some final thoughts on the issue (for now). Reading through the latest rantings of the choicers it's become fairly obvious to me at least that the issue of when human life begins is not a part of their moral calculus. No this is not being uncivil just an analysis on my part and so for them the value of choice trumps the value of life, in other words it is vastly more important to exercise your liberty in the form of choice even if that choice may involve the snuffing out of a nascent human life. For the RTLers life of course is the overriding concern and it is this very stark simplicity that most offends the choice crowd. They seem to revel in ambiguity and moral ambivalence, to say the issue is complex is to show one's mental sophistication and to oversimplify the issue in their view shows the mind of a social Neanderthal. Theirs is the intellect and ours is the narrow mind even after a lifetime of thinking to yourself you happen in the end to come to the pro-life conclusion. Abortion will for the foreseeable future be a tremendously polarizing issue simply because for the choicers it is factors other than pure reason that decides the issue for them (e.g. the woman's financial straits, is she really in love with him? can they make a go of it? etc).
Now there are some choicers, they may be in the minority, but you can say they're pro-life in the latter stages of the pregnancy and so if they don't find fault with the pro-life position here why is it problematic in the beginning unless to provide the woman with some sort of "window of opportunity"? So with these people you might say choice is not the overriding principle or it is at least tempered with other considerations. The abortion lobby and Obama's 100% rating from them is unique in being so outside the mainstream by adopting the mantra of choice throughout the pregnancy or most of it so why should fiscal conservatives adopt the same position at least in terms of the political strategy of never talking about the issue (but I'm repeating myself here ain't I)?
A final thought, speaking totally candidly here for the moment I honestly don't respect their position so why should I expect them to respect mine? As Joe once said abortion is a non-compromisable issue and I would add once an issue, any issue becomes debateable at least in terms of its underlying philosophical concepts it's only a matter of time before the act in question becomes morally approveable, we don't discuss the pros and cons of rape after all. For me civility means you're polite to other people as human beings although you can take issue with their positions. We're talking over each other as is often said because we adhere to different philosophical principles, for me I can't imagine believing the fetus is a member of the human species and then advocate for its destruction or at least the liberty to do so, the value of choice loses its luster for me at that moment. Post what you will but try to address the points (I know I know, I'm a comedian).
Indeed the pro-aborts do try to make the issue seem a lot more complex than it needs to be. And they apparently think that writing dissertations means they are absolutely right.
ReplyDeleteSome further thoughts, when people refer to them as "pro-choice" I wish they'd finish the sentence as in the choice to take an innocent human life. So we begin our lives at conception but for some the first three months of that journey we're not human? seems capricious and arbitrary to me and btw YOU don't get to decide when life begins, that's purely a scientific issue. To say that you have no problem with abortion is to say that there is no moral distinction between contraception and abortion. It's often been said the choicers prefer to talk about early abortions but even here we're talking about form and essence, the young fetus may have a different form than an older one but the essence is the same. You have to admit I've encapsulated pro-choice ideology rather well.
ReplyDeleteI can't see how else you can view the pro-choice side.
ReplyDeleteLet's say I was a disinterested observer sitting on the fence over the issue I'd come to the conclusion the choicers have a weak case 'cause they never address points, they get overly personal and so at best they'd be a turnoff. I mean if Bob or collins is the collective spokesman I'd be like God help us! Now watch them comment about this over at somebody else's blog which is kind of daffy imo.
ReplyDeleteThey are not debaters, they are ranters, or whiners. True, I am glad they are not on my side, it would be embarrassing.
ReplyDeleteYou're almost afraid to open up the comments section, it's like their mental toilets are all backed up. I really think they live in a different universe, their principles are so different from ours they can't even relate to what we're driving at. It's depressing to read but it'd be too much trouble to moderate and filter them beforehand, free speech is what it is and I'm a fan.
ReplyDeleteSure, I know I don't mind discussing topics with someone who disagrees with me, but when they launch into a tirade or a personal attack, it is bothersome. I also know sometimes they go back to their blogs and complain about me, that is fine, too, as they say bad publicity is better than no publicity (lol) just ask Brittney Spears.
ReplyDeleteWow, I miss the days when I could blog half the day away!
I'm blogging away today boy! In a way I like the buzz though, as they say as long as they spell my name right.
ReplyDelete