Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
my usual move is to try to isolate that cluster and talk about that. that this entails a mvoe away from the particularlities of individual uses of these clusters is self-evident. but you would have to make an argument that individual political positions are somehow unconditioned by broader ideological constructions for that criticism to hold any water. you do not, and your critique therefore does not either.
|
I don't understand. Which critique does not hold water, and why would I have to make such an argument?
If I'm understanding you correctly: I don't see how faults in ideological trends would have a bearing on the validity of individual positions they influence,
unless the faults are present also in the individual positions.
Quote:
|
you are going after a point that is in no way central ether to my posts or to my positions---you assume--arbitrarily--that the reason i oppose the antichoice positions on abortion follows from some cartoon of those who do. that is quite beside the point. i am surprised that you did not see that.
|
No, you misunderstand my purpose. I'm aware that you're not pro-choice because of inconsistent pro-lifers. I'm not arguing against your position on abortion. I'm arguing against your characterization of antichoicers.
Quote:
|
but whatever: the major argument was the following *snip* --that the question of when life starts is theological---its tactical functions are obvious--among them is that it shifts the focus away from women and their choice onto another topic/topos---one that assume an entirely different scale of evaluation. no part of the anti-choice position (regardless of the trajectry that leads to it, regardless of the way it is framed) more wholly justifies the "antichoice" label than this, which functions to erase the question of the mother---because the frame of reference is fundamentally theological (structurally speaking), it sets up a differend, a space where opposing views cannot but talk past each other---because positions operate on different premises---
|
Theology does not have a monopoly on the question of when life begins. Discussion could be philosophical, devoid of religious speculation. (And that's my preference.)
And if life does begin at conception, then it makes sense to address that scale of evaluation. It likely won't be the only scale used, and
it might not be the deciding scale. (For instance, pro-choicers who believe that life begins at conception - they look to another scale such as the limits of government.)
Quote:
|
the assumption from those who oppose abortion, more often than not (qualifier) is that the availability of the procedure evacuates any and all problems that might be raised about whether someone should have one. i think that is wrong, and much of my position on the question follows from that, not what you imagined it did.
|
Thanks for the qualifiers, but I'm having a bit of trouble with this part as well. Are you referring to the "pro-life or pro-abortion" mindset, that being for or against abortion's legality is the same as being for or against abortion?
(for what it's worth, I don't agree with that mindset.)
Quote:
|
i do not know who is talking when you use the quotation marks.
|
Sorry. Those speakers were hypothetical people explaining their supposed inconsistencies.
Quote:
|
i do not know what point you are trying to make in your defense of killing people.
|
That one can be for certain types of killing and against others without running into inconsistencies. Even if one believes in the "sanctity of life".
Quote:
|
what is the basis for your opposition (if indeed you do oppose abortion)?
|
I view it as the killing of a human being. As such, it needs a justification. I view most motives given as insufficient justification. (I do consider saving the life of the mother to be a sufficient justification.)
Killings should have a very good reason behind them.