A pro-life argument from a progressive perspective

[weaver2]

You sound like a Christian fundamentalist. Insincere, anti-intellectual, and wholly uninterested in a stimulating conversation where we interrogate one another's positions in a friendly way. You don't give me the respect of actually reading my posts and instead make assumptions and act as if your uncritical, dogmatic conclusion is revelatory.

In the first place your conversation is not stimulating. Everybody has heard what you are saying and implying many many times. Your posts have been read and the word manipulations have been noted. This is a topic that affects the real lives of real people not just characters in an argument used to project your erudite persona. Come back when you have better material.

 

[Lursa]

I don’t lol.

Why are you lying? I've quoted your characterizations of "lower class women." Remember? (See the red text below .Why do you mention "competancy" only for lower-class women and not middle or upper class? You call out the "lower class" every time.)

It's like you imagine your previous posts have disappeared.

Yeah so this is what leads me to believe that you don’t know what a steel man is.

I do, I just dont believe much of what you write anymore...you've hidden by theories for "other people" and other "philosophies" and frequently refused to commit to your own views. However as I wrote...you really havent been able to hide them.

I think we should make it easier for the lower classes to have abortions. For those who are competent in the lower classes but merely down on their luck, it increases social mobility. For the incompetent permanent underclass, the issue resolves itself.

OK, so then your perspective does not lie with the value of or preserving unborn life?

Your comments here, btw, make that same difference for any women/class.

 

[Rambozo]

1) Rights come from the state.

The state is the source of our rights. Whether a man or a woman has the right to an abortion is therefore subject to democracy. If the majority says abortion should be prohibited, then there is no right to abortion, period. Rights aren't natural - they're whatever the collective decides they are.

That's not how the law works in developed nations. People have rights enshrined into the law which aren't up for a vote. Even if one wants to change the Constitution, there's a formal process for doing that, for example.

The majority of white people do not get to vote away the rights of the minority of black people. That would be tyranny of the majority.

I would also argue that there are inherent reasons why humans receive rights, but rocks do not.

 

[Master Debator]

1) Rights come from the state.

The state is the source of our rights. Whether a man or a woman has the right to an abortion is therefore subject to democracy. If the majority says abortion should be prohibited, then there is no right to abortion, period. Rights aren't natural - they're whatever the collective decides they are.

2. No privacy in healthcare.

There is no "right" to privacy when it comes to healthcare. The government already controls every aspect of the healthcare industry for good reason: efficiency, fairness, and equity. All medical decisions must ultimately be approved by the state - without clinging to outdated bourgeois notions of "privacy."

3. Power dynamics in the womb.

Progressives stress standing up for marginalized and voiceless groups. The unborn are literally the most voiceless and powerless humans in existence. The fetus has no voice, no vote, and no money. Meanwhile, the womb-owner exercises unfettered maternal hegemony - they dictate where the fetus lives, what the fetus eats, and if not for intervention by the glorious government - whether the fetus even gets to exist. By progressive standards, that makes womb-owners the oppressor class and the fetus the oppressed.

In short, if progressivism means siding with the voiceless and dismantling oppressive power structures, then there's no greater cause than resisting maternal hegemony and standing in solidarity with the unborn - the most marginalized class of all.

So your argument is that rights don't exist but progressives are bad progressives for not standing up for the right for someone to gestate inside the body of someone else? Ok....

 

[quip]

On this subject I'm a Nietzschean and so I reject social-darwinism and concepts of meritocracy outright. I'm also not a conservative, nor do I support the pro-choice position cynically for some ulterior hidden motive.

But the fact that you immediately default to some false Conservaitve|Liberal dichotomy to slander me tells me you're not particularly interested in participating in critical thinking or being honest. Seems to be a theme here.

Well, the problem seems to be optics. Appeals to class division doesn't help your ostensibly, conservative posture.

Perhaps, you may explain your position more clearly.

 

[Gozaburo]

I don't see any advocacy there. It's just an observers statement of issues addressed in a program(s). The only stated opinion is that abortion is nasty.

I think I pretty clearly advocate for stronger social programs and outreach. Obviously abortion is a nasty business. It's preventable and should generally be avoided, but it should be available. Any woman who has went through an abortion would tells you its the least desirable option as far as contraception/birth control is concerned.

OK then prove it with links to the studies you have read instead of just waving in the direction of Guttmacher. Give the links to studies so we can see the actual numbers and percentages.

I've linked this exact study in two of my other posts. Go read them. I'm not going to continue running errands for you.

No. Why should character be part of reducing abortion. Why does it have to be proven that women are really, really slutty and irresponsible before setting up a free contraceptive program. The Colorado program was simply a matter of money and organization.

Listen, the simple fact is this: the lower classes have significantly higher birth rates and significantly higher numbers of abortions. It's true they have less access to contraception at least educationally and financially speaking, but it's also true that even with this access and institutional support, they still seem to lack the je ne sais quoi to reliably use contraception. Whether we agree that is due to genetics or some other nebulous issue is largely irrelevant to me. The point is there should be a concerted effort to cull the higher birth rates. For the competent but "down on their luck", this will lead to social mobility. For the permanent underclasses, the issue will resolve itself. In either case, both of our concerns are managed.

I have a link that says that is not true.

The Colorado initiative you keep mentioning demonstrates a number of things which I've already conceded are true: coherently managed government initiatives will reduce abortions and unintended pregnancy among the targeted demographics. That's great and I endorse it!

It doesn't change the fact that even after CFPI, fertility in these lower classes remained significantly higher than more privileged socioeconomic classes, with many people electing to not take LARCs even when available, which suggests that education, access, and nebulous "socioeconomic factors" are not the only explanatory variables as I've maintained.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272720301523

Because you don't give any links to your information.

Or you just don't read my posts. Wouldn't be the first time.

Come on guy, don't even try that on us. We've seen that kind of language juxtaposition over and over.

What exactly am I trying to juxtapose? It is objectively true that the upper middle and middle classes in particular perceive targeted social programs as being dishonorable and lowly. It's possible this is uniquely an American phenomenon which has so much of its founding mythology bound up in rugged individualism.

The US was doing the same thing until the religious right started mucking in the politics of abortion. I wish someone in the IRS had the balls to deny church groups their tax exemption when they start lobbying for anti-abortion legislation. How the women in Maine handle their reproductive lives is not any business of some self righteous little churchmen in Texas.

We agree.

 

[Gozaburo]

Why are you lying? I've quoted your characterizations of "lower class women." Remember? (See the red text below .Why do you mention "competancy" only for lower-class women and not middle or upper class? You call out the "lower class" every time.)

It's like you imagine your previous posts have disappeared.

Because lower class people are generally less competent. Whether that's due to genetics, sociocultural phenomena, or both isn't particularly relevant I guess so long as they get access to contraceptives. Either way both of ours ends are accomplished, even if we quibble over the means.

do, I just dont believe much of what you write anymore...you've hidden by theories for "other people" and other "philosophies" and frequently refused to commit to your own views. However as I wrote...you really havent been able to hide them.

I admit to sometimes being a subversive contrarian on here for fun, but in this case I'm being honest. You just have trouble reading.

OK, so then your perspective does not lie with the value of or preserving unborn life?

Your comments here, btw, make that same difference for any women/class.

I'm not really sure what this means but my perspective is concerned with the advancement of civilization and human progress.

 

[Gozaburo]

Well, the problem seems to be optics. Appeals to class division doesn't help your ostensibly, conservative posture.

I agree I don't hold the "optical" position. Eugenics is something which is perhaps not unfairly associated with cruel regimes of the past, but it doesn't have to be cruel. There are many ways you can introduce policy conducive toward eugenics in a way which is ethical and consensual. Hell, the human dating/breeding dynamics is itself a eugenic phenomena.

Perhaps, you may explain your position more clearly.

Simply put: on this subject I'm less concerned with "women's rights" as the primary end of the abortion argument. While I think those rights matter, I don't think abortion is fundamentally a moral issue (as I laid out in a separate thread I created precisely on that subject). Abortion is fundamentally a political issue and so the decision we make should be oriented toward maximizing civilizational growth and human progress. I don't think infinitely multiplying humans - especially the most ugly and incompetent humans - is a good or noble ideal. I'd much rather have a national park than 5,000 more humans. I'd much rather my grand children live in a sustainable nation with access to resources instead of a polluted urban slum. I'd rather the world be populated with beautiful, conscientious, and responsible people than ugly, stupid, short term thinkers.

 

[quip]

I agree I don't hold the "optical" position. Eugenics is something which is perhaps not unfairly associated with cruel regimes of the past, but it doesn't have to be cruel. There are many ways you can introduce policy conducive toward eugenics in a way which is ethical and consensual. Hell, the human dating/breeding dynamics is itself a eugenic phenomena.



Simply put: on this subject I'm less concerned with "women's rights" as the primary end of the abortion argument. While I think those rights matter, I don't think abortion is fundamentally a moral issue (as I laid out in a separate thread I created precisely on that subject). Abortion is fundamentally a political issue and so the decision we make should be oriented toward maximizing civilizational growth and human progress. I don't think infinitely multiplying humans - especially the most ugly and incompetent humans - is a good or noble ideal. I'd much rather have a national park than 5,000 more humans. I'd much rather my grand children live in a sustainable nation with access to resources instead of a polluted urban slum. I'd rather the world be populated with beautiful, conscientious, and responsible people than ugly, stupid, short term thinkers.

You claim abortion not a moral issue rather a political one, though your political idealism here is wrought with historical debauchery. It's inherently a question of moral import. So, please excuse us who oppose it thusly.

 

[Gozaburo]

You claim abortion not a moral issue rather a political one, though your political idealism here is wrought with historical debauchery.

I have no idea what this means.

It's inherently a question of moral import.

If you know anything about the abortion debate, you'd know that it's fundamentally not solvable with moral arguments because we have two opposing arguments which are based on liberal principles (i.e. harm prevention, individual rights) but have fundamentally opposed axioms. Arguments like this - which are not dissimilar to the waging of war - require political solutions, not more abstract musing about moral philosophy.

 

[quip]

I have no idea what this means.



If you know anything about the abortion debate, you'd know that it's fundamentally not solvable with moral arguments because we have two opposing arguments which are based on liberal principles (i.e. harm prevention, individual rights) but have fundamentally opposed axioms. Arguments like this - which are not dissimilar to the waging of war - require political solutions, not more abstract musing about moral philosophy.

No one is putting forth that abortion is strictly a moral issue. Putting in place the social/political policies you're suggesting holds critical moral implications.

Do you not agree?

 

[Gozaburo]

No one is putting forth that abortion is strictly a moral issue. Putting in place the social/political policies you're suggesting holds critical moral implications.

Do you not agree?

Of course it would have sweeping moral implications, but there isn't one side which is "more moral" than the other in the context of a liberal society. How do you morally justify the autonomy of the woman over the natural rights of the fetus through the lens of liberal norms? You literally can't without invoking illiberal arguments.

I respect that insisting on moral righteousness is perhaps rhetorically effective, but insisting this can be resolved via moral arguments in a liberal society is just false.

 

[quip]

Of course it would have sweeping moral implications, but there isn't one side which is "more moral" than the other in the context of a liberal society. How do you morally justify the autonomy of the woman over the natural rights of the fetus through the lens of liberal norms? You literally can't without invoking illiberal arguments.

I respect that insisting on moral righteousness is perhaps rhetorically effective, but insisting this can be resolved via moral arguments in a liberal society is just false.

On what basis are you asserting natural rights for the fetus if not in part via morality?

 

[Gozaburo]

On what basis are you asserting natural rights for the fetus if not in part via morality?

... yeah, that's the moral argument from the pro-life perspective. That's exactly my point.

Both the pro-choice and pro-life positions have morally valid and logically consistent arguments viewed within the context of liberal norms. You can't refute either without invoking illiberal arguments, thus these cannot be resolved via moral arguments in a liberal republic/democracy.

 

[quip]

... yeah, that's the moral argument from the pro-life perspective. That's exactly my point.

Both the pro-choice and pro-life positions have morally valid and logically consistent arguments viewed within the context of liberal norms. You can't refute either without invoking illiberal arguments, thus these cannot be resolved via moral arguments in a liberal republic/democracy.

What illiberal arguments are you referring to?

 

[Gozaburo]

What illiberal arguments are you referring to?

Well for instance if I were to be a pro-lifer, I'd have to say that the autonomy of the woman has to be forcibly violated by the state since the individual rights of another individual (the fetus) have a higher status than her own. Saying some individuals have a higher status than others is obviously illiberal.

Conversely, the pro-choicer is saying that removing the natural rights (and perhaps even 'killing') the fetus is a gross violation of natural rights and perhaps even a violation of the tenant of individual responsibility. Violating the autonomy of another human life and killing it is obviously illiberal in cases outside of self defense.

So neither side can have a position of moral superiority in the context of the liberal norms I'm talking about.

 

[quip]

Well for instance if I were to be a pro-lifer, I'd have to say that the autonomy of the woman has to be forcibly violated by the state since the individual rights of another individual (the fetus) have a higher status than her own. Saying some individuals have a higher status than others is obviously illiberal.

Conversely, the pro-choicer is saying that removing the natural rights (and perhaps even 'killing') the fetus is a gross violation of natural rights and perhaps even a violation of the tenant of individual responsibility. Violating the autonomy of another human life and killing it is obviously illiberal in cases outside of self defense.

So neither side can have a position of moral superiority in the context of the liberal norms I'm talking about.

(I'm not following your latter example.) Nonetheless, it seems you're in favor of eliminating morality from an issue you admittedly agreed held inherent moral implications.
I can see how this position would be convenient for rhetorical reasons though, it lacks little pragmatic gravity.

 

[Gozaburo]

(I'm not following your latter example.) Nonetheless, it seems you're in favor of eliminating morality from an issue you admittedly agreed held inherent moral implications.
I can see how this position would be convenient for rhetorical reasons though, it lacks little pragmatic gravity.

I’m not in favor of “eliminating” morality from the issue. I’m saying that the two arguments cannot be reconciled by using moral arguments in a liberal society.

So what I advocate for is a strictly pragmatic political solution to a tragic social issue. If we stop discussing who is more morally righteous and look practically at which conclusion is better for civilizational and human development, then clearly the pro-choice argument wins.

 

[quip]

I’m not in favor of “eliminating” morality from the issue. I’m saying that the two arguments cannot be reconciled by using moral arguments in a liberal society.

So what I advocate for is a strictly pragmatic political solution to a tragic social issue. If we stop discussing who is more morally righteous and look practically at which conclusion is better for civilizational and human development, then clearly the pro-choice argument wins.

You seem to be seeking liberal, pro-choice validation by way of eluding the sticky issue of morality. Morality is inexorably connected to the abortion debate and must be addressed accordingly.

Your (immoral) means don't justify its pro-choice ends.

 

[Gozaburo]

You seem to be seeking liberal, pro-choice validation by way of eluding the sticky issue of morality. Morality is inexorably connected to the abortion debate and must be addressed accordingly.

You keep saying this but can't demonstrate how two morally opposed axioms based on liberal norms can be reconciled. I'd rather resolve the paradox than continue to mindlessly engage in hopeless partisan posturing.

Your (immoral) means don't justify its pro-choice ends.

What's immoral about anything I've said? I've never suggested anything which wouldn't be consensual, ethical, and humane.

 

[Lursa]

I think I pretty clearly advocate for stronger social programs and outreach. Obviously abortion is a nasty business. It's preventable and should generally be avoided, but it should be available.

Please explain why? How does that fit into your (legitimately clear) eugenics argument? Or is it something you believe outside that argument?

(And except for abstinence, it's not always preventable. Responsible consensual sex is perfectly legal and acceptable in our society. Does your argument "weigh" that against the life of the unborn???)

 

[Gozaburo]

Please explain why? How does that fit into your (legitimately clear) eugenics argument? Or is it something you believe outside that argument?

(And except for abstinence, it's not always preventable. Responsible consensual sex is perfectly legal and acceptable in our society. Does your argument "weigh" that against the life of the unborn???)

As far as I'm aware, the literature shows that abortion is an emotionally draining and sometimes physically difficult process for women to go through. Certainly it's leagues worse than avoiding pregnancy altogether via contraception.

I don't think anyone (except for maybe a vocal minority of freaks) champions abortion as the ideal form of birth control. When I say abortion is "avoidable" I mean there are numerous forms of birth control which have to first fail before an abortion would be considered - which is the ideal state.

 

[Lursa]

Because lower class people are generally less competent. Whether that's due to genetics, sociocultural phenomena, or both isn't particularly relevant I guess so long as they get access to contraceptives. Either way both of ours ends are accomplished, even if we quibble over the means.

Sources please? I've asked over and over and the only one you provided was published on a self-publishing site.

I admit to sometimes being a subversive contrarian on here for fun,

Then dont accuse me of not knowing what something is when I call you out on exactly that.

but in this case I'm being honest. You just have trouble reading.

So then your position is not concerned with the value of or preserving unborn life? If that's the case, why the continual denigration of "the lower class" who according to you, happily accommodate your position at a higher rate than "other classes?"

I'm not really sure what this means but my perspective is concerned with the advancement of civilization and human progress.

See above for clarification. And ok for this clarification as well.

 

[Gozaburo]

Sources please? I've asked over and over and the only one you provided was published on a self-publishing site.

We know this from polygenic testing and twin studies. I didn't think the general statement of "more competent people do better" was particularly controversial but okay:

Socio-Economic Status and Inequalities in Children’s IQ and Economic Preferences | HCEO

hceconomics.uchicago.edu

So then your position is not concerned with the value of or preserving unborn life? If that's the case, why the continual denigration of "the lower class" who according to you, happily accommodate your position at a higher rate than "other classes?"

Not really sure what you're talking about. Poor people get more abortions and have more children. I'd rather they have more contraception, get fewer abortions and have the fewest children of any class.

 

[Lursa]

As far as I'm aware, the literature shows that abortion is an emotionally draining and sometimes physically difficult process for women to go through. Certainly it's leagues worse than avoiding pregnancy altogether via contraception.

Not remotely even close to that of pregnancy and childbirth, esp. if the woman doesnt want or cant afford a kid.

And I have seen the research and almost no women regret having abortions. It's often sad but was the correct decision at the time, is the general majority response. This is from any non-religious poll I've ever seen.

I don't think anyone (except for maybe a vocal minority of freaks) champions abortion as the ideal form of birth control. When I say abortion is "avoidable" I mean there are numerous forms of birth control which have to first fail before an abortion would be considered - which is the ideal state.

It's not for birth control. Most people use birth control (or are not currently fertile), approx 66%. It's to end pregnancies, not prevent them.

And we all know that aside from surgical means, no birth control is 100%. Right? So, accidents happen. Do you criticize people who have car accidents, even when they have good driving records but still end up in an accident?

Does your argument "weigh" that (enjoying responsible consensual sex in our society) against the life of the unborn?

This is one of those times when I call bullshit on your attempts to distance yourself from admitting your true position on the value of/concern for unborn life. You sure are trying really really really hard. Not sure why tho. I can be super clear on mine and it doesnt interfere with my position at all.