A Message To the “Pro-life” Movement: Keep Your Faith Off My Lawn

[tanthrix]

Each year the so-called “pro-life” movement further encroaches on what I believe should be an irrefutable right to all women: the right to have an abortion. It's either an egregious attempt to inject faith-based ideology into law which has no place in any nation that takes the separation of church and state seriously, or it’s an exercise in poor

Comments

[zer]

I do like the making the argument against radical subjectivism by bring up how people actually function in the world. Like one might say that reality cannot be known, but will actually operate on the assumption that the sun will rise tomorrow, that gravity will operate, that people will respond in particular ways, that they need to eat to live, etc. which implies a "operational worldview" that is (and must be!) very much grounded in some assumption of an objective and shared reality.

So in that, I like Jonathan Dolhenty's argument (in your last link), but his examples of applying it horrify me. Like of them evil feminists (as if it's a single "Movement" and their "crazy ideas" - rape is pretty clearly defined as sex without consent, which may further evoke the question of what the range of sexual activity is as well as what it means to "give consent" in a highly skewed power-relationship, hence that Maoist International line "all sex is rape" [in a patriarchal, capitalist society]. And it's easy to condemn Hitler, but how about the genocide in creating "living space" in the American west? And so on, attacking "pro-abortion groups", condemning the WTC attacks (really superficial analysis on his part, I should say). What they need is a good dose of marxism (not Soviet-style Marxismism) to give him a little damn perspective on oppression and his part in playing rhetorical defender of it.

Fucking libertarian fuckers. Ahem.

Anyway, it remains: People act as though there is some objectivity even when they say otherwise, even when it is difficult to (in the strict sense) Absolutely verify facts - so what's this mean? I mean, besides making a good line of rhetoric.

"...but instead a set of rules of right and wrong actions that promote and guarantee the most happiness and well being for *all* concerned parties."

I hold something like this position myself, but one must recognize that it is a very, very difficult question to know just what actions that actually will promote and guarantee the most happiness/well being for all people. Iain Banks' (SF author) solution is to have vast AIs figure this problem out in his effectively anarchist/communist post-scarcity society.

[tanthrix]

You're right about Dolhenty's examples. I sort of skipped over those and just focused on his valid argument, not his biased examples, and I probably should have mentioned that when I posted it, but it was a while back that I had read the whole thing.

On a side note, I am still perplexed at how extremely enraged political correctness can make people. What's so damn bad about being *too* tolerant (at least with words)? Better than the alternative, I think. With regards to moral relativism, Rachels touches briefly on what we can learn from it, and why though it is misguided, the intent from its supporters is usually a genuine desire for tolerance.

". . . but one must recognize that it is a very, very difficult question to know just what actions that actually will promote and guarantee the most happiness/well being for all people."

Indeed it is, and for the better! What else would we spend hours debating on LJ entries and crazy political forums? (Oh, right. Why BSG sucks so much, but we can't stop watching!)

[zer]

Ahhh! Don't get me started on BSG, I'm going to flip my lid!

And do read the rest of that website, it's actually pretty hilarious - if you think atrocities committed against reasonable thought are funny.

The political correctness thing is weird. (And I deny the word and concept as a product of right-wing propaganda, kinda like supposed "militant feminists" or, worse, "feminazis"; like the words are anything but slurs.) Perhaps people loaded with privilege (read: white, middle/upperclass men) get really defensive at the suggestion that their privilege exists, then they get started with this whole persecution complex because they're not allowed to call people "niggers" or "faggots". It's like cry me a fuckin' river, jackasses; being called out and scolded for being a disrespectful asshole is nothing like Nazism.

Man, whenever I talk to you it turns into some kind of ranting.

And yeah, I do like the idea that trying to do the right thing is a process that requires much thought and examination. I mean ... yeah, if there's a lesson to be learned from anything, that's it. 'Course it's only the very start of answering the question of how one approaches the process of "doing the right thing". I'm going to leave it at that for now and go to sleep, getting more into this looks like a lot of heavy thinking, and thats what you are gettin' graded to do - I just make art!

[tanthrix]

Angry white man syndrome is a good term for it, I'd say.

"Man, whenever I talk to you it turns into some kind of ranting."

I choose to take that as a compliment!