The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[jamil]

What are you even talking about? I really don't see how that fits into the conversation at all.

You said that you have a problem with someone claiming that the right to life is absolute. To me, I think it's in the interpretation of what you mean by "absolute".

But still, Bug's rebuttal seemed reasonable to me FWIW. It seems like he's saying that his right to life is absolute, which outweighs the right to life of someone trying to take his. I think that's similar to my take. An innocent right to life is absolute. Someone who tries to violate that right to life has forfeited the absoluteness of his right to life.

 

[Twangbanger]

No, I suspect LG might not opt not to move to PRoC. I think most people would stay in what's left of the US.

That's the thing. When there are exactly two pigeon holes, everyone still self-sorts. The sum of all things is rarely a tie even if something infinitesimally better or worse about one is the decider.

Also, I don't think it would be "Righty Freedomville" that's the alternative to PRoC. I think right now the dichotomy in this country is ClownWorld™ and not ClownWorld™. It's that the not ClownWorld™ is not always willing to stand up and say, no. This is nutty. We're not doing this.

I'll also say that Not-ClownWorld™ will be filled with people who are amenable to abortion and those who are not. It's not even close to a majority of people who are anti-abortion absolutists. And that probably closest consensus law of the land would be to ban it within the first trimester.

There is ClownWorldLeft and a ClownWorldRight. Neither cares if they're popular. Each is a pissant slice of society, yet each is convinced they're the majority and the future.

But there is a difference. And the difference is that CWL is largely protected from reality by the Civil Rights legal infrastructure, so they're spared the full consequences of their Clown-ness. Corporations, institutions, and the media know they are a protected species and act accordingly.

Meanwhile, CWR is exposed to the full slings and arrows of unpopularity and losing elections. The lack of legal cover from the Civil Rights Establishment projects the message to society at large that they can be mocked, deplatformed, and ignored with impunity.

 

[jamil]

Difference is, ClownWorld™ Left has the current blessings if all the major institutions. They have the political power. And they’re churning out clowns like big macs because they own education.

ClownWorld™ right is kinda harmless, but self-defeating for everyone on the right. But. Point remains that there should be plenty of room to give ClownWorld™ Left some desert land to build their ****-hole 15 minute cities. ClownWorld™ Right will have to fit in with the rest of society.

 

[BugI02]

What are you even talking about? I really don't see how that fits into the conversation at all.

You were saying belief in an 'absolute' right to life should mean that one would allow themselves to be killed rather than take a life. Poppycock

An absolute right to life can mean that preservation of my own life is absolutely one of my highest priorities and can necessitate the ending of another's life who has chosen unwisely. That however has little to do with abortion. The time for precaution about the 'mother's' life is before she carelessly creates another. Very, very few abortions are about the mother's life but rather about the 'mother's' lifestyle, thus there is no competing right to life so the unborn child's right should take precedence

Driving recklessly doesn't give one much room to lament an accident and its consequences by opining that one didn't 'consent' to the accident, one 'consented' to the possibility when one took the risk. So, too, with the risk of unprotected sex outside of a loving relationship. The person was willing to take the risk of pregnancy so cannot escape the consequences by some spurious concept of consent

 

[Tombs]

The United States is not supposed to be a monolith. Liberty is about living the lives we want to live, and letting others do the same…even when we have deep disagreements with one another.

The appropriate place to settle legal issues surrounding culture war issues is at the state level, at least in my opinion.

RvW was bad law. Abortion should be decided state by state…and we need to be accepting of one another’s decisions regarding these divisive topics.

Liberty breeds social and economic diversity, and that fact is what makes America different from anywhere else in the world.

And this is where I will largely agree with you.

This is for the states and the people of those states to decide. Not a federal authority.

 

[jamil]

I think the very nature of binary politics exaggerates the distance between us.

It does, because when it's time to chose representatives or presidents, everyone must sort themselves into one of two pigeonholes. From a lot of what you've posted on INGO I get the feeling you're not as "lefty" in your thinking as you are in the pigeonhole you choose.

The pigeonholes are changing I think.




There's a bit of a civil war for the heart of the the Republican party going on between neocons/chamber-o-commerce R's and populists. I think eventually the populists will win. The establishment will lose.

I think people in the lower left quadrant are being chased out of the Democrat party by ClownWorld™. There's no war between the D factions because ClownWorld™ has already won. There wasn't a fight. You either go along with it, or STFU, or be canceled.

The way things seem to be shaping up to me, at some point the parties, instead of left and right, will be separated more by the other axis. I don't mean authoritarians vs libertarians, exactly. But more like establishment vs populists. So the pigeon holes will mean something else.

I support abortion on demand not because I hate babies, or my neighbors, or America…hate doesn’t factor into my position at all.

Politically, my primary motivating value is liberty. Unless there is a legitimate need for the government to intervene I think people should be left alone to make their own decisions and live their own lives.

I think liberty means a woman decides when an abortion is appropriate, not other people, and not the government.

Morally, there's a conundrum if you care to admit that both sides have a point. It isn't a position of liberty to deny that the unborn is right in pursuing his own life whether or not there is a consciousness. This is simply a preference on whose right you chose to prioritize over the other.

I know you disagree with this assessment, but I think the world is big enough for the both of us, and I think that ideal is central to the concept of our United States.

The United States is not supposed to be a monolith. Liberty is about living the lives we want to live, and letting others do the same…even when we have deep disagreements with one another.

It's a bit disturbing to me that people will disavow friends because one won't take up all the causes of the other, or takes up causes the other doesn't agree with.

The appropriate place to settle legal issues surrounding culture war issues is at the state level, at least in my opinion.

RvW was bad law. Abortion should be decided state by state…and we need to be accepting of one another’s decisions regarding these divisive topics.

This is why I think you're a closet populist.

Liberty breeds social and economic diversity, and that fact is what makes America different from anywhere else in the world.

See? that sounds a lot like American exceptionalism.

 

[KLB]

You were saying belief in an 'absolute' right to life should mean that one would allow themselves to be killed rather than take a life. Poppycock

An absolute right to life can mean that preservation of my own life is absolutely one of my highest priorities and can necessitate the ending of another's life who has chosen unwisely. That however has little to do with abortion. The time for precaution about the 'mother's' life is before she carelessly creates another. Very, very few abortions are about the mother's life but rather about the 'mother's' lifestyle, thus there is no competing right to life so the unborn child's right should take precedence

Driving recklessly doesn't give one much room to lament an accident and its consequences by opining that one didn't 'consent' to the accident, one 'consented' to the possibility when one took the risk. So, too, with the risk of unprotected sex outside of a loving relationship. The person was willing to take the risk of pregnancy so cannot escape the consequences by some spurious concept of consent

I never said it should mean anything. I said that was how I interpreted it. I also wasn't referring specifically to abortion in anything I stated.

Saying you believe in an absolute right to life and then putting buts after it says to me that you don't have an absolute right to life, which is fine. I don't personally know anyone that does.

 

[jamil]

I never said it should mean anything. I said that was how I interpreted it. I also wasn't referring specifically to abortion in anything I stated.

Saying you believe in an absolute right to life and then putting buts after it says to me that you don't have an absolute right to life, which is fine. I don't personally know anyone that does.

What do you do when absolute rights collide? Whose absolute right wins? Why must a person to whom the right to life is absolute, be inconsistent unless he forfeits his own when threatened? If everyone has a moral, absolute right to life, then the one person has as much right to stay alive as the guy who's trying to kill him. I'd argue that a person trying to take a life loses that collision of rights. The absoluteness remains intact without a "but".

Why is pacifism assumed in this question? To me that's not the logical conclusion of a belief in absolute right to life. If I have an absolute right to life, that absolutely implies the right for me to protect it even if that requires taking another. I don't have to defer to an aggressor's right to life to maintain consistency.

 

[KLB]

What do you do when absolute rights collide? Whose absolute right wins? Why must a person to whom the right to life is absolute, be inconsistent unless he forfeits his own when threatened? If everyone has a moral, absolute right to life, then the one person has as much right to stay alive as the guy who's trying to kill him. I'd argue that a person trying to take a life loses that collision of rights. The absoluteness remains intact without a "but".

Why is pacifism assumed in this question? To me that's not the logical conclusion of a belief in absolute right to life. If I have an absolute right to life, that absolutely implies the right for me to protect it even if that requires taking another. I don't have to defer to an aggressor's right to life to maintain consistency.

We were not talking about a person having an absolute right to life. We were talking about believing in an people having an absolute right to life where others are concerned.

• No abortions because he believed in an absolute right to life.
• OK to kill criminals that might get out of prison and kill others

Then it was taken off on this personal absolute right to life, because I said that was not how I saw an absolute right to life.

How can you have an absolute anything that isn't absolute?
Let's try this again
Absolute

1. Free from every restriction; unconditional: as, the only absolute necessity is logical necessity; absolute skepticism; absolute proof

Words have meanings. Why are you guys hung up on everyone having an ABSOLUTE right to life? If you think that an absolute something has exceptions, you do you. That is not how I understand words to work. I say you believe in a right to life, and you have your exceptions. Just as other people believe in it with their exceptions.

 

[jamil]

We were not talking about a person having an absolute right to life. We were talking about believing in an people having an absolute right to life where others are concerned.

• No abortions because he believed in an absolute right to life.
• OK to kill criminals that might get out of prison and kill others

Then it was taken off on this personal absolute right to life, because I said that was not how I saw an absolute right to life.

How can you have an absolute anything that isn't absolute?
Let's try this again
Absolute

1. Free from every restriction; unconditional: as, the only absolute necessity is logical necessity; absolute skepticism; absolute proof

Words have meanings. Why are you guys hung up on everyone having an ABSOLUTE right to life? If you think that an absolute something has exceptions, you do you. That is not how I understand words to work. I say you believe in a right to life, and you have your exceptions. Just as other people believe in it with their exceptions.

First, to be clear, I'm not arguing that people do have a right to life. My personal belief on whether they do or don't is irrelevant to what I'm arguing. It's no more a hangup than your position. I'm simply arguing that it's not inconstant.

Where I think your position fails is in the practical realm where rights collide. That does not take the form of "absolute except for x".

Let me ask this. Is a person who holds the belief that people have an inherent, absolute right to life, morally wrong for carrying a firearm while going about his day to day life? I think for you to maintain your position, you'd have to say yes.

So for a thought experiment, let's say an absolute right to life is given. Obviously then, murder is illegal. Is every instance of manslaughter murder in that world? A person car jacks a another person with the intent to kill him. Should the victim passively allow it? Wouldn't the victim then be violating his own absolute right by allowing himself to be killed?

If there's a hangup I have, it's the logical inconsistency of saying that a person who thinks an absolute right to life means he must passively defer to the attacker's right to life and give up his own.

 

[Expat]

Watching the coverage on this Cox case down in Texas. This is the kind of case that ****s the anti-abortion cause. The fetus has some sort of fatal defect. The mother is in and out of the ER from complications. But she is having to flee out of state to get the abortion her doctor recommends.

 

[oze]

Watching the coverage on this Cox case down in Texas. This is the kind of case that ****s the anti-abortion cause. The fetus has some sort of fatal defect. The mother is in and out of the ER from complications. But she is having to flee out of state to get the abortion her doctor recommends.

Even a guy like me is conflict with this one. If the baby truly will not survive outside of the womb *and* the mother's health is in danger...well, I've finally found my nuance.

 

[jamil]

I just don't think that's a hard call.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Even a guy like me is conflict with this one. If the baby truly will not survive outside of the womb *and* the mother's health is in danger...well, I've finally found my nuance.

For me, it's the same principle I've always stuck to: Do everything possible to save both lives, and if both lives can't be saved, that's not an excuse to deliberately kill one life.

If the baby is determined to have no chance of survival anyway, and the mother is determined to be at risk if the baby remains inside her, then it should be legal to perform a surgery to remove the baby. Not slice, dice, poison, or crush the baby, just remove the baby from the mother's body, while still taking reasonable measures to save the baby's life.

In the off chance that the in utero diagnosis was wrong, or that the doctor was lying or exaggerating the fetal defect in order to push for an abortion for political reasons, well then, baby and mother could still both live. That won't happen if a procedure is performed that is aimed at deliberately killing the baby.

That's why I don't call such a procedure an abortion. So from my point of view, I don't believe in any exceptions. But if someone else calls that an abortion, then from their definition, yes, I believe in exceptions. Either way, I think the law needs to address these fringe cases, but always make it clear that any action taken that has the express and sole purpose of killing the baby is wrong and illegal.

 

[BugI02]

But this is the crux of our problem; 'the mother's health', decided only by her personal physician, has always been a loophole big enough to drive a truck through (with even the mother's mental health being used as an excuse to approve) but if no exception is made for cases like this we can be portrayed as heartless ideologues intent on enacting The Handmaid's Tale

As long as women can be convinced that it is 'just a ball of cells' rather than a life, restrictions will not of themselves create the necessary moral compass and women make up 52% of the electorate. Some kind of less than optimal compromise will be enacted whether we like it or not

 

[JettaKnight]

But this is the crux of our problem; 'the mother's health', decided only by her personal physician, has always been a loophole big enough to drive a truck through (with even the mother's mental health being used as an excuse to approve) but if no exception is made for cases like this we can be portrayed as heartless ideologues intent on enacting The Handmaid's Tale

So, who should? Don't you remember the hoopla around Obamacare death panels?

While I hate abortion, I also hate the government intervention in healthcare options.

As long as women can be convinced that it is 'just a ball of cells' rather than a life, restrictions will not of themselves create the necessary moral compass and women make up 52% of the electorate. Some kind of less than optimal compromise will be enacted whether we like it or not

In these cases, I don't believe women are trying to get out of a pregnancy, they're trying to get out of a dangerous pregnancy. I think you're oversimplifying to a black and white morality choice. And I'm not saying that abortion isn't right or wrong, I'm saying the practicalities of life make things more difficult to determine the moral path in the heat of the moment with competing choices.

 

[BugI02]

In these cases, I don't believe women are trying to get out of a pregnancy, they're trying to get out of a dangerous pregnancy. I think you're oversimplifying to a black and white morality choice. And I'm not saying that abortion isn't right or wrong, I'm saying the practicalities of life make things more difficult to determine the moral path in the heat of the moment with competing choices.

Bull****! If they want sex but not children, it is easily possible to take effective precautions BEFORE you take the risk

The ugly truth is they know they don't have to take precautions because if their number comes up they can just get rid of the inconvenience whenever they wish

 

[KLB]

Bull****! If they want sex but not children, it is easily possible to take effective precautions BEFORE you take the risk

The ugly truth is they know they don't have to take precautions because if their number comes up they can just get rid of the inconvenience whenever they wish

I know some women that had abortions. None of them thought about it in that way.

 

[jamil]

So, who should? Don't you remember the hoopla around Obamacare death panels?

While I hate abortion, I also hate the government intervention in healthcare options.

This is my only objection with your post. I would not classify abortion as a “healthcare option” generally. And perhaps the following is how you intended it. In the narrow case where it’s a choice between the mother’s or child’s life, I think it is a healthcare option. Otherwise, ideologues on the pro abortion side call it a “healthcare choice” even when they use abortion as birth control. I would not classify it as that except in narrow conditions where it literally is a healthcare choice.

In these cases, I don't believe women are trying to get out of a pregnancy, they're trying to get out of a dangerous pregnancy. I think you're oversimplifying to a black and white morality choice. And I'm not saying that abortion isn't right or wrong, I'm saying the practicalities of life make things more difficult to determine the moral path in the heat of the moment with competing choices.

 

[jamil]

Bull****! If they want sex but not children, it is easily possible to take effective precautions BEFORE you take the risk

The ugly truth is they know they don't have to take precautions because if their number comes up they can just get rid of the inconvenience whenever they wish

There are cases where they have taken precautions. But that’s not the logical factor you think it is. Take a married couple who are trying to have kids. She gets pregnant. She’s happy as could be. Then something goes wrong in the pregnancy. Assume a fact in evidence, that carrying it to term with this condition kills the mother 90% of the time, and 100% of the time, the baby dies anyway. The mother has a moral right to choose life for herself, given the circumstances.

Because you think someone could abuse it isn’t a rational cause to eliminate the choice for everyone. It’s an ideological excuse to claim it is always irresponsible to have sex knowing there’s a possibility, especially when it’s fairly rare, that the pregnancy could endanger the mother’s life.