Thursday, October 12, 2017

Let's talk abortion

Let's talk about abortion in the Alabama special Senate election, and let's see if we can reduce culture war over abortion.

Let me suggest the below for framing a discussion.

[If you think the above is a wrong framing of the discussion, please speak up and maybe the framing can be revised more to your satisfaction.]

To kick this off, let's say Roe v. Wade was not the law, and states could enact whatever prohibitions they chose on abortions.

If that was the case, what do you think would be enacted in the State of Alabama? Would there be an absolute prohibition on abortion enacted? Would a Roe v. Wade type rule, such as abortions being permitted during the first two trimesters, but not during the third trimester, be enacted?

In the name of trying to lessen culture war, it would seem fair to ask this:

Assume Roe v. Wade was not the law, and Alabama enacted or did not enact prohibitions on abortion pursuant to the regular electoral process of Alabama voters electing Representatives and Senators to the Alabama state legislature, and the state legislature, as constituted from time to time, enacting  abortion laws, and repealing them or amending the laws from time to time. If that happened in Alabama, would you be willing to accept for abortion to be allowed or prohibited in accordance with the abortion law currently in effect?

On one side, if you are personally opposed to abortion, but Alabama has enacted a law that allows others to have abortions, would that be acceptable to you (subject to your right to try to persuade Alabama voters to elect different Representatives and Senators, who will in turn vote in the legislature to change the law)? Also, there may be a second question that, if Alabama prohibited abortion, would it be acceptable to you for other Alabamians to be able to go to another state to get an abortion where abortions are allowed?

On the other side, if you believe abortion should be allowed, but the Alabama legislature prohibited abortion, would you be able to accept that outcome, subject to your ability, if you want an abortion, to go to another State that allows abortions?

Update 10/21/17
The below article excellently contributes to this discussion [I am not author of article but sharing first on Twitter and then embedding the tweet in this blog is effective way to share in this blog]:

Update 10/24/17

Update 11/19/17









Update 11/22/17 My case re abortion
As the above tweets reveal, I have sought participation  in this discussion by others, and thus far they have offered for this discussion only what you see in the above tweets. The invitation remains open for them to offer more. In the meantime, this further lays out my abortion position.

A. "Intolerable to live in a society in which others can choose to abort"
There has been no request to change the framing of the question that I set out above, so I will stick with that framing of the question.

Some definition, however, is needed to be given to "intolerable," and what action is called for in reaction to what is "intolerable."

A very extreme reaction would be that the USA must be split into two countries, in one of which countries abortion is prohibited and in the other of which it is allowed. Let's not take it to that extreme.

Let's limit "intolerable" to meaning that a candidate's stance on abortion is a litmus test for a elective office at any level, Presidential and on down, and this litmus determines whom one will support and vote for. Such litmus test means disregarding anything else about two candidates, one of whom passes the litmus test and one of whom does not pass, including disregarding such things as abilities and qualifications for elected office, and disregarding policies and positions advocated regarding anything else.

To the extent that such a litmus test is used by a voter, it has the potential of impairing the accomplishment of legislation or governmental action the voter might otherwise desire but the voter cannot seek to advance the same if the candidate passing the voter's litmus test is not supportive of the same but the candidate not passing the litmus test is supportive.

Possibly a candidate passing a voter's litmus test will be aligned with the voter's wishes regarding other legislation or governmental action.

B. Consequences of voters having abortion litmus test
Tens of millions of Americans are fed up with a Congress and government that have been variously called polarized, hyperpartisan, dysfunctional, and paralyzed.

It seems indisputable that a major contributing factor to that condition is an abortion litmus test (and other litmus tests) on both the Republican and Democratic sides, which disqualify candidates who may be more open minded and amenable to discussion and compromise with the other side but who fail the categorical litmus test.

Those who are adamant practitioners of litmus test politics would seem to have the burden of making the contrary case if they believe their litmus test politics are not a major contributing factor to the polarized, impaired condition of our Congress and government.

If adamant practitioners of litmus test politics agree that our Congress and government suffer from polarization and hyperpartisanship due to their politics, those litmus test politics practitoners have a choice regarding the society they consider "intolerable" to live in (i.e., where others can choose to have an abortion).

One choice is to continue with their litmus test politics and suffer whatever polarized, impaired condition of our Congress and government that those politics contribute to.

The other choice is a decision that a society in which others may choose abortion is not so intolerable to live in, if a willingness to allow democratically enacted law govern abortion if that can help with getting significant improvement of the polarized, impaired condition of our Congress and government

C. Sanctity of the fetus
Those who feel it is intolerable to live in a society in which others may choose to have an abortion (the "pro-lifers") have deeply held beliefs that compel them to do every thing in their power to prohibit others from choosing to kill the fetus that is inside the bodies of those others.

Those on the other side (pro-choicers) who desire to persuade that it should not be intolerable to live in a society in which others may choose to kill a fetus that is inside the bodies of those others need to engage respectfully with the pro-lifers that their pro-lifer beliefs not be imposed on pro-choicers who wish to be able to choose to have an abortion.

There is probably nothing more innocent, more helpless and more in need of protection than a fetus, and there is strong impulse that another human being must be prohibited from killing a fetus inside that other human being's body.

This impulse needs to be considered in the context that there are many others who do not have so strong an impulse and that a democratically elected state legislature may reflect a prevailing preference that a decision to kill a fetus belongs to the mother (possibly joined in by one or more others such as the father) in whose body the fetus is. In other word's, a pro-lifers' beliefs, which pro-lifers can carry into effect for themselves, cannot override a democratically arrived determination that those beliefs cannot be imposed universally on others and others may choose otherwise.

While a fetus is innocent, helpless and needing protection from being killed, there are other innocent, helpless living things in need of protection which do not get protection. Animals are slaughtered and suffer physical pains to provide human sustenance. They are also killed and put through great physical pain in medical experimentation. Animals are further killed for sport.

One is entitled to have the belief that "sanctity of life" applies only to human beings and not to animals. Not everyone has exactly that belief, and it ought to be recognized that there is some relativism in throwing out "sanctity of life."

Further, society is wrestling with whether assisted suicide should be allowed, or whether democratically enacted laws (under "sanctity of life" principles) can prohibit a person from choosing assisted suicide for the person.

While "sanctity of life" may be asserted for a fetus, it is also the case that in many situations fetuses can be borne and in the course of living be helpless in the experience off great sufferings,  deprivations, and pain as to which society as a whole washes its hands of, and as to which society leaves responsibility on, say, a mother, including a mother who is at risk of being unable to provide for her fetus if it is born. If society is going to wash its hands of so much later on regarding a fetus that gets born, the "sanctity of life" impulse to dictate to the mother on whom the responsibility will be placed might be deserving of being tempered.

D. Conclusion
Those who say it is intolerable for them to live in a society in which others may choose abortion tend to adopt litmus test politics, those litmus test politics contribute significantly to the impaired, polarized condition of Congress and our government, and that is strong reason for such persons to be willing to allow a democratically elected state legislature to pass laws governing abortion. While "sanctity of life" applied to a fetus is compelling, there is a basis to reach a view that someone else is allowed to choose to kill the fetus in that other person's body.


Update 11/28/17







[possibly to be continued]


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)