Cecil Adams and the Abortion Fracas

Nov 24, 2008 10:12

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... )

Leave a comment

cutout18 November 24 2008, 20:22:58 UTC
The decision to regulate was intentionally left up to the States in RvW. I'll note that this was particularly prudent of them, as States are more aligned with the intentions of their constituency than the Federal Government. The downside is that when [insert your opposing side] gets prevalence in the State, you see the regulations going in favor of those you'd like to see boiled. Still, it's infinitely better than legislation from the bench ( ... )

Reply

cutout18 November 25 2008, 01:28:20 UTC
No, I wasn't throwing something out for the sake of example. I think this is a very rational course of action actually. It may not be what my specific advocacy is, but I think it's definitely a good compromise.

Here's what I mean: Abortion ban with no corresponding unwanted pregnancy reduction (UPR because I hate cumbersome phrases) legislation means that just about every woman who has an unwanted pregnancy will still attempt to get an abortion. (WHO, I believe it was a 2001 study). Thus, a lose-lose situation for everyone; for PC, we have danger to a woman's health and for PL you don't save any babies.

But with UPR legislation, you absolutely minimize the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus absolutely minimize the number of both babies and women who risk their lives. (Probably even smaller than now-- there are women who, because of State legislation, can't get an abortion and who resort to this method regardless of whether there's a ban or not, this will always be the case pre-compromise, because the PL groups will make it so

Reply

nemo_wistar November 25 2008, 02:02:54 UTC
I understand what you intend, but I still disagree.

Abortion ban + anything is still just that: an abortion ban. That's not a compromise unless you allow unrestricted abortion access at the same time which is obviously impossible.

That's why nothingmuch had it right; RvW, in its current form, is a compromise.

So with that middle ground, let's focus away from abortion related legislation and get to UPR legislation instead. That way we can help save the lives of those women who are risking their lives now as well.

Reply

cutout18 November 25 2008, 02:11:08 UTC
I don't understand.

You claim that the problem is unwanted pregnancies (and its causes) and that abortion legislation only addresses a symptom of this problem.

But then you say that solving the problem at the expense of the symptom isn't a compromise. I thought what you wanted was UPR.

Reply

nemo_wistar November 25 2008, 02:19:23 UTC
I thought what you wanted was UPR.

Right.

And making abortion ILLEGAL helps reduce unwanted pregnancies how?

So, as I have said many times before ... leave RvW as it is; don't touch it. Ignore it. In fact, ignore all legislation related to criminalization.

Instead, focus on setting up resources like sex ed, BC, etc., etc. ... as a way we can all work together.

Reply

cutout18 November 25 2008, 02:21:32 UTC
That's what I'm saying-- would you be willing to trade an abortion ban for UPR legislation that was functional and sound?

Reply

nemo_wistar November 25 2008, 02:48:34 UTC
No, because as I said, there will always be women who simply do not want to be pregnant. I am not willing to trade the bodily autonomy rights of half of this country's (born and living) population to bribe the Christian Right into doing something that I think should be done anyway, regardless of this country's abortion rate.

Which is why I said we should ignore abortion legislation ... it's an instant stalemate and RvW is compromise enough.

Reply

cutout18 November 25 2008, 04:26:38 UTC
*sigh* I guess there's no use arguing with you. You're not willing to sacrifice absolutism for results (minimum abortion-related deaths possible). Besides, as Cecil and I have both pointed out,

RvW is compromise enough.

...the reality of the situation is that apparently it isn't. No one's happy, and everyone's still marginalizing politics over it.

Reply

nemo_wistar November 25 2008, 05:10:06 UTC
Whatever gets you to sleep at night.

Good luck.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up