Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 04-26-2006, 01:32 PM

foolthem:

the rest of the post developed the argument.

let me recycle it in shorter form. i do nto accept your analogy of abortion and infanticide.
there is no argument that you could make that would persuade me of its validity.
i take your position to be a political one dressed up in the discourse of morality.
and i reject the politics.

further, i think that even if one were to accept your positoni, it still would not follow that the existing law needs to be changed on accont of it. i do not think that fact that the procedure of abortion is safe and legal reduces the complexity of making the decision of whether or not to have one. the antichoice crowd in general assumes that the legality of the procedure obviates all ethical problems that individuals may wrestle with over the question of whether the procedure is something that they want to avail themselves of. i think that assumption absurd.

that is why i think the question simple: as one position amongst a range of positions that already functions to shape the ways in which the question "should i have an abortion" is framed, you already have the level of power appropriate to the status of your arguments.

so go ahead, argue against it--i would even wager that your arguments would be more persuasive now in individual cases than they would be were folk who share your politics to manage to change the law.

what i expect that you do not like is the simple fact that, in the present context, i am free to ignore your arguments because i reject the premises on which you make them.

more generally, this is, in the end, what antichoice people cannot abide--views that are not their own. and this is why they want to change existing law.

but think about it: the worst thing that could happen to the antichoice folk would be winning the power politics fight over the law. it would do to the credibility of your arguments what the bush administration has done to conservative politics in general---erase all credibility except in the eyes of a minority of the population.

and it would no doubt reduce the persuasive power of your arguments against abortion becuase it would erase any possibility of talking to folk who do not agree with you a priori. so you would loose in a much more profound way if you won politically. be happy where you are, and oppose abortion all you like. leave the rest of us to make up our own minds.

04-26-2006, 01:32 PM	#101 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	foolthem: the rest of the post developed the argument. let me recycle it in shorter form. i do nto accept your analogy of abortion and infanticide. there is no argument that you could make that would persuade me of its validity. i take your position to be a political one dressed up in the discourse of morality. and i reject the politics. further, i think that even if one were to accept your positoni, it still would not follow that the existing law needs to be changed on accont of it. i do not think that fact that the procedure of abortion is safe and legal reduces the complexity of making the decision of whether or not to have one. the antichoice crowd in general assumes that the legality of the procedure obviates all ethical problems that individuals may wrestle with over the question of whether the procedure is something that they want to avail themselves of. i think that assumption absurd. that is why i think the question simple: as one position amongst a range of positions that already functions to shape the ways in which the question "should i have an abortion" is framed, you already have the level of power appropriate to the status of your arguments. so go ahead, argue against it--i would even wager that your arguments would be more persuasive now in individual cases than they would be were folk who share your politics to manage to change the law. what i expect that you do not like is the simple fact that, in the present context, i am free to ignore your arguments because i reject the premises on which you make them. more generally, this is, in the end, what antichoice people cannot abide--views that are not their own. and this is why they want to change existing law. but think about it: the worst thing that could happen to the antichoice folk would be winning the power politics fight over the law. it would do to the credibility of your arguments what the bush administration has done to conservative politics in general---erase all credibility except in the eyes of a minority of the population. and it would no doubt reduce the persuasive power of your arguments against abortion becuase it would erase any possibility of talking to folk who do not agree with you a priori. so you would loose in a much more profound way if you won politically. be happy where you are, and oppose abortion all you like. leave the rest of us to make up our own minds. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-26-2006 at 01:35 PM..