4 ms·

(Context: The article uses abortion as its central -- and only -- example.) >Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with? It's not. Many p

(Context: The article uses abortion as its central -- and only -- example.) >Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with? It's not. Many people[1] spend a great deal of time studying the rhetoric and activities of people who oppose abortion. They have studied them far more than you. >For better or for worse, the vast majority of people I know favor Roe v. Wade. Still, I think I understand the view of people on the other side. You give two possible reasons for opposing Roe v. Wade, one of which rejects the legal argument as fundamentally arbitrary, and one of which is based on the idea that a human life, with all the rights and dignities that it is entitled to, begins at conception. This falls into a common trap, which is treating "culture war" disputes as being fundamentally about abstract philosophical debates. This ignores the important parts of the dispute, which concern women's sexuality and the role of (conservative, patriarchal) religion in public affairs. It also ignores the mountains of bad faith and hypocrisy in the anti-abortion movement, including but not limited to a lack of interest in "saving" IVF embryos, bizarre ignorance of the female reproductive system, a refusal to acknowledge the circumstances under which people have late-term abortions, active opposition to medically-accurate sex education and easier access to contraceptives, and a lack of concern for what happens to babies after they're born. >As far as I can tell, my object-level views on “when abortion should be legal” are close to the median in my (leftist-dominated) corner of the universe. Yet, except with close friends, I’d be scared to say what I think above. Scared of what, exactly? When you publicly make bad arguments, you should expect public criticism. The only reason I can see that someone would get mad at you is that you are treating abortion rights as a bloodless, impersonal affair. This is a very practical issue with very real, very serious consequences for the women involved. Most women do not want to engage in an abstract debate about whether they should be forced to carry a dead fetus to term[2]. If you want to discuss how all this relates to jurisprudence and philosophy, you can certainly do that. It's not wrong, and you're not wrong for wanting to ask questions and start discussions on those subjects. But it's important to be clear that such discussions are (almost) totally separate from the practical questions of how overturning Roe v. Wade will actually affect American women. Conflating the two buries the practical questions, and only benefits people who would prefer that the practical questions are ignored. [1] The Slacktivist blog is a good place to start. Search for articles about abortion. Those articles will have many links to other people examining anti-abortion views. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/ https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/ [2] Not hyperbole.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> the role of (conservative, patriarchal) religion in public affairs. It also ignores the mountains of bad faith Thank you for summarising exactly what I was thinking - the justifications people will give publically are not the same as justifications people discuss in private. This is most obvious in a debate about climate change, where no-one ever says 'I (errorneously) think it will not affect me personally, I don't want to pay for fixing the problem, and I don't care about poor farmers in bangladesh dying'. Instead it will be some more socially acceptable line of argument, about science not being settled, technolgy not being there yet, or whatever. Or in immigration - noone ever says: 'they are bringin in culture I am uncomfotable with', instead they will argue about economy or crime, which is more 'socially acceptable' line of argument.
mturmon 4y ago
I really like this as a response to OP. Thanks for taking the time. OP laments that people who are bodily affected by these abortion rules aren't willing to have an abstract debate about the constitutional definition of privacy. Of course constitutional lawyers can construct plausible arguments that move privacy protections around. The debate can be imagined, even constructed, but it's irrelevant to the actual power struggle that's playing itself out. The move by the court was a political one. The angles have been worked by a donor class and a compliant Senate for a decade and more. The consequences of this ruling will be unpopular and will result in needless suffering and (obviously) lawbreaking. "Fuck that noise" is a perfectly legitimate response, under the circumstances. The fact that most commenters here can't see what's going on --- as opposed to the "logical" thing they wish were going on --- is one of the major blind spots of this discussion board.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> the role of (conservative, patriarchal) religion in public affairs. It also ignores the mountains of bad faith Thank you for summarising exactly what I was thinking - the justifications people will give publically are not the same as justifications people discuss in private. This is most obvious in a debate about climate change, where no-one ever says 'I (errorneously) think it will not affect me personally, I don't want to pay for fixing the problem, and I don't care about poor farmers in bangladesh dying'. Instead it will be some more socially acceptable line of argument, about science not being settled, technolgy not being there yet, or whatever. Or in immigration - noone ever says: 'they are bringin in culture I am uncomfotable with', instead they will argue about economy or crime, which is more 'socially acceptable' line of argument.

mturmon 4y ago

I really like this as a response to OP. Thanks for taking the time. OP laments that people who are bodily affected by these abortion rules aren't willing to have an abstract debate about the constitutional definition of privacy. Of course constitutional lawyers can construct plausible arguments that move privacy protections around. The debate can be imagined, even constructed, but it's irrelevant to the actual power struggle that's playing itself out. The move by the court was a political one. The angles have been worked by a donor class and a compliant Senate for a decade and more. The consequences of this ruling will be unpopular and will result in needless suffering and (obviously) lawbreaking. "Fuck that noise" is a perfectly legitimate response, under the circumstances. The fact that most commenters here can't see what's going on --- as opposed to the "logical" thing they wish were going on --- is one of the major blind spots of this discussion board.