A Slightly DIFFERENT Abortion Question

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

You know, I have an idea that will rid the world of nuclear weapons forever...

Well, seriously: would it be a good idea? Should we do it? Let's say that we can keep nuclear reactors for power, and let's say that we aren't ending all radioactive processes (which would cause the earth's core to cool off suddenly, leading to catastrophes later...) Hey, here's a startling idea: let's take the hypothetical at face value.

Should we? Would it lead to a new round of big conventional wars? It might... Is the insanity of MAD better than the insanity of one blitzkrieg after another?

I don't know...but I lean slightly in favor of trying out this new idea. I don't leap at it as the greatest thing ever, but I also don't reject it.

Originally Posted by Miller

I didn't realize "And the pro-life side just gives up," was part of your hypothetical. . . .

Not exactly; they just lose. They no longer have any way to use the government to obstruct the right to abortion. The debate is over. I cited fifty-four forty or fight. It's over, dude.

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Well for the purposes of the thought experiment, I would say "It depends". Roughly speaking, I would trade zeroing out governmental funding of all abortions for an end to the debate and permanent legalization of abortions through the third trimester. I'm not sure why anti choicers would credibly agree to that, but hey it's a thought experiment.

I'm almost certain that (if you will pardon me for using the term I'm more comfortable with) the pro-life side would never agree to it. But would the pro-choice side? You seem to be saying you'd favor the deal, but maybe not enthusiastically; you say "It depends," but add, "I would trade..."

This is how I had thought all pro-choice advocates would feel, but I seem to have been wrong!

(Oops; I do not want to presume that you are on the pro-choice side; I'm trying to keep the main debate out of this thread.)

I don't see this thought experiment as especially interesting or relevant.

It has helped me, because it has let me work through a false assumption on my part. Thought experiments, by grievous simplification, sometimes shine light. It's like converting a picture from color to black-and-white. It ceases to be a "true picture," but sometimes, you can see certain things more clearly. Obviously, such an approach must be used judiciously; I've never denied the question involved a "magic wand."

Originally Posted by robert_columbia

But does the Federal government or any state or local government actually fund abortions, e.g. through welfare benefits like Medicaid? I don't see many moms with kids moaning about how they didn't want to be a parent but they couldn't afford an abortion and thus had to take the kid to term.

As I understand it, right now, by the Hyde Amendment and other laws, the Federal government funds almost no abortions. The exceptions are the very extreme emergency situations -- horrible medical complications -- where an abortion is an inescapable part of a life-saving procedure. Even most people in the heart of the pro-life camp agree that this is necessary: if the unborn can't be saved in any case, but the mother can be saved, then she should be.

In my hypothetical, would this change? I guess so... Technically, the question involved total non-involvement either way. I don't know about the "emergency room" approach. I'm guessing that no one would be forcibly turned away from an emergency room, but I can't say for sure. This is a detail of the premise I haven't thought about. Let's say that the emergency medical care is provided, but is billed for afterward.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

So far, though, only why the pro-choice side might reject the idea has been significantly discussed.

I think that's because most of us simply assume that the other side would reject the idea, and the OP seems to understand why already, so no need to go there.

But sure, if you want to: "The pro-life side would be against the idea because they believe that abortion is murder, and the state should protect people against being murdered."

Or we could go with the less charitable Der Trihs angle (which I don't entirely disagree with): "The anti-choice side would be against the idea because they hate women and want to use legislation to force women to be chattel punished for daring to have sex. They won't accept a proposal that doesn't let them hurt women for having sex. If we don't let them use legislation to do so, they'll use outright violence, even more than they do now."

Take your pick.

Or do you believe that they would accept the proposal? If so, why?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

Or do you believe that they would accept the proposal? If so, why?

Well, I was kinda expecting to fool some of the people all of the time....

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

. . . But sure, if you want to: "The pro-life side would be against the idea because they believe that abortion is murder, and the state should protect people against being murdered." . . .

That was pretty much how I saw it...or, more properly, how I saw them seeing it...

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, I was kinda expecting to fool some of the people all of the time....

"Ladies and gentlemen, I am that fool!"

By the way, I asked some friends about abolishing nuclear weapons, and they said it probably wouldn't lead to a new round of major conventional wars (although, if it had happened in, say 1946, that it would have. The Berlin Blockade would probably have spun up out of control and into a general Soviet invasion of western Europe.) The feeling, among people I asked, was that you might see more border skirmishing, but not a major outbreak of big tank armies and big air fleets maneuvering for control of vast extents of territory.

So, I'll change my stance to "mostly in favor" of abolishing nuclear weapons.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

By the way, I asked some friends about abolishing nuclear weapons, and they said it probably wouldn't lead to a new round of major conventional wars (although, if it had happened in, say 1946, that it would have. The Berlin Blockade would probably have spun up out of control and into a general Soviet invasion of western Europe.) The feeling, among people I asked, was that you might see more border skirmishing, but not a major outbreak of big tank armies and big air fleets maneuvering for control of vast extents of territory.

I agree that it probably wouldn't happen much. One of the primary reasons for war is profit, and military conquest isn't profitable these days. You'd still get the occasional attempt at conquest by some leaders who convince themselves that they'll be the exception; like Bush & company being convinced that the Iraq conquest would pay for itself.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

That's just a position they typically officially take to make themselves look less evil. Given a chance, most of them would condemn those women to death, and gloat over their suffering. "Every woman who dies is a victory for morality", to quote Randall Terry, former head of Operation Rescue.

Any responses that aren't conspiracy theories about what people "really believe"?

[BigT]

It seems that, while the pro-life side would reject it as against their core principals, the pro-choice side rejects it because they think it isn't good enough and that they can get better.

Thing is, while this is correct on same-sex marriage, I'm not not convinced it is accurate on allowing women to have the choice to abort. The former has had pretty much all of its arguments against destroyed other than some religious ideal. But the pro-life position still has its claim of murder. I've pointed out to several people that abortion is not forbidden in the Bible, and they don't care. Yet the Bible is almost invariably cited when I ask about same sex marriage.

As for me personally: I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life--I only believe in choice before viability. I personally think that only some sort of compromise will work, but I see no sign that this version will ever be accepted. Assuming it were accepted, I think I'd still be rather dissatisfied, but only because I do think killing viable fetuses is murder. The pro-choice portion of my position is completely satisfied.

[Omg a Black Conservative]

Originally Posted by BigT

I've pointed out to several people that abortion is not forbidden in the Bible, and they don't care.

Slavery isn't forbidden in the Bible either. Should I care?

(That should take care of that. I mean, really...)

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by BigT

It seems that, while the pro-life side would reject it as against their core principals, the pro-choice side rejects it because they think it isn't good enough and that they can get better.

Kinda sorta...but more accurately, I think we should demand/hold out for/work towards not "better" but "equal" for everyone. The sticking point for me here is that we're still not going to allow poor/disabled women (those on government health care plans) to make their own choices in healthcare. It's not enough for me to have Choice for me and my daughter...I believe we need Choice for every woman. And a woman poor enough to be on Medicaid is no less a woman than a woman rich enough to buy insurance which will pay for her abortion.

I'm not willing to sacrifice poor women on the altar of increased access, no. I'm not going to stop bitching and moaning (and voting) until there's universal access.

And, like I said, there's no medical reason to deny federal/state funds for abortion. Abortion is not unsafe, as medical procedures go. It's not untested. It works. It's not expensive, as medical procedures go. Every rubric Medicare uses to decide whether or not to cover a procedure - is it safe, does it work, is it prohibitively expensive compared to other procedures - abortion passes all of those. If it was a cancer treatment, it'd be approved and covered. The only reason it's not has nothing at all to do with medicine, so this hypothetical is still giving ground to anti-abortionists.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by BigT

It seems that, while the pro-life side would reject it as against their core principals, the pro-choice side rejects it because they think it isn't good enough and that they can get better. . . .

And not recognizing this was my original blunder; but that's why I asked the question in the first place! Ignorance fought!

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by BigT

Any responses that aren't conspiracy theories about what people "really believe"?

Why should I accept what people say at face value, when their actions don't fit their claims? I'm not interested in bending over backwards trying to pretend that a bunch of people are well-meaning-yet-misguided.

Originally Posted by BigT

But the pro-life position still has its claim of murder.

No it doesn't. Killing a mindless fetus is still killing a mindless thing whether you call it "murder" or not. Calling it murder just creates a category of murder that is justified, and cheapens the term.

[Trinopus]

WHOA! Please! No debating abortion, per se, in this thread!

I had a specific question in mind, and it's pretty much been answered. I seriously beg of you all that the thread not just go down into the nitty of pro-this and anti-that.