william_kent

Well-known member
Anyway I agree its not a good look, but there are other aspects of this, i.e. how policy can be made, aspects which nonetheless boil down to bodies, but have room for conversation that needn't suffer from such bad looks.

edit: a response to a post since removed.

yeah, I deleted my post because I said earlier I was ducking out of this thread - but, for context, the deleted post went something like this:

We need to have some women in this thread; men debating what women can or can't do with their bodies is not a good look

I'll stand by that statement
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
All the more reason we need artificial wombs. If we can detach the survival of the species from people's bodies, there may be room for further reconciliation, opening up dialectical doors.

Actually I don't know the status of this technology, I just assume we aren't there yet.

And @william_kent I think men can talk about these things with respect, i.e. without handling women as objects of conversation, but I'm far from perfect myself.

I tend to think that important and visceral things need to be discussed by all parties involved, but I do think women clearly have more at stake than men do here. Both are invested in the continuation of the species and in the health of their children, but only one functions as a matrix for the progeny and bears the burden thereof.

Ultimately my best political answer, in the interest of respect and dispassionate reconciliation, is that abortion should be available through whatever pertinent and certified clinical avenues, and that the process should respect privacy in light of cultural stigmas.

re: stigmas I don't think its the state's responsibility to fine-tune cultural climates. I think that is more the purview of activism and social enterprises that may or may not require legislation.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
My understanding is that much of the pro-life / anti-choice perspective is based in religious doctrine that precludes consideration of such things, for such consideration would construably constitute infidelity and divine disrespect. That compounded with a more secular-friendly belief that every conceived human has a non-negotiable right to live.

Really its no wonder why this one is such a deadlock, such a politically consequential question. Both sides see the question itself as anathema.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
It seems here, but I have no data to cite, that abortion may be the biggest political impetus for Republican voters, but it doesn't seem to be the case that the issue is so integral to Democratic voters. I could be wrong though. It just seems like pro-life is more of a cornerstone for Republican voters than pro-choice is for Democratic voters.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
Mixed biscuits can you summarize the argument for us?
Basically:

i. Murder is bad because it denies the murdered a valuable future
ii. Abortion denies the foetus a valuable future
iii. Therefore abortion is murder

This leaves room for euthanasia as the euthanised person's future may not be of value to them.
 

linebaugh

Well-known member
Basically:

i. Murder is bad because it denies the murdered a valuable future
ii. Abortion denies the foetus a valuable future
iii. Therefore abortion is murder

This leaves room for euthanasia as the euthanised person's future may not be of value to them.
That definition still leaves an 8 week window for abortion.
 

william_kent

Well-known member
ii. Abortion denies the foetus a valuable future

The whole argument falls flat here - ever heard of Rosemary West? fetal alcohol spectrum disorder? crack? smack? meth? incest? family photo albums where a two year old is sucking off grandad? two year olds dying from drinking mummy's methadone? rape? child abuse? neglect? poverty?

yeah, "valuable futures", ffs
 
Last edited:

william_kent

Well-known member
All the more reason we need artificial wombs. If we can detach the survival of the species from people's bodies, there may be room for further reconciliation, opening up dialectical doors.

No! Look at the history of 60s communes, without an emotional connection child rearing does not work - you end up with kids in cages because they didn't eat their porridge
 
Top