4 ms·

How do you do that with abortion? (Just picking a controversial topic) there is _literally_ no common ground and it is simply not possible for one group to live

How do you do that with abortion? (Just picking a controversial topic) there is _literally_ no common ground and it is simply not possible for one group to live under, to them, acceptable rules that are also acceptable to the other group. You cannot have one group that demands the right to terminate a pregnancy and one group that believes it is literally murder ever coexist on friendly terms. You cannot ban guns and still make them freely available to people who want them. You cannot combat global warming and still enable people to drive as they desire. You cannot simultaneously allow trans people to use their preferred gender's bathroom while allowing the people who so desires to only have cis people of the same gender in the room. You cannot simultaneously allow drugs and ban them. Indeed, as the days go by I am becoming more and more convinced that the only solution is the one outlined in this essay: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-communitarianism/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
zepto 9y ago
The conflicts you list are all conflicts based on disagreements over the solutions to problems rather than based on what people want. To pick an example: Why is gun control even an issue? It didn't used to be - therefore something has changed that makes people want to ban guns. What is that? Is banning guns the only solution? You can use the same logic with most of these.
munificent 9y ago
> How do you do that with abortion? (Just picking a controversial topic) > there is _literally_ no common ground I don't think that's true. Ignoring fringe lunatics, everyone agrees that after a baby is born, they should not be allowed to be "aborted". Likewise, virtually everyone agrees that sperm and unfertilized eggs do not have rights as humans. Those two endpoints on the continuum are common ground. The question then is where do people stake their claims on the line between those endpoints. Some people think if the fetus is old enough to be viable if born that early, then it should be illegal to abort it. Others, if the fetus has a developed enough brain and heart to conceivably feel pain. Others, if its implanted. Others if it's fertilized. And, of course, it's not a straight line, but more like a space. Some fetuses, regardless of age, are not viable because of genetic deformities and people pick different regions in that space where they are comfortable with terminating. There is another axis in the space related to how the pregnancy occurred—rape, incest, etc. Within this space, you can find regions and boundaries where many people do have agreement. This is how governing works. There are no perfect solutions or black and white problems. It's about finding consensus and compromise, and picking something that is the most acceptable to the most people. The real problem, I believe, is that there are powerful people who want to deliberately sabotage that process to their own ends. They want to convince us that there is no common ground, and that those who have a different preference are evil people who cannot be tolerated, much less worked with. They've found that if you create an enemy for people, you can get them to show up for polls and keep people in power. That's the real goal. They don't give a shit about abortion. They care about tax law and gerrymandering and other legislation that keeps the powerful in power. But abortion gets them to the polls. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

zepto 9y ago

The conflicts you list are all conflicts based on disagreements over the solutions to problems rather than based on what people want. To pick an example: Why is gun control even an issue? It didn't used to be - therefore something has changed that makes people want to ban guns. What is that? Is banning guns the only solution? You can use the same logic with most of these.

munificent 9y ago

> How do you do that with abortion? (Just picking a controversial topic) > there is _literally_ no common ground I don't think that's true. Ignoring fringe lunatics, everyone agrees that after a baby is born, they should not be allowed to be "aborted". Likewise, virtually everyone agrees that sperm and unfertilized eggs do not have rights as humans. Those two endpoints on the continuum are common ground. The question then is where do people stake their claims on the line between those endpoints. Some people think if the fetus is old enough to be viable if born that early, then it should be illegal to abort it. Others, if the fetus has a developed enough brain and heart to conceivably feel pain. Others, if its implanted. Others if it's fertilized. And, of course, it's not a straight line, but more like a space. Some fetuses, regardless of age, are not viable because of genetic deformities and people pick different regions in that space where they are comfortable with terminating. There is another axis in the space related to how the pregnancy occurred—rape, incest, etc. Within this space, you can find regions and boundaries where many people do have agreement. This is how governing works. There are no perfect solutions or black and white problems. It's about finding consensus and compromise, and picking something that is the most acceptable to the most people. The real problem, I believe, is that there are powerful people who want to deliberately sabotage that process to their own ends. They want to convince us that there is no common ground, and that those who have a different preference are evil people who cannot be tolerated, much less worked with. They've found that if you create an enemy for people, you can get them to show up for polls and keep people in power. That's the real goal. They don't give a shit about abortion. They care about tax law and gerrymandering and other legislation that keeps the powerful in power. But abortion gets them to the polls. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority