Cecil Adams and the Abortion Fracas

[cutout18]

So recently, my favorite person Cecil Adams decided to take on the difficult topicsAs a quick aside, I'll note his snide treatment of the actual questioneer is not particularly surprising; he does that with everyone who writes in, no matter what the topic. So it's not a special case, if you've never read his stuff before

Comments

[nemo_wistar]

just that the divisiveness and the absolutism on either side has slaughtered rational politics in the US. Fresh off of an US election, I think it's all still on our minds.I'd say divisiveness and absolutism has really taken the center stage since evangelical Christianity started getting involved in politics, but that's because in many cases I don't think they care about offering real, practical solutions. That said, if "destroying American politics" is the only way to ensure that both parties address root cause instead of wring their hands about one of its symptoms, then go for it

[cutout18]

As below, simply accepting Roe v. Wade as decisive on the issue would be a great compromise, something neither side is willing to do. The issue is by no means settled circa 1970's.

[nemo_wistar]

If accepting RvW as-is constitutes an appropriate compromise, what's the need for incessant state regulation as you mention below? Seeing as how it inevitably results in the restrictions nothingmuch described, it would seem that opposing these roadblocks is fighting to maintain the balance, not disrupt it.

[cutout18]

The decision to regulate was intentionally left up to the States in RvW. I'll note that this was particularly prudent of them, as States are more aligned with the intentions of their constituency than the Federal Government. The downside is that when [insert your opposing side] gets prevalence in the State, you see the regulations going in favor of those you'd like to see boiled. Still, it's infinitely better than legislation from the bench

[nothingmuch]

Roe is a compromise. It said that abortion was up to the woman before viability and up to the state after viability. After 35 years of state regulation and litigation, anti-abortion groups have whittled abortion rights down to almost nothing. What's left to compromise? We already have forced parental involvement, required waiting periods, mandatory anti-abortion counseling, forced ultrasounds, no taxpayer funding of abortion for the poor, a federal ban on one abortion procedure with more likely to come, hundreds of Catholic-owned hospitals that refuse to even provide rape victims with contraception, etc.

The federal government could pass a complete ban on abortion, and people would still be demanding that pro-choicers "compromise."

[cutout18]

Cecil is agreeing with your first statement. Roe v. Wade is a compromise neither side is willing to accept; The Pro-Lifers continue attempts to overturn the decision (which, despite your grim count of changes, it has resisted, something Pro-Lifers see similarly to your grievances), while Pro-Choicers resist any attempts of the state to regulate.

This factionalization has fueled the extreme left and right to power on many other issues besides abortion (other civil liberties besides reproductive rights for the Right, and slow socialization of the government on the far Left). Further, it's turned the American politic into a rancorous engine of outrage that, no doubt, does not serve its intended purpose.

[cutout18]

Do elaborate.

[snackbreak]

Well, I should just say that as someone with a very pro-life view, I don't think there is a way to compromise on this. Should we really be compromising on something that essentially kills craploads of people regularly and legally and "safely"? That's insane.

I think both sides can and should work together to reduce a need for abortions, but as for abortion itself, I can't see how the pro-life view could accept slaughter as part of a compromise.

Yeah, politicians take advantage of that kind of polarization, and yeah, single-issue voting is generally a pretty bad idea. Alas.

[cutout18]

The single greatest road to compromise is humility; the absolutist view on either side is detrimental to any sense of perspective.

It may be your belief that abortion is always, always, always killing, but not everybody has that belief, nor has everybody who championed your cause in the past even held that absolute a view. The refusal to acknowledge that you might be wrong (I pick on you, this goes for anyone) means precisely that you are unwilling to compromise, and the cost is great.

Thinking absolutely leads to upheaval, revolution, and bad blood. Thinking practically leads to solutions.

[snackbreak]

Well people are obviously free to think differently, and there are clearly plenty that do, as evidenced by the fact that my views are not law.

I can't really give a crap about revolution, upheaval, or bad blood when the alternative is sanctioning free-for-all killing for a specific developmental phase only, but that's just me. I know that it is considered ridiculous to compare abortion (or really, anything) to the Holocaust, but really, there's no better example than this: would you endorse compromising on the whole genocide thing because absolutism is detrimental to any sense of perspective?

[cutout18]

In answer to your question, that's sort of what we're going to have to do in Iraq, for example.

The options are Genocide of Side A, Genocide of Side B, back both of them (and no one win), or back out and let one or the other genocide happen.

Would you still endorse banning this sanctioned killing (it's not free-for-all by the way, most free-for-alls don't have buy-in costs or allow one to simply abstain), if it meant the entirety of American politics was going to crap, or resulted, albeit roundabout, in the killing of full-grown people in other countries?

[ebay313]

No, I do not believe in just accepting "compromise" when it comes to basic human rights.

[cutout18]

As you see in the above poster's position, they feel the exact same way.

Does this not worry you, when you think of even the potential of progress either way?

[ebay313]

Worry me in what way? Obviously people fighting against basic human rights is going to be a bad thing, and possibly stand in the way of having those basic human rights.
Do I think this means we should compromise and say "we don't really need those human rights"? Hell fucking no.
I don't want that other person to compromise with me so that we still don't have basic human rights, I want basic human rights. It's not something you can compromise as. A basic right, such as the right to control one's own body, cannot exist on a part time, in certain circumstances basis. Then it's not a protected right.

[cutout18]

Both you and the Pro-Life movement believe you're protecting human rights. If you can't see any way to meet halfway because you believe what you're protecting is inaliable under any circumstances, why should they ever, ever, ever feel any different?

You're pretty much proving Cecil's point. Rights or no, the hardheaded absolutist bitterness on both sides pretty much ensures politics will stay at the fringes for the forseeable future. Wars for oil and socialism, with the abortion fracas dead center of all of it.