Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 09-25-2007, 09:43 AM

i generally do not bother with debates about this topic. my general attitude is that if you oppose abortion dont have one, but that your opposition onoy has power insofar as it affects yourself--so opposition to abortion and arguments concerning its legality have nothing to do with each other--because you can oppose is and exercise your opposition by not having one and that says nothingabout whether the procedure should be legal and safe.

that because there are NO grounds for opposition that are universal.

so nothing about anyone's opposition on ethical or religious grounds can go beyond the limits of the belief community that gives that opposition its orientation--

and because it makes no sense to assume that the fact that abortion is legal means that the overwhelming majority of people who avail themselves of it do not consider what they are doing and why quite seriously--

there is no argument that follows from religious or "moral" opposition to the procedure that translates into an argument for it being illegal.

so if you oppose abortion, dont have one seems the only reasonable position on this.

the reason why so many christian belief communities get their collective panties in a twist about this issue is because their conception of life involves this curious abstraction called "the soul" which is like an essence of a table except unlike the set of predicates that differentiate a table from non-tables, the "soul" is ineffable. you cant define it. you either find the term compelling or you dont. it is arbitrary outside the confines of the belief communities that animate it. this "soul" thing is apparently transferred across the medium of a divine blowgun at the moment of conception--but maybe it always existed, conception always happened and maybe most christians are secretly platonists that way, such that actual choices made by human beings arent choices at all--this position makes some sense of the catholic church's linkage of opposition to abortion to opposition to birth control--well that and two ultra-reactionary popes in succession.

taking this "soul" construct as the point of departure, it follows that there would be no meaningful distinctions across the various phases of fetal development, merely an unfolding of attributes of the soul-container, the jar containing the peanut butter, etc.

it's funny to read debates about problems of determining the point at which viability begins outside the uterus carried on by folk whose politics presupposes a notion of the soul. so the critique would be of a lack of precision based on a category that admits of no precision, not even a coherent definition that does not--in a perfectly circular manner--presuppose prior belief in it. at this point, the argument repeats that of the first paragraph.

but from this imputing of a notion of the soul follows the entire discourse of abortion as "murder"--but it makes no sense outside that framework and it is pretty apparent that this is the case, so it seems to me that repeatedly referring to abortion as murder as if the case was decided on the basis of an entirely arbitrary "essence" which a religious tradition articulated 2000 years ago used to explain how animation is possible, what it is etc. is little more than trolling.
its not like you can possibly win a debate with others who do not share your belief system using it.
you wont influence them.
you'll just piss them off.

09-25-2007, 09:43 AM	#354 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i generally do not bother with debates about this topic. my general attitude is that if you oppose abortion dont have one, but that your opposition onoy has power insofar as it affects yourself--so opposition to abortion and arguments concerning its legality have nothing to do with each other--because you can oppose is and exercise your opposition by not having one and that says nothingabout whether the procedure should be legal and safe. that because there are NO grounds for opposition that are universal. so nothing about anyone's opposition on ethical or religious grounds can go beyond the limits of the belief community that gives that opposition its orientation-- and because it makes no sense to assume that the fact that abortion is legal means that the overwhelming majority of people who avail themselves of it do not consider what they are doing and why quite seriously-- there is no argument that follows from religious or "moral" opposition to the procedure that translates into an argument for it being illegal. so if you oppose abortion, dont have one seems the only reasonable position on this. the reason why so many christian belief communities get their collective panties in a twist about this issue is because their conception of life involves this curious abstraction called "the soul" which is like an essence of a table except unlike the set of predicates that differentiate a table from non-tables, the "soul" is ineffable. you cant define it. you either find the term compelling or you dont. it is arbitrary outside the confines of the belief communities that animate it. this "soul" thing is apparently transferred across the medium of a divine blowgun at the moment of conception--but maybe it always existed, conception always happened and maybe most christians are secretly platonists that way, such that actual choices made by human beings arent choices at all--this position makes some sense of the catholic church's linkage of opposition to abortion to opposition to birth control--well that and two ultra-reactionary popes in succession. taking this "soul" construct as the point of departure, it follows that there would be no meaningful distinctions across the various phases of fetal development, merely an unfolding of attributes of the soul-container, the jar containing the peanut butter, etc. it's funny to read debates about problems of determining the point at which viability begins outside the uterus carried on by folk whose politics presupposes a notion of the soul. so the critique would be of a lack of precision based on a category that admits of no precision, not even a coherent definition that does not--in a perfectly circular manner--presuppose prior belief in it. at this point, the argument repeats that of the first paragraph. but from this imputing of a notion of the soul follows the entire discourse of abortion as "murder"--but it makes no sense outside that framework and it is pretty apparent that this is the case, so it seems to me that repeatedly referring to abortion as murder as if the case was decided on the basis of an entirely arbitrary "essence" which a religious tradition articulated 2000 years ago used to explain how animation is possible, what it is etc. is little more than trolling. its not like you can possibly win a debate with others who do not share your belief system using it. you wont influence them. you'll just piss them off. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-25-2007 at 09:47 AM..