| |
|
Can you argue about the morals of abortion without situating the whole question in terms of the history of patriarchal control of women's bodies, sexualities, and reproductive capabilities?
I think it may depend in part on what you mean by "situated". The question, to many here, is received in countries where the right to abortion has been established for some time and many of us can't remember a time when that was different. The legality and the rights that go with abortion are already part of the landscape and the argument that women have a right to control their bodies has been largely won. Now, one might want to argue that a historical perspective is nevertheless necessary to bring to the forefront. Maybe. But I don't see why that has to be the case (given that in a short post, a great deal of simplification is going on). And if you are arguing that it is the only perspective worth considering, then that rather proscribes the terms of the debate, doesn't it?
On what basis does the flat psuedoneutral perspective get to be the one that asks the question?
I'm not sure what you are asking here. Perhaps you are complaining that a presumption toward the correctness of a dispassionate *tone* is stifling? I'm not sure I see that happening, if that is what you mean.
What is being elided when the (apparently) key question becomes the largely abstract, quasi-scientific one of at exactly which point the thing in a womb is 'actually' a (potential) human being?
The opposing view that that it isn't a key consideration? Surely that thread has a bunch of opinions, each of which presents a particular point of view highlighting a aspect of the debate. I don't really see any uniformity at play in the thread itself.
Doesn't any question posed as 'Make a moral case for...' beg the question, in that it has already made a decision about where the burden of proof lies - and this decision is based on a social concensus that has a history, a history that is necessarily written out of the question?
Yes, it does. But equally, you can't ignore history by supposing that the question is *not* a moral one and never asking it, can you? I suppose I am speaking from the position of a person who sees the question as, essentially, valid. I think your criticism does apply to some questions - what have Muslims ever contributed to our society?, for instance - but even then, I'd probably want to engage in it if I thought it were being asked in good faith. Hmmm. Or maybe not.
Is that what you are really saying, Crunchy? That you don't think it is valid to have a moral debate on abortion and/or the death penalty since the people who hold opinions on the other side to you are beyond communicability? Certainly, I think that that can sometimes characterise moral debate and abortion in particular. |
|
|
