The uggabugga abortion compromise:Looking over an interesting post about the potential outlawing of abortion in several states (at
Pandagon), we thought the following compromise might be in order:
You can outlaw abortion, but you must also outlaw genetic testing for fatherhood.
We're for tradition, and men, if your wife is pregnant, without abortion and without a paternity test, you get to pay for the little critter. Food and clothing and college. And don't gripe if the kid happens to look like the lothario down the street. That's the way it was back in the good old days before all those pesky medical procedures and tests were available.
Now gentlemen, are you sure you want to outlaw abortion?
posted by Quiddity at 1/11/2006 12:53:00 AM
If you can pour salt on a bird's tail, you can catch it. If you can control women, you control a whole society. This is a principle that Islamists and evangelicals well understand.
Acknowledged: the birth of a baby can lead to some very unpretty situations.
But it may be helpful to actually try to understand the point of view of those that would outlaw abortion, rather than merely criticize straw men.
There are quite a few intelligent and educated people out there that realize your horror scenario and STILL oppose abortion. Why? Well if we eliminate the ignorant, the superstitious and the stupid, it follows that there may be a rational reason to reject abortion, even in the face of threats such as the one described above.
A belief structure that allows situational ethics is what Bush (Despite dubious claims to Christianity) uses to defend torture and wiretapping. It is also used by pro-choice people to defend ending the life of a developing baby because a medical procedure to end life is justifiable in certain circumstances under situational ethics.
If there is a rational reason given as to why abortion of life (remember, pro-choice opponents describe themselves as pro-life, and their self-description must also be accepted if any dialog is to take place) is not acceptable under any circumstances, then pro-choice defenders cannot defend their position without honestly examining the rational and submitting their own belief to counter-scrutiny. Of course, many will simply not want to do that. It is easier to believe something irrational than to be prepared to really examine one's beliefs and risk having to change them. It's a two-edged knife that cuts both ways.
