|
look, folks, i really am not interested in a debate about this because my disagreement with the anti-choice position is so basic that i have simply decided that these conversations are, in the main, not worth having. and above there is a demonstration of why this is the case. and this is the last post i am doing on this issue.
a. the folk who oppose abortion, for whatever reason, do not monoplize the field--theirs is not the only way of seeing the matter. given that the arguments against abortion are in the main religious in nature (that is relying upon ways of framing the question that derive from christian church positions on the matter, from the pope to the protestant fundamentalists) and so are set up to generate a differend (opposed positions talk by each other because there is no agreement--and i mean no agreement--on the premises for a conversation)--and as such are not resolvable unless one or the other side changes premises (which are often not themselves at issue explicitly in debates that are informed by them).
functionally, this means that there is and will be an irredicable plurality of views on this question--so the politics of abortion does not and should not creep into the question of legality of the procedure itself--which amounts to legislating the content of choice in this regard---rather, this is nothing more or less than an debate about whether, given the availability of the procedure, individuals should or should not avail themselves of it.
i think it patronizing in the extreme to assume that the decision of whether an individual will or will not avail herself of the procedure is evacuated by the fact that the procedure itself is safe and legal.
period.
you will not move me on this, and so i see no point in debating the question.
this is why i do not, in the main, do this conversation.
as for the logical consistency that foolthemall tried to refute above, let me say that the center of the claims from the antichoice people involve arguments about the "sanctity of life"---in this case, arguments about the "sanctity of life" override existing legal frameworks--were this not true, then antichoice people would not be in a position to generate a politics on the basis of their beliefs. another way: embedded at the center of antichoice poltics is the assumption that their views concerning this arbitrary fiction "sanctity of life" (under capitalism? are you joking?) **should** override existing legal parameters.
so let's for a moment assume that antichoice people really do see life as sacrosanct and that legal frames that legitimate ending a life are problematic.
war is a legal state of affairs--the debate on abortion indicates that the sanctity of life overrides legal questions--so pacifism is the only alternative.
same with capital punishment.
as for the question of the redistribution of wealth--concern for the "sanctity of life" that does not extend to equal concern for the quality of this life, this sacrosanct process we generate as we move through it, mean nothing to me.
more generally, if you are going to work from a position that throws around claims rooted in the discourse of sanctity, the least you could do is think about the question enough to be consistent.
that many antichoice people are not speaks volumes about the quality of the thought behind their positions.
but like i said, i have no patience on this question and find myself getting genuinely angry about it, so i check out of debates.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|