babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » in cahoots   » 'Yours is a war we cannot support'

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: 'Yours is a war we cannot support'
Wisechoice
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10563

posted 21 February 2006 04:34 AM      Profile for Wisechoice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hopefully, no one has started a thread on this yet. If they have, my apologies...

I found this article very moving. To me, the abortion debate, like so many others now, is both too shrill and too removed from the issues (and virtually irrelevant for most Canadians as a political question). This article, to the contrary, was written clearly, with passion and great relevance, about the reasons we should support abortion and the moral ends to keep in sight when we think/talk/make decisions about it.

It even goes a step further than reasons and ends, to point out a debating strategy that I hadn't heard before - arguing self-defence. Amazingly, it's one that I figured out myself a few months ago. Like most people, I was conflicted about abortion, and this is the concept that clinched it for me.

The debates linked are great starting points, but this piece blows them out of the water!

[ 21 February 2006: Message edited by: Wisechoice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Thrasymachus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5747

posted 21 February 2006 06:05 AM      Profile for Thrasymachus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've found Jim Wallis's arguments to be fairly interesting on this point. He is pro-life but he argues that there is common ground between many pro-lifers and pro-choice groups. Namely that pro-lifers have been wrongly fixated on criminalizing abortion when perhaps they should be focused on reducing demand through poverty reduction and other supports for mothers and/or families.

(edited to add: I'd like to comment on the article that apparently refutes this position but my computer is screwed up so anyhow, I'd be interested to see what people think of pro lifers who support pro choice policy)

[ 21 February 2006: Message edited by: Thrasymachus ]


From: South of Hull | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 21 February 2006 07:21 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
I think reducing abortion abortion demand is a more realistic (and moral) goal than trying to criminalize abortion, which in Canada at least is clearly not on the agenda.

What I fear will happen instead though, is defunding of abortion as a sop to the anti-abortion forces.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 February 2006 08:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is the article they're talking about.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 21 February 2006 10:13 AM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Great article. In particular, this point:

quote:
It makes about as much sense to say we should reduce abortions as it does to say we must reduce appendectomies. We don't morally judge appendectomy or the person who needs one, or try and restrict access to the procedure, even though an appendectomy itself is unpleasant and painful and represents a "failure" of our bodies - just like abortion and most other medical procedures. When people need an appendectomy, they deserve unquestioned, immediate access to one. Likewise, once a woman is pregnant, it is too late to "reduce" her abortion, we can only provide it. If we can work to actually prevent the need for some appendectomies, fine, but it's absurd and off-base to assign moral status to appendectomies and set a goal of zero appendectomies, or even a goal of reducing them substantially when that is difficult and unrealistic. Likewise with abortion.

So well put. I need to get to work now, but suffice to say, I'm very happy to see this addressed here.


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 February 2006 10:22 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I find it hard to believe we are talking about abortion. This is a U.S. debate, not a Canadian one -- notwithstanding that someone apparently from Vancouver chose to respond to some U.S. articles. Please let's not give credibility to the crazies by even hinting that Canadian society has not long since turned this page and moved on.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 21 February 2006 01:49 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
I don't think abortions and apendectomies are a fair comparison. There's nothing that can be done to reduce the need for apendectomies. A more apt comparison would be a heart bypass. Of course no one who needs either an abortion or a heart bypass should be denied one. But it's unquestionably better to have never needed one in the first place - cost, complications, after effects, etc.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 21 February 2006 04:45 PM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Please let's not give credibility to the crazies by even hinting that Canadian society has not long since turned this page and moved on.

The crazies haven't given up. And they've become more sophisticated. USian and Cdn society, for better or worse, are highly integrated culturally and economically. In addition to reasons of solidarity for USian women, we need to respond and indeed pre-empt anti-choice discourse, to safeguard our freedoms in Canada.


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Un-electable
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11986

posted 21 February 2006 06:57 PM      Profile for Un-electable     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Here is the article they're talking about.

Yo! Michelle!! Guess who?

Battlestar Galactica Rules!!!

I'm wasting this account, just to show you that I've got way more to use. Hahahahahahaah. Why you don't institute some sort of verification baffles me, esp since ya get all cranky when trolls like me show up. Hahahahahahaha.

You can't silence me. Like a bad burger, I'll just keep coming back!!

There's just something about bugging Leftist traitors that I find soooooooooooooo amusing.

Oh, way to back down with Reason! I guess he showed you who wears the pants, eh?

Gotta go bug the losers at Free Dominion now.

Ta ta!


From: Northern Hemisphere | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 21 February 2006 07:03 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know it's to be expected that from time to time people will come to this site and post for the sole purpose of trying to rile people up. But is it too much to ask that they do so in a style superior to that of the average three-year-old?

And this particular example isn't just immature, it's so predictable, so BORING. Grow up, and come back when you've at least learned to do a halfway decent job of trolling.

[ 21 February 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca