Cecil Adams and the Abortion Fracas
So recently, my favorite person Cecil Adams decided to take on the difficult topicsAs a quick aside, I'll note his snide treatment of the actual questioneer is not particularly surprising; he does that with everyone who writes in, no matter what the topic. So it's not a special case, if you've never read his stuff before
( Read more... )
To be more succinct, 'incessant' state regulation is part and parcel to RvW. If the rhetoric were confined to individual states (and appropriate laws there) as opposed to being dragged to the Federal level (to infect national politics on a much larger scale), I think we'd all be better served.
I'm not saying you as a person have to accept the regulation, but your beef is with the regulation, not with RvW, and in those cases that should be what you debate; lack of regulation, or regulations more in favor of whatever you believe, per your state. Not on the national scale (for either side). Those are my thoughts anyway.
Reply
To be more succinct, 'incessant' state regulation is part and parcel to RvW.
So, in accepting RvW as-is, the fact that it can be regulated into impotence is "compromise"?
... your beef is with the regulation, not with RvW, and in those cases that should be what you debate; lack of regulation, or regulations more in favor of whatever you believe, per your state. Not on the national scale (for either side).
If the problem is purely state - not federal - regulation, how is RvW a compromise pro-choicers are unwilling to accept?
As for the rest, abortion (like gay marriage and the "War on Christmas") is a nice hot-button issue for conservatives to ping their moral-outrage-meter. They'll continue to use it every election cycle but never do anything substantive about it because they'll lose a rallying cry.
Reply
Precisely. And a more conservative moderate might say that his or her beef is with the 'moral certainty of the more radical elements of the feminist movement taking the place of rational discussion in the Democratic platform'. Both you and this person are right; this is the central underlying problem I want discussed here. Awesome.
It can indeed be regulated into impotence, if that's what the states decide. But as per RvW, they first have to redefine viability counter to implicit medical definitions. Pursuing bans on abortion after viability is part of the compromise; creating additional laws outside of RvW to restrict general abortions is not the conservative side compromising. But at the same time, creating and seeking additional freedoms for abortion is counter to the compromise as well. I'm not saying it wasn't inevitable; BOTH sides need to stop for the debate to tone down.
As for the rest, abortion (like gay marriage and the "War on Christmas") is a nice hot-button issue for conservatives to ping their moral-outrage-meter.
These hot-button issues that generate outrage are by no means unique to Republicans or Conservatives. The whole spectrum of political perspective has been infected by the anger-machine. I contend that the unwillingness on both sides to compromise has fueled this, whatever the motivaitons.
Reply
I've got a great compromise ...
BOTH sides need to stop for the debate to tone down.
Absolutely! Forget the political and legal fight, and let's talk efficacy. Planned Parenthood's all about that. If they're too "controversial", how about the Dutch Model? That's a great start. But we can't. Because that would be "condoning immorality" and "forcing a liberal agenda on the youth of America".
Compromise is very difficult when some of the best solutions are condemned as an affront to God.
Reply
Your second link to the article on the Dutch model actually doesn't even contain the word abortion, or termination for that matter. I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but here's the problem: It has been suggested on this forum before, as part of a compromise, to ban abortions, but with the caveat that whatever is needed for sex ed and family planning is granted (state-funded free BC methods, etc). You can imagine how well it went.
Pro-lifers argued against state-run birth control methods and educating our kids immorally, while the pro-choice contended there was absolutely no justifcation for ever banning all abortions. I'll put an errata on your last statement to make it pertinent: "Compromise is very difficult when the issues are made into life-death scenarios by both sides".
Fundamentally I'm just upset that you're so quick to blame the Right, as if they are the only ones participating in the debate or coming up with bad ideas, in light of the article and the point of this topic. Isn't this exactly what I'm talking about?
Reply
One pro-lifer - or even a handful - who agrees with me that a practical solution is needed is wonderful, but that person (or those people) should fight to take back their movement in the context of the political arena.
I didn't say the Right had the market cornered on dumb. I did, however, say that the most vocal pro-life (almost exclusively VERY religious) organizations oppose sex ed, bc, and so forth. (See here and here.) This is counterproductive.
Also, put this in the context of the success rate - and content - of abstinence only education, and it's clear that another (more honest) approach to the problem is needed.
I don't care if you're upset, just be upset for the right reasons.
Reply
I ask what do you think about the polarization of politics, and you say "Well, if it weren't for the Right, we wouldn't have it, or we'd be closer to a compromise."
Look at the above very closely.
Reply
From my original response to you:
I'd say divisiveness and absolutism has really taken the center stage since evangelical Christianity started getting involved in politics, but that's because in many cases I don't think they care about offering real, practical solutions. That said, if "destroying American politics" is the only way to ensure that both parties address root cause instead of wring their hands about one of its symptoms, then go for it.
If you have a group of people - regardless of official political affiliation - that regularly blurs science with superstition, dispenses false and misleading information about contraceptives, HIV, and abortion, would you give them a voice in the establishment of legislation or educational policy?
Reply
I'll be very simple. This is exactly the polarization I'm talking about. You should hear what the Christian Right has to say about feminism and pro-choice people.
If you cannot divorce yourself from the demonization and characterization of the Right as this, then you cannot divorce yourself from the polarization of politics and I guess I have my answer. From my perspective, qualitatively I see no difference between what you're saying and the statement below that the Pro-Life movement can never condone the sanctioned murder of innocent humans.
It doesn't matter what side started it, can't you see that?
Reply
I gave you a link above to what the United States House of Representatives said about the Federally funded Abstinence Only Programs.
The offenses I listed above is what they said about the program. See Executive Summary pages i and ii.
Reply
Reply
Reply
In any case, I'm not saying you're wrong, nor have I. I'm saying you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if Bush is a complete dick, for instance, if you're dealing with him you won't get anywhere just repeating his wrongdoings over and over again.
The Christian sector has power, and if your method of dealing with it is to distance yourself from them in every way and, by your rhetoric, try to ensure everyone else does too, that's not diplomacy.
And before you say it, of course the Right does the same thing as you're doing. Doesn't make it OK.
Reply
But that's not what I want to do. I'd love to be able to work with them ... which is why I recommended forgoing the legislative route and working towards finding effective ways to help prevent the problem.
Like health insurance ... better work at home programs for single mothers ... easy access to BC / EC ... coupled with an education that combines human sexuality with relationship building, decision making skills, response to peer pressure, use of BC methods and their effectiveness, AND the role abstinence as part of this complete breakfast.
If such a thing is possible, I'm all for it. Absence of evidence to this effect is why I responded to your post in the first place. If someone else can work with them and get something practical and effective in place, then by all means they have my support.
Reply
You are indeed going the legislative route by the way. When you say easy access to BC, unless I'm wrong, I assume you mean subsidies of one form or another, or regulations. And when you say education, unless you're for privatization, I take it you mean DoE change.
Reply
Maybe they'd be more negotiable towards prevention if they were sure that people wouldn't just all go for abortions? In other words, abortion bans with better treatment of unwanted pregnancy issues.
A ban, regardless of available resources, would make the issue worse. In cases where a woman just does not want to be pregnant, she will most likely find a way, even if it carries a significant risk to herself. Thus, we can have legal abortion where there is (by some) one loss of life ... or it can be illegal where there is still that loss of life, coupled with a very high risk of another.
You were probably just throwing something out for the sake of example, but you can see even from that how difficult it will be to find middle ground. How do you compromise on bodily autonomy? Personally, I think it's easier - in the case of a pluralistic society such as ours - to argue that not everyone follows the moral code of the evangelical Christian, and therefore we should not all be bound by its rules - especially in such a polarizing issue.
Reply
Leave a comment