03-19-2024, 05:26 PM
Oooh, I sense contention...
I find the first segment of the problem is that one side does not wish to even consider the continuity aspect of nature in regard to the presence of a human embryo/fetus... That "side" of the argument wishes to designate personhood as a physical condition (upon which we should attribute a being with a legitimate defensible "right" to exist.) Fair enough, materialistic, but fair.
Oddly, the "liberal movement" end of this argument never appeared to take advantage of just how "conservative" their argument could have been. Nothing is more fundamentally conservative than a criticism of government having no place "regulating" the physical persons they serve (conservatism manifesting its best when limiting government.)
Instead of pursuing that aspect of the complaint, a representation of 'victimhood' was embraced by activists - sadly, it became about 'oppression' (sadly, often mischaracterized as brute misogyny.) Virtuous victimhood surfaced, and breathed fire into the arguments. But that denies any argument based upon spiritually principled antagonism. It foiled any potential resolution in that regard. Any limited terms will effectively destroy the freedom ideal... and no quarter is given to anything less than that. The absolute, becomes the goal post.
The other "side" is far off-script from the first and is also unyielding.
That particular position seems to wish at least to eliminate any notion that abortion itself can be 'justified' outside of very specific and statistically rare circumstances, which has additional weight when added to those for whom culturally, spiritually, (and even merely religiously,) the entire construct of human procreation is sacred and thus unassailable once initiated.
The proponents of the anti-abortion idea insist that government should proscribe the act, only giving quarter to instantaneous emergent events, like damage or harm to the patient, or in cases of a brutally abusive crime. Many of them 'gave in' that much but have declared "No further!" Others remain stalwartly devoted to the principle of the "sanctity of (human) life." Neither of these will acquiesce to the surrendering of the decision to the would-be reluctant parent who already wants the child to not exist. They are most frustrated by the argument which renders the subject into a conditional state... characterizing it as an effort on the part of those wanting abortion to be of a "I want no consequences for what I do" lot. Dehumanizing at best, cruel at worst ... but fair enough.
The activist among these folk posture as both virtuously defending the voiceless, in some cases; and others righteously defending a societal value. Equally absolute in their resolve, they leave no room for the argument to end unless they win.
Frankly activists on both sides can suck it!
For them, this is an exercise in theater and litigation. It has nothing to do with the real problems that lead to the 'choices' of abortions. 'Single bulleted' arguments fail unless they're hermetically sealed in faith. Where faith is concerned reason has no foothold. Utterances of faith are not 'arguments.' As "virtue" became the new "plastic," engendering it the new "childish, naive and obtuse." Pro-abortion proponents never face the reality that MOST abortion is completely voluntary and NOT by any means 'medically' necessary. Why doctors (to whom we still attribute all manner of moral virtue) are not up in arms about the volume of it is cynic-bait. It can't be very socially uplifting to witness such masses of human biomatter moving to market, even if it is profitable.
But I'm sorry... are we suddenly devoid of all human emotion that we can presumptuously tell an unprepared person to raise a child? What the hell? I've known people whose lives completely derailed by pregnancy. I've seen the tortured look of a girl who watched her future disintegrate, and guiltily fantasized about getting it back. I've seen the young man's despair, and even panic over what was coming... Mistakes are how children "do." Refuse them the choice? I would have to ask "why?" and patronizing platitudes won't suffice. Not in real life... not where the pavement hits the soles of your feet.
Does our society celebrate motherhood or fatherhood? No. Not anymore, not that it ever did much. Is it harder to be a parent than not... yes, definitely, over the long term, even more (but don't tell them that, they'll just run away.) As a parent, I can tell you... it is worth every second. But it never seems to feel that way in the beginning, it's all fret and worry, worry, worry (remove one worry if you've a partner to help, two if you've a family to help.)
Do you have a right to choose making it all go away? I don't know..., all I know is rights aren't "given" they must be 'acknowledged' ... so what do you think?
Our contention isn't limited to the practical. But our discussions can never arrive at a common conclusion when we deny common talking points (which is an activist dance.)
I find the first segment of the problem is that one side does not wish to even consider the continuity aspect of nature in regard to the presence of a human embryo/fetus... That "side" of the argument wishes to designate personhood as a physical condition (upon which we should attribute a being with a legitimate defensible "right" to exist.) Fair enough, materialistic, but fair.
Oddly, the "liberal movement" end of this argument never appeared to take advantage of just how "conservative" their argument could have been. Nothing is more fundamentally conservative than a criticism of government having no place "regulating" the physical persons they serve (conservatism manifesting its best when limiting government.)
Instead of pursuing that aspect of the complaint, a representation of 'victimhood' was embraced by activists - sadly, it became about 'oppression' (sadly, often mischaracterized as brute misogyny.) Virtuous victimhood surfaced, and breathed fire into the arguments. But that denies any argument based upon spiritually principled antagonism. It foiled any potential resolution in that regard. Any limited terms will effectively destroy the freedom ideal... and no quarter is given to anything less than that. The absolute, becomes the goal post.
The other "side" is far off-script from the first and is also unyielding.
That particular position seems to wish at least to eliminate any notion that abortion itself can be 'justified' outside of very specific and statistically rare circumstances, which has additional weight when added to those for whom culturally, spiritually, (and even merely religiously,) the entire construct of human procreation is sacred and thus unassailable once initiated.
The proponents of the anti-abortion idea insist that government should proscribe the act, only giving quarter to instantaneous emergent events, like damage or harm to the patient, or in cases of a brutally abusive crime. Many of them 'gave in' that much but have declared "No further!" Others remain stalwartly devoted to the principle of the "sanctity of (human) life." Neither of these will acquiesce to the surrendering of the decision to the would-be reluctant parent who already wants the child to not exist. They are most frustrated by the argument which renders the subject into a conditional state... characterizing it as an effort on the part of those wanting abortion to be of a "I want no consequences for what I do" lot. Dehumanizing at best, cruel at worst ... but fair enough.
The activist among these folk posture as both virtuously defending the voiceless, in some cases; and others righteously defending a societal value. Equally absolute in their resolve, they leave no room for the argument to end unless they win.
Frankly activists on both sides can suck it!
For them, this is an exercise in theater and litigation. It has nothing to do with the real problems that lead to the 'choices' of abortions. 'Single bulleted' arguments fail unless they're hermetically sealed in faith. Where faith is concerned reason has no foothold. Utterances of faith are not 'arguments.' As "virtue" became the new "plastic," engendering it the new "childish, naive and obtuse." Pro-abortion proponents never face the reality that MOST abortion is completely voluntary and NOT by any means 'medically' necessary. Why doctors (to whom we still attribute all manner of moral virtue) are not up in arms about the volume of it is cynic-bait. It can't be very socially uplifting to witness such masses of human biomatter moving to market, even if it is profitable.
But I'm sorry... are we suddenly devoid of all human emotion that we can presumptuously tell an unprepared person to raise a child? What the hell? I've known people whose lives completely derailed by pregnancy. I've seen the tortured look of a girl who watched her future disintegrate, and guiltily fantasized about getting it back. I've seen the young man's despair, and even panic over what was coming... Mistakes are how children "do." Refuse them the choice? I would have to ask "why?" and patronizing platitudes won't suffice. Not in real life... not where the pavement hits the soles of your feet.
Does our society celebrate motherhood or fatherhood? No. Not anymore, not that it ever did much. Is it harder to be a parent than not... yes, definitely, over the long term, even more (but don't tell them that, they'll just run away.) As a parent, I can tell you... it is worth every second. But it never seems to feel that way in the beginning, it's all fret and worry, worry, worry (remove one worry if you've a partner to help, two if you've a family to help.)
Do you have a right to choose making it all go away? I don't know..., all I know is rights aren't "given" they must be 'acknowledged' ... so what do you think?
Our contention isn't limited to the practical. But our discussions can never arrive at a common conclusion when we deny common talking points (which is an activist dance.)
