community. I will start by stating that I am absolutely pro-choice. I think there are legitimate differences of opinion about when life begins, so I disagree with those who feel the law of the land should reflect THEIR view of when that happens. However, my hope would be that we could do a better job of educating and informing our children about their own responsibilities towards themselves and their bodies so as to minimize the need for what is prolly a traumatic experience for any one who goes through it. The reality of any significant number of women using abortion "as a means of birth control" that someone mentioned earlier is ludicrous, as far as I'm concerned. I think that's a myth propagated by the fundamentalists who always seem to feel the need to cast any argument in the most starkly drawn black/white terms possible - i.e., legalized abortion means more women will believe it's ok to have one, because ummmm it's legal! :rolleyes: I will make a political prediction, though. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, I think the GOP can say goodbye to their majorities in Washington. I think the majority of Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of abortion on demand, but are equally uncomfortable with the idea that women would be forced into back-alleys again.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
SurferGirlCA said:
Well, I hesitated about wading into such a divisive topic, but then I realized that's why we choose to post/read these boards - to be part of this community. I will start by stating that I am absolutely pro-choice. I think there are legitimate differences of opinion about when life begins, so I disagree with those who feel the law of the land should reflect THEIR view of when that happens. However, my hope would be that we could do a better job of educating and informing our children about their own responsibilities towards themselves and their bodies so as to minimize the need for what is prolly a traumatic experience for any one who goes through it. The reality of any significant number of women using abortion "as a means of birth control" that someone mentioned earlier is ludicrous, as far as I'm concerned. I think that's a myth propagated by the fundamentalists who always seem to feel the need to cast any argument in the most starkly drawn black/white terms possible - i.e., legalized abortion means more women will believe it's ok to have one, because ummmm it's legal! :rolleyes: I will make a political prediction, though. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, I think the GOP can say goodbye to their majorities in Washington. I think the majority of Americans are uncomfortable with the idea of abortion on demand, but are equally uncomfortable with the idea that women would be forced into back-alleys again.

Surf,
Thanks for jumping in. You know, I am convinced that my attitude would be somewhat different if I were a woman. However, I am not sure my opinion would be better or worse. This is such a complex issue its very difficult to be certain about it.

I agree with you on the following:

- The extreme right is up to its usual tricks in using fear and cognitive framing to affect peoples' opinion on abortion. There is probably some abuse of abortion, but nowhere near what the Right would have us believe. Also, the issue of partial birth abortion is a fear tactic as well. The statistics show that partial birth abortion is an extremely rare occurance. They bring it up because it resonates negatively with our cognitive frame of parenting. The term Pro-Life is also a framing device. Who would be "anti-life"?

- Using laws alone to affect peoples' behavior is often necessary, but it usually is like shooting squirrels with an elephant gun. So its a shame that we need laws about something as personal as the right or non-right for a woman to choose. With that as background, education and acculturation is absolutely essential.

- Legalizing abortion does not send the message that abortion is ok if people are educated and not desparate.

- You are also right about Row v Wade. I also think that it would be very difficult to overturn, anyway since there is so much precedence. Even Judge Roberts said that during his confirmation hearings. The weakness in it, however, is that its a court decision rather than a real law. What is really needed is a constitutional amendment. Lest you rely too much on public opinion, though, here is an interesting statistic from a Gallup Poll:

"The poll reveals that only one in four Americans, 27%, say abortions should be legal under any circumstances. The rest all take one of two pro-life positions: 16% say abortions should be illegal in all circumstances; and 55% say abortion should be legal only under certain rare circumstances, such as rape, incest or to save the life of the mother."


I think one problem with the abortion issue is that people are too polarized about it. As if there are only two positions: pro-life and pro-choice. Both of those positions are too simplistic. I think you would defend absolute pro-choice to a degree that goes beyond what you think is reasonable, because you are afraid the alternative is absolute pro-life.

Which one of these positions best represent yours:

1) Abortion should be legal under any circumstances

2) Abortion should be legal up to a certain time in the pregnancy after which certain situations would allow it, for example, to save the life of the mother.

3) Abortion should be legal only in rare circumstances, such as rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

One way to test your position is to ask yourself if its ok for woman to have late term abortions if they decide they don't like the sex of the baby or it has a slight medical problem.

For the record, I favor position #2.

By the way, the good news is that US teenage pregnancy rates have dropped again for the 10th straight year.

The bad news is that abortion is still one of the most common surgical procedures.

JustAsking
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I'm pro-choice all the way too, but if option 2 were an alternative to losing rights, I would take that route. I can see very few reasons why third trimester abortions should be necessary, and in fact they are rare already, so that's not a right I would feel strongly about protecting. That being said, we all know how this works- once you give an inch, those inches start crawling up. I'd have to stand firm on the pro-choice position for that reason alone.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
madame_zora said:
I'm pro-choice all the way too, but if option 2 were an alternative to losing rights, I would take that route. I can see very few reasons why third trimester abortions should be necessary, and in fact they are rare already, so that's not a right I would feel strongly about protecting. That being said, we all know how this works- once you give an inch, those inches start crawling up. I'd have to stand firm on the pro-choice position for that reason alone.

M. Zora,
It think your position on #2 is the most popular one, with the swing to absolute pro-choice out of the same fear that position #2 might be fragile and easily eroded away to the point where all abortions are illegal.

But I think the fears are unjustified, and they produce a more fragile situation rather than a more stable one. I am very libertarian when it comes to gov't and the rights of the individual, so my reasons for saying this are sincere and I hope useful.

Abortion is one of those flash-point social issues such as civil rights and prayer in public schools. If you look at the history of civil rights, you see a relentless trend towards legislation that increase the civil rights of minorities and the disadvantaged. Its true that on top of that, there is some backsliding from time to time, but consider the amazing improvement in civil rights that immediately followed the McCarthy/J. Edgar Hoover era.

Prayer in school is another case in point. This situation has held fast for a long time and the Supreme Court has been very consistent in its rulings on that.

Its true that the current climate is decidedly conservative, but those of us who lived through the McCarthy to Nixon era have seen it go the other way just as dramatically.

So I think the notion that all rights will be eroded in a kind of universal entropy is too hasty of a generalization. Not only is it not true, but adhering to it forces you to a position that you are slightly uncomfortable with, and one that is much harder to defend.

M.L. King was successful in catharting the civil rights movement mostly by aggravating the situation just enough so gross abuses would make the news and find their way into the American consciousness. He realized that all you need to do is to invoke a righteous indignation in the populous.

The same methods are used these days by the pro-lifers. They constantly harp on partial-birth abortions because, like MLK, they know it will resonate negatively in the American psyche. Even the term "partial birth" is a crock, because it refers to abortions done at around month 20 or so and not the case I made in the fake trial. It was invented by pro-lifers who also invented the term "pro-life" (as if people who take an opposing position are anti-life).

So I maintain that position #2 would be much more stable over time as the pendulum swings back and forth between conservative and liberal politics. Not only is a very reasonable position for almost everyone except the extremists, but it leaves us with no horrifying scenarios to play on by extremists. Its a far more defensible position.

JustAsking
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I can agree that it is the most defensible position, but I still am not convinced that it wouldn't lead to horrific backsliding, at least for a time. The problem with social change is that it takes so very long. We are talking about conceivably the rest of my natural lifetime, so what happens NOW is vitally important to ME. yes, in the long run, things do shift from one pole to the other, but in MY lifetime I don't want to endure any more loss of civil liberty that we have already sustained. Call me selfish.

Also, there are some exceptions that I can already see coming to horrible conclusion if late term abortion was illegal. What about date rape, where do you draw the line of who can and cannot get a late term abortion? Many of these women are too traumatised for too long to be expected to make clear decisions fast. What about incest or a young girl who really doesn't know how babies are made until very late? I'm not of the opinion that a late term fetus is not a living thing, that would be stupid, but I am of the opinion that the woman who is already here should have more rights than a fetus conceived unexpectedly.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
madame_zora said:
I can agree that it is the most defensible position, but I still am not convinced that it wouldn't lead to horrific backsliding, at least for a time. The problem with social change is that it takes so very long. We are talking about conceivably the rest of my natural lifetime, so what happens NOW is vitally important to ME. yes, in the long run, things do shift from one pole to the other, but in MY lifetime I don't want to endure any more loss of civil liberty that we have already sustained. Call me selfish.

Also, there are some exceptions that I can already see coming to horrible conclusion if late term abortion was illegal. What about date rape, where do you draw the line of who can and cannot get a late term abortion? Many of these women are too traumatised for too long to be expected to make clear decisions fast. What about incest or a young girl who really doesn't know how babies are made until very late? I'm not of the opinion that a late term fetus is not a living thing, that would be stupid, but I am of the opinion that the woman who is already here should have more rights than a fetus conceived unexpectedly.

I agree with everything you said. I would hope that any late term restrictions would have a number of exceptions to address rape, incest, and life threatening conditions for the mother.

But I respect your wariness about the uncertainty on the political process. I also know that you are not insensitive to the implications on what you are defending. I know if I were a young woman, I would probably be just as wary about the political process and just as absolute about having no restrictions at all.

JustAsking