- Joined
- Oct 9, 2014
- Messages
- 7,450
- Reaction score
- 4,473
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I was thinking of how unfair it is to frame the abortion debate as choice verses life. Making abortion illegal doesn't take away the woman's choice to abort, only to do it safely. And, punishing women for making the choice to abort does not guarantee fetal life. So, the real debate is doctor verses hangar or dogma verses truth, but not life verses choice. That way of framing the argument is loaded with false rhetoric.
I'm almost at the point where I feel that any legislation that is supported overwhelmingly and almost exclusively by the faithful should be automatically rejected on the grounds that it becomes a de facto religious act and violates the first amendment and should not be relegated to the judicial branch to decide. I've heard from many people that, if a majority desire something, even a violation of the minority's right to free conscience, that it should be accepted as a proper result of the democratic process. I would argue, however, that democracy can only function when information is available and rational. When the facts of the debate are really not facts at all but just the subjective desires or fears of traditionalists, they pervert and corrupt democracy with a pretense of deliberation that is, actually, just blind adherence. Women, especially in a democracy, deserve better than to have their lives be forfeit to the changing tides of popular dogma.
So, if you're "pro-life", what you really are is pro-hangar, as that is the actual alternative to legal abortion that has been demonstrated well by history and, besides, life is not yours to defend when it's trapped in another's abdomen. And, if you're "pro-choice", you needn't be pro-abortion at all. You merely have to recognize that women have always had the choice NOT to give birth and, as such, realize that the law is powerless to do anything but make criminals of desperate women.
So, let's dispense with the juvenile redefining of the issue. Obviously, these false acts of religion are doing nothing to make the issues clear.
I'm almost at the point where I feel that any legislation that is supported overwhelmingly and almost exclusively by the faithful should be automatically rejected on the grounds that it becomes a de facto religious act and violates the first amendment and should not be relegated to the judicial branch to decide. I've heard from many people that, if a majority desire something, even a violation of the minority's right to free conscience, that it should be accepted as a proper result of the democratic process. I would argue, however, that democracy can only function when information is available and rational. When the facts of the debate are really not facts at all but just the subjective desires or fears of traditionalists, they pervert and corrupt democracy with a pretense of deliberation that is, actually, just blind adherence. Women, especially in a democracy, deserve better than to have their lives be forfeit to the changing tides of popular dogma.
So, if you're "pro-life", what you really are is pro-hangar, as that is the actual alternative to legal abortion that has been demonstrated well by history and, besides, life is not yours to defend when it's trapped in another's abdomen. And, if you're "pro-choice", you needn't be pro-abortion at all. You merely have to recognize that women have always had the choice NOT to give birth and, as such, realize that the law is powerless to do anything but make criminals of desperate women.
So, let's dispense with the juvenile redefining of the issue. Obviously, these false acts of religion are doing nothing to make the issues clear.