|
|
Persophone:
but isn't it, Nick, not that *you* don't see a just-fertilized egg as a tiny human or where that category becomes accurate, but that the pro-life side does pretty clearly? And that the pro-choice side tends not to address this tiny human idea, but tends to abstract to choice?
The reason pro-choice advocates often abstract is that many of their opponents begin from the position you mention: that a human is created the instant an egg is fertilised. That's still an open question to me. When last I looked, science was unable to answer, and even theology was hazy on the subject of when souls come in to the equation.
This issue is deadlocked, and we could spend our lives arguing (a waste by the standards of either side). I think the artificial womb has the potential to break the deadlock in the majority of cases. What do you think?
Haus:
But, Nick, the idea of somebody else playing with your caged baby universe bring you out in hives, but the idea of somebody else playing with your uncaged baby baby doesn't...
I also said, if you recall, that once the universe existed, I had no right to order its destruction. I find the parallel intriguing as a marker of my own thinking. I'd thank you if you hadn't so clearly intended this as a snotty putdown. Do you think we could at least restrict our insults to the matter in hand?
That's absolutely your decision. Which is only weakened by the idea that disagreeing with the argument that a state cannot forcibly alter the ratio of adopters to adoptees is somehow connected to being *racist*...
Haus, I'm sure you know that's nonsense. But just in case you actually think that's what I was trying to do, I'll talk you through it, all right? It's one of your favourite tricks.
1. Your argument: "The system as it is cannot cope with what you propose. We'll have to junk your new idea."
2. Another context where that argument might have been used, where its fatuousness is more apparent (Mandela).
3. Your response: "Mandela isn't relevant, and shame on you for invoking so tender an issue in your trivial defense of your indefensible position."
Haus, I've said repeatedly that this is not a panacea. I do think that it has the potential to reshape or obviate the debate on abortion, because it presents a powerful alternative, if one were to deploy it in that way. And yes, it would require a radical reshaping of social services and possibly of our society.
Gosh, what a terrible thing to suggest, especially in a forum under the 'Revolution' heading. Excuse me whilst I flagellate myself.
How about if I mention the Nazis, then we can short-circuit the whole thread?
Be my guest. It's going to be mentioned at some point in the public debate, so it's a relevant topic to discuss here if you're interested.
Women may have motivations outside your situation model. They may not. I humbly suggest that you accept the possibility.
You've never done anything humbly in your life. However, if anyone wants to bring up these motivations, then we can talk about them. And we could weight the ethical pros and cons of these desires against the 'abortion is murder' POV or the pro-choice POV in all its guises. Should be fascinating, actually, because it would provide a yardstick of exactly how comfortable pro-choice thinkers are with their position. The possibility of another set of concerns is exactly what this debate needs - options rather than trenches.
And, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm not selling this. I'm suggesting it's inevitable.
Persephone:
I would not choose my identity to be so altered, however abstractly.
Your identity alters all the time, of course. And the experience of chosing not to alter your identity in this way will redefine it significantly.
But this statement just increases my desire to look at the 'Body Fictive' again in the light of this debate. |
|
|