Grays Harbor wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Why would anybody on the pro-choice side make that compromise?"
“Because not everybody on either the pro-choice or pro-life sides are dogmatic ideologues incapable of coming to an agreement which may not be 100% absolutely what they demand, and who may well be reasonable folks?”
This is kinda what I was going for. The proposal is just an idea for pursuing progressive reasonable legislation on this topic by including a discussion of sexual health, reproduction, and contraception in general which have been somewhat neglected in our many abortion debates.
Despite what I have seen from some of the more rabid delegations in this assembly, I am still convinced that the ideal for both sides of the abortion debate would be a world without abortion. The difference is that those with pro-choice views would see that happen through education and contraception aimed at avoiding unwanted pregnancies in the first place, while keeping abortion as a (sad) fallback option to respect the bodily sovereignty rights of the mother in less-than-ideal circumstances. Those with pro-life views would largely ban the practice of abortion, bodily sovereignty and privacy interests be damned, with some willing to recognize extreme situations like the health of the mother that would justify abortion (although sadly I still hear far too often from pro-life nations, often run by males, that a pregnant woman should rather die of complications than be complicit in aborting her future child).
Where I believe Reproductive Freedoms went most terribly wrong, even from a pro-choice standpoint, is that it seems to require (with easy loopholes) that abortion on demand be available even past the point of viability. Even a baby a week overdue could be killed, despite being at least as much a person as any baby born prematurely. I've never heard a very convincing logical argument for why it should be permissible to kill the fetus through abortion once the fetus is viable. Most resort to some kind of argument from tribalism: my side likes this, yours doesn't; your side sucks so my side is going to pursue this as far as possible. That kind of blind loyalty to permitting abortion as an end in and of itself loses sight of the fact that abortion ought to be properly viewed as a
means to protect rights, not as a right itself. Arguing that a woman's bodily sovereignty extends to killing a fetus that no longer
needs access to her body to survive goes a step beyond reason, at least on the surface.
I would work on this further to address some of the comments like:
- that abortion should be made even more accessible than in the current draft, or , or
- reworking the language of the educational provision to provide for general education regarding the many ways to avoid STDs without using the apparently highly-charged term abstinence (please note, I didn't say anything about the distasteful "abstinence-only" education sometimes promoted by religious groups, and any doctor will tell you that even while there are reliable measures to take to avoid STDs the most reliable way is by not engaging in risky sexual behavior), or
- clarifying the many references to "adults" with the substantially less-reasonable conventions that somehow became permanent staples of this assembly from long before I ever joined, or
- adding additional circumstances that would justify aborting a viable fetus, like fatal deformity or rape (with apparently very late notice that the rape had resulted in pregnancy).
But sadly it does seem that there is no real political appetite for correcting the overreaches of RF. The pro-life lobby apparently won't support because, despite helping them protect viable babies, this still going too far for them in recognizing the legitimate bodily sovereignty rights of women. That supports my suspicion that that retreating even from the absurdities of RF would only encourage pro-lifers to target legitimate grounds for abortion. The pro-choice lobby won't join me either because they share that same suspicion (which is probably a good reason) or they have reached a point where they've lost sight of the reasons why a sad practice like abortion must be solemnly permitted and are advocating, as pro-lifers often accuse, a pro-abortion view no longer tethered to legitimate bodily sovereignty principles.
Marxist Germany wrote:"The term for this is tyranny by majority, something we usually try to avoid.."
You are not being subjected to tyranny by laws that prohibit you from imposing tyranny on others. The abortion laws we have in place don't force
anybody to get an abortion. They protect those who are seeking an abortion from tyranny from those who would otherwise oppress them. Your right to follow your conscience and detest abortion in your personal affairs is being respected by the majority. We're just not letting you impose your view in a manner that would interfere with the bodily sovereignty rights of others.
But, to a degree, there is some tyranny in a law which says you may not interfere with a killing that could otherwise have been prevented while still respecting bodily soverignty. Which brings me to...
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Then they're irrational. Compromise isn't necessary unless you cannot achieve victory without it. Here, the pro-choice side can do so. Compromise is inherently counter to the interests of the group in control. There's no reason to do so."
Sometimes compromise occurs despite the ability of one party to obtain "victory" without the other. It can be better to effectively to moderate ones own conduct, even when you cannot be politically forced to do so, in order to recognize a reasonable limit which still respects the principle you're seeking to achieve (such as placing restrictions on abortion when bodily sovereignty could be achieved through other means such that abortion would needlessly take a viable life). In that way, compromise is not "inherently counter" to the interests of the majority. It serves perhaps the most important long term interest for any majority - preserving that majority by preserving the moral high ground. If you lose that ground, your successive generations will gradually abandon you, much as the Party of Lincoln is presently experiencing.
Not saying that's necessarily the case in the here and now, on this issue. But it's something I think more than a few of the pro-choice voices in this assembly might want to consider.
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:19 pm