Agnostic.com

8 3

An 'adult' lifetime, to date, spent contemplating many highly and emotionally disputed issues has convinced me of something. That few to none of the enduring, merry-go-round issues haunting us for decades are really true to their limited labeling.

When extremism takes over an issue, the first thing the wing-nuts do is try making themselves and their selfish motives appear to be positive and benign in order to attract sympathies of non-committed others. It is done Madison Avenue stye, with clever terms that narrow the frame of reference and corral the sycophantic cattle.

These are the birthplaces and birth parents of counterfeit terms like 'Pro-Choice' and 'Pro-Life'. The abortion merry-go-round certainly isn't the only disingenuous political battlefield existing, but one must begin somewhere. Actually, by examining and expanding on the nature of this issue, others are of necessity brought in because of relatedness.

I'd like for once, if possible, to have exchanges of ideas - real ideas- originating with independent thinkers regarding the topic. This necessarily EXCLUDES any who view themselves as minions of the pro-choice/pro-life herds. If they had anything new to contribute the issue would have been shortly settled a half century ago when I first learned of it. If you have a religious/ideologically based 'side' regarding this issue, please don't contribute to the conversation because it has already been heard ad nauseum.

Who has something different to say?

Silver1wun 7 Feb 23
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

8 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

When does the life energy ie "soul" occupy the container ie the body? Where once it was believed that tiny microscopic fully formed babies, were in the ejaculate. The Japanese count the 9 month human gestation in how thay calcuklate age. For me, a zygote, an embryo, a 30-50 day fetus is not a conscious entity. Our body & our mind is our most private of realms. Lest the government dictate forced term pregnancy we must protect Roe vs Wade tho it will be amended in the future as science outpaces law. Late term, as in post womb viability, will have to adjust accordingly. It is a difficult dilema with no one correct answer. As a nation which values individualality, we must respect a compromise. Renegotiating Roe v Wade will happen as states rights take the fore. Just as the government can not force a Jehova's Witness a transfusion, we can not force a term pregnancy in the early stages of cellulat devision.

0

I'm never quite sure what 'extremism' is? These days tend to think it's when an an idea or concept is a step too far for its intended recipient.
For example, not my circus not my monkeys but they should have some serious gun control in the U.S.. Living in the UK that doesn't seem an extreme idea but for a large section of the US population that's pretty extreme.
I personally think that personal wealth beyond a certain point is obscene and should not be allowed by a caring society when so many are living in deprivation or poverty. That's generally taken to be pretty extreme.
Abortion/birth control. In such an already over crowded world? In a world where the vast majority of child care falls to women and girls. It's a no brainer

0

I speak my mind, always, reflecting my observations, experience and research on many topics, and very much appreciate the same. Many, if not most political friends aren’t sure about me.. feeling as though, if you’re not with us on every subject, you’re not part of the team…

Most people react with gut level feelings; incapable of doing the research or too focused on other issues in life to have gathered their own facts, they parrot. The ..regressives are prime examples, mainly due to the moneyed media propaganda aimed at them, along with their narrow mindedness to begin with. All you’ll hear is ‘their party line,’ cuz that’s all they’ve got..

Seems the older you get, the more things you miss … one I miss a lot was ‘manning the booth’ for my prefered political party at a multitude of summer fairs within a regressive (meaning, they’d return to yesteryear at every opportunity) US county. Had our party chair marvel once, asking, “How’d you do that?” This wasn’t my answer, but it was by speaking with them, not at them, and finding common ground. The fears and concerns of some are generally shared by most, speak to those.

Another problem is complexity, some, with very limited educations, can only comfortably grasp soundbite slogans. I’ve listened to AM hate radio, though quickly tiring after hearing the same propaganda slogan repeated ad nauseum… But, come face to face with a regular listener, and they’ve got it down. It’s so much easier to confuse and incite than to educate.

So, after spending decades of watching every documentary or science program I could find ..if occasionally scanning the channels to see ‘what everyone else was watching,’ how can you expect to bring that majority up to speed on the history they’re so unaware of repeating? If you (attempt to) explain it, you’re ‘talking down to them.’ If they understand you, they’ve ‘been warned’ about people and ideas like yours.. At ‘the booth,’ sometimes 5 or 10 minutes of conversation would lead somewhere ...as 200 others walked by with no interest..

But, they all get to vote! And theirs will cancel yours.. Then you’ll get to explain to your children and the world why your nation’s doing this, or that … and how hard you worked to keep that from happening..

And the lack of political savvy.. Yes, every damn political wanna be presents themselves as ‘going to do this,’ ‘or that!’ ...knowing damn well, if they explained they’d ‘propose this,’ ‘or that’ -- and unless it gets through committee, is deemed legal, is presented to the entire chamber, passed; through the equivalent committee in another branch - sent to another floor vote & passed -- then sent on to the executive branch ..to possibly be struck down by the judicial branch … and most likely it’ll never happen ..and little changes - so people label politicians as “liers” - where do you start?

I love learning from people not belonging to a team. I may promote one, cuz I feel it’s right on 70% of the issues, but where they’re not - I speak up. They don’t like it, and we’ve had some very public knock-down drag-out ..discussions on several topics, but what gives anyone the right to promote something they don’t actually believe…

Good question, with potential answers enough to fill a good sized library 🙂

Varn Level 8 Feb 24, 2018
0

"let's be academic about this, no need to get emotional" he says from the safety of his wealthy male whiteness.

0

I particularly enjoy how you off handedly dismiss the rights of women over their own bodies. Kudos to you for being so brave,knowing that it's an issue you'll never have to personally face. You sound like middle class white kid claiming slavery wasn't ALL bad.

Like the language and scope imitations created by the term 'abortion', confining this issue to 'rights of women to..' also unnecessarily limits the frame. What is called rights of women is actually part of the broader concept of an individual's bodily sovereignty.

We are all bodily sovereigns and the bill of Rights sought to codify many basic rights pertaining thereto. I think part of the path to solving or reconciling politically charged differences to be expanding language to include relatedness and improve accuracy and flexibility.

For example, discarding the term abortion entirely or at least as part of the discussion could remove some of the 'charge'. It is also a partial and limiting term applied too broadly to what could be more accurately called pregnancy termination. Every pregnancy terminates in some way; most ideally, when wanted, go full term. Other terminations can occur before they even have a chance to begin and the mother isn't even aware. Some terminations are called 'miscarriages' when they spontaneously occur before birth viability. Others when assisted, include but aren't limited to abortion as we know it. Sometimes term has been reached and prolonged and labor will be induced.

Lets look at the Constitution. It, and the courts have functioned to optimize protection of civil rights not spelled out in the Bill of Rights, but ruled on in the spirit of it; in support of equality under the law many times or women would not have had additional support such as recognition of their right of full political participation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related voting rights laws reinforcing equal treatment might never have been passed.

Why not trust the document with regard to how it defines citizenship and how that definition relates reasonably to pregnancy termination? One can understand and support bodily sovereignty 100%, while bringing some reason into what ways society and it's laws might have legitimate purview at some point in both it's interests and those of the free individual.

It would be very 'doable' in an environment of respect for the individual and reasoned consideration of the interests of society in the process of birth.

2

Isn't life most like a pendulum, it swings one way on social issues of the day and from out of no where, it swings in the other direction. Case in point, I never saw this trump thing coming! Yet somehow, I know we (not me personally) have been here before! Societies...?

3

Thank you for having the gonads to bring this up the way you did. It's such an emotional issue that it has indeed been difficult to discuss it without pushing buttons.

I see a number of things going on with the issue.

  1. The zealous religious right oppose it because life is a gift from god and sacred.
  2. The moderate religious right abhor the violence of dismembering a half-formed fetus.
  3. The liberal left do not want the state to dictate what a woman can do with her body.
  4. The militant feminine rights movement support abortion up to full term.
  5. Philosophers make an argument that the fetus is not owned by the woman carrying it.
  6. The moderates are agnostic about the issue, saying it's the woman's choice.

It all has to do with values, so from a nihilistic viewpoint, it's all moot. Nihilists also do not oppose the death penalty, and actually support a culling of the human race. Do we want to adopt their playbook? Our thoughts on that may evolve as we overpopulate earth.

Important point: this issue cannot be separated from euthanasia, as there are too many parallels. (They shoot horses, don't they? 😉 )

So, holy shit, without being on one side of the issue or the other, what we have is a minefield of opposing viewpoints. I guess whoever has the biggest stick (influentially) wins!

In the book "Freakonomics", the authors make a good case for abortion, in that it has dramatically reduced unwanted pregnancies in America, reducing street crime simply because of population control in low income urban centers across America. I'm good with that.

What is disjointed to me is the value society places on a baby moments after birth, but not moments before. They're basically just following the legal model, where "personhood" is ascribed after birth, but not before. Therefore before birth it's not murder; after birth it is.

I do think there is reasonable policy that government can implement to regulate the extremes from happening, cuz how I see it, like any other moral and ethical issue of such magnitude, there are reasonable AND unreasonable people, both wanting a voice. Anyone in any capacity as a guardian of society should only want what is best for the greater good. Just my opinion.

6

Some of that falls on the rest of us. 1/3 voted for this mess, 1/3 voted for the other mess, and 1/3 stayed home.

Vincente Fox said 75% stayed home. But then he can be a bit bombastic.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:28280
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.