[RD] Abortion, once again

[Lexicus]

I'll take this up since my friend declined. I don't see it as a "perfect be the enemy of the good" argument, although I understand why you characterized it that way.... rather I see it as identifying and rejecting a "whataboutism"-based argument. It's similar to rejecting the a "if you are going to complain about Ukraine and Palestine, you have to care equally about Sudan, or Myanmar" argument.

I'd agree that "saving human lives", as a cause is going to be subject to a lot more counterpoints than, "discouraging/disincentivizing women from having extramarital sex".

It literally uses the phrase "if we can't be perfect".
Schlaufuchs' argument was not whataboutist in any case. Whataboutism specifically refers to deflecting criticism of your conduct by bringing up other things that others have done; an argument that brings up other actions taken by the same person to point out that that person is a hypocrite is a different thing (it may or may not be a tu quoque but it isn't whataboutism).

 

[Sommerswerd]

It literally uses the phrase "if we can't be perfect".
Schlaufuchs' argument was not whataboutist in any case. Whataboutism specifically refers to deflecting criticism of your conduct by bringing up other things that others have done; an argument that brings up other actions taken by the same person to point out that that person is a hypocrite is a different thing (it may or may not be a tu quoque but it isn't whataboutism).

OK fair enough, "tu quoque" seems like it could be the better/correct term to define what I was intending. In my defense, I did give an example for illustrative purposes. In any case the point stands.

Your focus on the specific term(s) is missing the intent behind the argument(s). Of course its not your fault that I used the wrong term.

So going back to the original argument, I think focusing on the word "perfect" was missing the point of the argument. Like I said... I get why you characterized it that way, I just think it was missing the point.

I've brought this issue up previously in the other context I referenced. People pick their causes and they don't/can't generally care equally about every similar or tangentially related issue. Caring about "human life" in the context of abortion does not necessarily require the same sentiment in the context of the death penalty, and/or every single other instance where human life is destroyed and/or jeopardized.

As an aside... its not the same obviously, but it reminds me a little of the "All Lives Matter" argument.

 

[sophie]

This isn’t about an equality of concern though. If someone were to bring up Armenia or Sudan or Myanmar in response to a comment I made about Palestine, like my position on those atrocities would be consistent with my position on Palestine. I might question why you’re bringing up Sudan all of a sudden, but it’s not like I would say “yeah but what’s happening in Sudan is good, actually.”

My point in bringing it up is not to highlight a lack of equality of concern, but rather a lack of moral consistency. The people who go on about the moral heinousness of abortion generally have in fact diametrically opposite positions on questions like eating sapient animals or capital punishment (i.e. not just “I don’t care about cattle farming” but “I think factory farming is good, actually, and in fact now that you’re telling me cows and pigs can feel and understand what is happening to them, I’m going to eat even more meat). And from this inconsistency, we might infer a true motive (misogyny) which just so happens to have stronger explanatory power for a moral consistency between anti-abortion and a lot of their other explicitly professed moral and political positions.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

This video popped up in one of my FB groups, and I am posting it to ask if anyone here can verify that what the host is talking about is really happening (warning; there's a bit of language that's NSFW):

I'm getting the impression that there are basically anti-abortion groups lying in wait to catch pregnant women who might be (gasp!) trying to leave the state because they might be leaving to have an abortion.

If there's any truth to this, I really hope some way is found to put a stop to it. The right-wing insanity in Texas tends to filter up to Alberta, and we don't need any more of it than we already have. According to the Canada Health Act, health care is supposedly accessible everywhere - every province and territory. Like so many things about Canada, it's a myth.

 

[Voidwalkin]

It’s about controlling and punishing women.

I usually have a hard time sensing this in the wild. I live in a country area, in a red state, I love a political jabber, and I'm pro-choice. I've had the debate, numerous times.

Usually, I sense my opponents genuinely belief life is sacred. It's human, a baby, and that's about as sacred as life gets to this crowd.

edit: I would add that if punishing women were a key motivator, many of my opponents would simply say so, I'm afraid.

 

[Voidwalkin]

My point in bringing it up is not to highlight a lack of equality of concern, but rather a lack of moral consistency.

This is thought provoking. Don't agree though.

I think there might be a moral consistency there.

human life is sacred - unless sanctity is forfeited by sufficient moral deviancy

Cow is not human, not sacred
Murderers life ceases to be sacred by the act murder
In an instance the baby is conceived unwillingly, baby has not done wrong, still sacred, still sacred

Poverty may be where there is a lack of consistency, but even here, I feel most conservatives do feel bad for poor kids. At least until they near adulthood, where increasingly, the poverty is presumed to stem from lack of good morals. Poor adults are presumed to be of bad moral standing, though this is effected by various factors, religion, race, the usual suspects

 

[Valka D'Ur]

feel most conservatives do feel bad for poor kids.

Uh-huh. I guess that's why so many conservative politicians vote against breakfast/lunch programs in schools where a significant number of kids come from low-income families, and (in my province) fired the educational assistants during the pandemic, as it never occurred to them that learning-disabled kids need help no matter where they're doing classes and their parents are neither trained in such things, nor can most of them afford to hire professionals themselves.

If conservative politicians genuinely wanted to help poor kids, they'd do something about housing that's actually useful. There's no point in building houses that cost 500k if the parents don't make anywhere close to the minimum required to afford such a place, and what they need is an affordable apartment that isn't a dump in a crime-ridden neighborhood.

In my observations, most conservatives are pro-fetus. That in no way means they are pro-children.

 

[Arwon]

I

edit: I would add that if punishing women were a key motivator, many of my opponents would simply say so, I'm afraid.

Here's the thing: they do. That's why there's all the stuff against contraception and sex education, too.

Edit: it's also why all the people, no let's just say Americans the contemporary anti-abortion movement basically a protestant American pathology... it's why a lot of the Americans who are into banning and punishing abortion spend no time trying to create a generous and unconditional welfare support system for unwed/single pregnant women and women in poverty, and why they're not uncritically and happily in favour of such supports. They are in fact often are the same ones actively demonising welfare recipients, the infamous "welfare queen" stereotype was invented by and for this milieu.

If it were truly about loving foetuses and the creation of new life, rather than just culturally viewing pregnancy as a necessary and important consequence of unsanctioned, uncontrolled sex, the rest of the politics and outlook and culture of these groups would look a lot different. If half the rhetoric about supporting babies and life and stuff were true, the United States would be making life as easy as possible for young mothers in difficult situations. It would have the most generous family welfare policies, childcare policies, and parental leave policies in the western world rather than the least. The place would be viscerally and instinctively pro--natalist.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Americans the contemporary anti-abortion movement basically a protestant American pathology... it's why a lot of the Americans who are into banning and punishing abortion spend no time trying to create a generous and unconditional welfare support system for unwed/single pregnant women and women in poverty, and why they're not uncritically and happily in favour of such supports.

Still can't see it.

They spend no time creating generous social welfare programs because that's viewed as punishing virtuous hard working people unfairly.

I doubt many think of the consequences of their lack of support, and many are unwilling to consider that perhaps poverty is, in fact, not a consequence of immorality. But these considerations come after the initial perceived unfairness, and so aren't, in my estimation, the animating factor.

 

[Samson]

Still can't see it.

They spend no time creating generous social welfare programs because that's viewed as punishing virtuous hard working people unfairly.

I doubt many think of the consequences of their lack of support, and many are unwilling to consider that perhaps poverty is, in fact, not a consequence of immorality. But these considerations come after the initial perceived unfairness, and so aren't, in my estimation, the animating factor.

This is the point. They are willing to put taxes on "virtuous hard working people" above foetuses/childrens lives, but not women's health or bodily autonomy. That sure seems like moral inconsistency.

There is a lot of taxation for helping the poor in the bible.

 

[Arwon]

Still can't see it.

They spend no time creating generous social welfare programs because that's viewed as punishing virtuous hard working people unfairly.

I doubt many think of the consequences of their lack of support, and many are unwilling to consider that perhaps poverty is, in fact, not a consequence of immorality. But these considerations come after the initial perceived unfairness, and so aren't, in my estimation, the animating factor.

There's really some posts that can only be made by an American hey

(It's not really a surprise you can't clearly see the ideology you're completely marinated in)

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh I like the cooking metaphor there.

Though I'd have said I can "smell" them rather than "see" them. The whole olfactory fatigue thing when you're around a stench for a while.

 

[Cutlass]

Still can't see it.

They spend no time creating generous social welfare programs because that's viewed as punishing virtuous hard working people unfairly.

I doubt many think of the consequences of their lack of support, and many are unwilling to consider that perhaps poverty is, in fact, not a consequence of immorality. But these considerations come after the initial perceived unfairness, and so aren't, in my estimation, the animating factor.

And yet those same people do, as a major part of their policies. punish virtuous hard working people unfairly. There's almost perfect overlap between the anti-abortion movement and those who oppose the minimum wage. Those that fight to prevent people from having unions to join. Those that fight to keep wages as low as possible and jobs as dangerous as possible. Those that fight to ruin public schools. Those that fight to outsource public jobs to the private sector, which punishes virtuous hard working people unfairly in several ways at once, including higher taxes. Those that fight to keep pollution bad to ruin their health. Those that fight to deny access to health care for families and children. Those who fight to deny retirement to people who have worked their whole lives.

There is no part of the conservative program which is not designed and intended to make the lives of virtuous hard working people worse.

 

[Voidwalkin]

This is the point. They are willing to put taxes on "virtuous hard working people" above foetuses/childrens lives, but not women's health or bodily autonomy. That sure seems like moral inconsistency.

There is a lot of taxation for helping the poor in the bible.

There's really some posts that can only be made by an American hey

(It's not really a surprise you can't clearly see the ideology you're completely marinated in)

*shrugs*
I see it. I can't change it. The roots of tradition run deep.

America has a weak group identity. Individualism is likely stronger here than anywhere else on Earth. Taking care of the poor isn't part of what many believe the social contract to be here. That, and just about everything else, is left to the individual.

From the outside I'm sure it does seem like moral inconsistency, but the people who believe poverty is a direct consequence of someone's morality don't see it that way. They don't view themselves as hateful.

I'm a working class guy. Most of the people who passionately oppose welfare are the ones who'd benefit from it. I know a woman with 3 kids who's had to base her whole life around that fact. Stuck in an unwanted relationship with a stay at home dad, job she hates but keeps to pay bills, has personally had an abortion, still thinks it's wrong, and still thinks the very welfare programs that'd be of great value to her are immoral. Just really genuinely believed that it's up to the individuals work ethic; I could never change her view, arguing from both the utilitarian and ethical perspectives.

This traditional thought makes us slow to adapt to any technological or economic change that requires action on the group level, if we can at all. It's a paralyzer.

 

[Samson]

From the outside I'm sure it does seem like moral inconsistency, but the people who believe poverty is a direct consequence of someone's morality don't see it that way. They don't view themselves as hateful.

This logic does not work for kids, which is what we were talking about.

 

[Voidwalkin]

This logic does not work for kids, which is what we were talking about.

There isn't a presumption that it's every member of society's duty to provide for someone else's kids in America. That's presumed to be the sole responsibility of the parents.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's weird to me that they're such a topic of conversation/timing. None of "those" have engaged here in ages. Shadowboxing, eh?

 

[sophie]

Still can't see it.

I'm a guy.

mhm

 

[Cutlass]

*shrugs*
I see it. I can't change it. The roots of tradition run deep.

America has a weak group identity. Individualism is likely stronger here than anywhere else on Earth. Taking care of the poor isn't part of what many believe the social contract to be here. That, and just about everything else, is left to the individual.

From the outside I'm sure it does seem like moral inconsistency, but the people who believe poverty is a direct consequence of someone's morality don't see it that way. They don't view themselves as hateful.

I'm a working class guy. Most of the people who passionately oppose welfare are the ones who'd benefit from it. I know a woman with 3 kids who's had to base her whole life around that fact. Stuck in an unwanted relationship with a stay at home dad, job she hates but keeps to pay bills, has personally had an abortion, still thinks it's wrong, and still thinks the very welfare programs that'd be of great value to her are immoral. Just really genuinely believed that it's up to the individuals work ethic; I could never change her view, arguing from both the utilitarian and ethical perspectives.

This traditional thought makes us slow to adapt to any technological or economic change that requires action on the group level, if we can at all. It's a paralyzer.

So what you're saying is that America is inherently anti children. And the most anti children people of all Americans are the anti abortion voters.

 

[Lexicus]

From the outside I'm sure it does seem like moral inconsistency, but the people who believe poverty is a direct consequence of someone's morality don't see it that way. They don't view themselves as hateful.

Of course they don't, no one views themselves as hateful. The revelation that conservatives have layers of ideology preventing them from seeing the bare truth of their own beliefs is not exactly a surprise nor is it an original insight.