FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: TheReasonator on April 21, 2013, 04:49:05 am
-
What if the pro-choice movement had been absorbed into the Republican Party and identified with conservative ideology and the pro-life movement into the Democrat Party and identified with liberal ideology?
Let's say the religious Right cited scripture claiming that it meant one gets one's soul only at birth and so was against abortion laws because they recognized a different standard of "life" than their God. Then let's say some biologists said that in fact science shows life as an individual organism begins at conception. Of course in real life most biologists will say "but that's not the same question as personhood" but if the abortion debate had became embedded in religion v. science in that particular way would they have been quick to point that out or would they have just kept asserting how science proves that fetuses and embryos are in fact forms of life?
If it happened that way the pro-life movement would be constantly quoting biologists, and small government conservative atheists and also who want to be pro-choice but don't want to endorse religion over science would likely originate the argument that even though it is technically life that it's still not a person. And then the pro-life biologists and liberals following them would decry this as a dangerous argument and relate it to the Holocaust. People have made similar arguments today but in this context the clash of ideological forces would favor the sides to adopt narratives that lead to liberal pro-life and conservative pro-choice sides.
Anti-abortion rhetoric would be spun into a wider "life agenda" rhetoric encouraging social programs, universal health care, early childcare, opposition to the death penalty. A key part of the identity of being a "liberal" would be the emphasis on human life integrated into a broader concept of social welfare and progress.
The conservative pro-choice side would emphasize that it goes against religious tradition to be pro-life and that the government shouldn't be meddling in such private affairs. Liberal emphasis on abortion-related health problems would lead them not only to rebutting them but calling this "nannystatism".
Imagine yourself in such a reality. Everything else is basically the same. Conservatives are still anti-gay, they want creationism taught in public schools, some even still oppose birth control(which the pro-life liberals would if at all only be against it if it posed a chance of killing it after conception took place) but all are fine with abortion. Abortion has still been legalized and liberals are up in arms(figuratively liberals still tend to be against guns and will often tie that point in with abortion) about it.
Imagine your own development in such an environment and what your opinions on abortion would likely have become. Would it be the same? I am pro-choice and have been pro-choice but I think I would've been pro-life up until now or even up until some time after now, since at this point in my life I've been questioning a lot of what I believe and where it came from.
-
Not this shit again... ::)
-
/me sits down and grabs popcorn
-
For Christ's sake spell the goddamn party right. It's not fucking hard. DemocratIC. DemocratIC. CHRIST.
-
I could easily see christian fundamentalist being pro-choice.
It would be no problem to use bible or other christian sources to defend pro-choice side. According to some interpretations any unbabtised babies and the unborn automatically go to heaven so I don't doubt that there could be fundies who would support abortion.
Since that would send the featus into heaven while being born into a family unable to support the child might lead them astray.
There would probably be shady christian abortion clinics offering abortions to families of other religions or atheist in order to "save" the fetuses.
I have harder time believing that doctors and scientists would be pro-life the way that you define it.
For Christ's sake spell the goddamn party right. It's not fucking hard. DemocratIC. DemocratIC. CHRIST.
What is your problem?
-
Nope. Dont see why it would change my views. Since I pretty much come from the neutral planets
-
It wouldn't change anything for me. My mum is liberal, but she thinks abortion is wrong. I still ended up becoming pro-choice though.
Also, I don't religiously follow one particular political party, so I wouldn't have a problem with accepting some policies and rejecting others.
-
For Christ's sake spell the goddamn party right. It's not fucking hard. DemocratIC. DemocratIC. CHRIST.
What is your problem?
I have a thing about people deliberately mispelling things for derogatory purposes.
Next time someone misspells the DemocratIC Party, I'm calling their party the Fuckface Party.
-
I could easily see christian fundamentalist being pro-choice.
It's easier to see than you think, since they pretty much didn't give a damn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion_in_the_United_States#Role_in_the_abortion_debate) until Roe v Wade.
Also, the pro-choice position has nothing to do with "ensoulment" or "personhood", but the simple fact that a woman is an autonomous human being and should not be legally compelled to give up her bodily autonomy for the sake of another against her will. In order for the sides to truly be switched, you'd have to switch the attitudes on feminism and the role of women in society, too. Doing so would necessarily switch the position on gays, as well, since it's not really possible to simultaneously hold the position that "feminine = lesser" and "feminine male = equal".
In short, the liberal view of abortion comes part and parcel with the liberal view of feminism and humanism. And swapping the entirety of those ideologies would pretty much mean a total ideology shift, anyway.
-
It doesn't really matter which side of the debate has the winning position. Even if one side wins 99% of the time, you have to give credit to that 1% when it's there.
For this thought experiment to have any weight whatsoever, you have to assume there are people who support abortion rights only because it is part of the Democratic platform. And frankly, I don't think anyone like that exists. And if they do, they probably don't hang around here. Someone who is dogmatically, unthinkingly Democrat is just as bad as someone who is dogmatically, unthinkingly Republican.
In the end, supporting the right side of an issue doesn't hold much weight if you don't understand why you support it or why the issue is important.
-
For Christ's sake spell the goddamn party right. It's not fucking hard. DemocratIC. DemocratIC. CHRIST.
What is your problem?
I have a thing about people deliberately mispelling things for derogatory purposes.
Next time someone misspells the DemocratIC Party, I'm calling their party the Fuckface Party.
a) What makes you think that was intentional?
b) What makes you think that was for deragotary purposes?
c) I see people shortening the democratic party to "democrats" all the time and this does not seem to cause any confusion or rage in other people. The members are commonly called the democrats as well and I have never noticed that to be treated as a deragotary name either.
-
I don't think it would change. I'm personally pro-life with exceptions, but as a man, I don't think I have the right to restrict abortions that don't concern me.
-
For Christ's sake spell the goddamn party right. It's not fucking hard. DemocratIC. DemocratIC. CHRIST.
What is your problem?
I have a thing about people deliberately mispelling things for derogatory purposes.
Next time someone misspells the DemocratIC Party, I'm calling their party the Fuckface Party.
a) What makes you think that was intentional?
b) What makes you think that was for deragotary purposes?
c) I see people shortening the democratic party to "democrats" all the time and this does not seem to cause any confusion or rage in other people. The members are commonly called the democrats as well and I have never noticed that to be treated as a deragotary name either.
It might not be derogatory.
This reminds me of a time when two Cleveland politicians misspelled their party affiliations as "Democart" and "Rebuplican".
-
For Christ's sake spell the goddamn party right. It's not fucking hard. DemocratIC. DemocratIC. CHRIST.
What is your problem?
I have a thing about people deliberately mispelling things for derogatory purposes.
Next time someone misspells the DemocratIC Party, I'm calling their party the Fuckface Party.
Democrat Party. Come at me bro.
-
I could easily see christian fundamentalist being pro-choice.
Actually, even then, I couldn't see fundamentalists being pro-choice. They would still be as anti-choice as ever, except instead of being against abortion, they would be citing religious references to call for compulsory abortions. They would apply this compulsory abortion to any pregnant woman they deem to be an unfit mother; the criteria of which would be religiously based, and imposed on any woman who is of a different belief system than theirs.
But that's just the way I see it: They never want it to be the woman's right to choose.
Now as for my view, it wouldn't change one bit, since I am and have always been for choice, and the woman's right to choose.
-
What if the pro-choice movement had been absorbed into the Republican Party and identified with conservative ideology and the pro-life movement into the Democrat Party and identified with liberal ideology?
I'm just gonna skip past everything else because I think this is the crux of the topic.
Were this the case, I think I would treat abortion much the same way I do firearm rights. Regardless of which party screams the most in favor of it or against it, I feel that, as a person who believes very, very strongly in individual liberty, a person should be free to choose. Whether that's the freedom to own a firearm of their choosing or freedom to choose to have an abortion if that is what they feel is best for them.
I count myself as a staunch liberal progressive, but on the issue of firearm rights and ownership, I come down on a traditionally right-wing position. If being pro-choice became a traditionally right wing issue, I would side with them on that as well. I have more loyalty to my own opinions and ideals of which I believe will serve best to further individual liberty than I do to the party that shares them.
-
What if the pro-choice movement had been absorbed into the Republican Party and identified with conservative ideology and the pro-life movement into the Democrat Party and identified with liberal ideology?
I'm just gonna skip past everything else because I think this is the crux of the topic.
Were this the case, I think I would treat abortion much the same way I do firearm rights. Regardless of which party screams the most in favor of it or against it, I feel that, as a person who believes very, very strongly in individual liberty, a person should be free to choose. Whether that's the freedom to own a firearm of their choosing or freedom to choose to have an abortion if that is what they feel is best for them.
I count myself as a staunch liberal progressive, but on the issue of firearm rights and ownership, I come down on a traditionally right-wing position. If being pro-choice became a traditionally right wing issue, I would side with them on that as well. I have more loyalty to my own opinions and ideals of which I believe will serve best to further individual liberty than I do to the party that shares them.
That last sentence took the words right out of my mouth. I'm not going to change my views based on what a specific political party believes. That's a large part of why I'm listed as an independent.
-
Hell to answer the spirit of the matter (I didn't read the entire first post, sorry, just the first couple of sentences)
I'm a liberal but if being pro-choice was a conservative issue, then I'd be conservative on abortion, and wondering what the hell the people who are liberal on abortion are smoking to cause them to arrive to such a conclusion.
Scientists would be conservative on abortion, too.
-
>Sees TheReasonator has started a thread
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif)
-
>Sees TheReasonator has started a thread
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif)
Mind if I join you? :D
-
We know our positions wouldn't change... but what about voting?
Oh well, it's not like we're given much of a choice anyways.
-
We know our positions wouldn't change... but what about voting?
Oh well, it's not like we're given much of a choice anyways.
In this case, voting is still kind of obvious. You vote for the side that's mostly right and a little wrong than the other way around. While still difficult, it tends to be easier to sway opinion about one part of a party's platform, than trying to drastically change the party around the one or two things they get right.
-
For Christ's sake spell the goddamn party right. It's not fucking hard. DemocratIC. DemocratIC. CHRIST.
What is your problem?
I have a thing about people deliberately mispelling things for derogatory purposes.
Next time someone misspells the DemocratIC Party, I'm calling their party the Fuckface Party.
a) What makes you think that was intentional?
b) What makes you think that was for deragotary purposes?
c) I see people shortening the democratic party to "democrats" all the time and this does not seem to cause any confusion or rage in other people. The members are commonly called the democrats as well and I have never noticed that to be treated as a deragotary name either.
A century of history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28epithet%29
Nothing wrong with "Democrats". That's a grammatically accurate personal noun based on Democratic, as Canadian is of Canada. But the party has been called the Democratic Party since it was founded- as the Democratic-Republican Party. Not the Democrat-Republican Party.
As to the meagre substance of the thread: my support for women's rights has nothing to do with partisan positions. I probably dislike the Democrats more than the Republicans. If they were to adopt- and they'd actually actually enact it, too- a policy of basic respect for women, I'd celebrate. I've often wondered why they're so strong against gay rights, for this very reason.
It's nice that you acknowledge your party's position is hypocritical and inconsistent, though.
-
Ignoring Fred once again...
As usual, there's a reason why voting on party lines is bad. That's really all I have to say. You vote for the person, not the party. Or at least, I do.
-
Scientists would be conservative on abortion, too.
There are plenty of scientists who are pro-life now. Plenty of biologists, doctors, nurses, and the like that are pro-life. There are also plenty of scientific fields that have little to nothing to do with life. Scientific education may correlate with being pro-choice, but it in no way causes one to be. The issue of when life begins is not a scientific one nor is it one science seeks to answer with certainty, it is a philosophical question that is often shaped by religious attitudes.
Likewise, I think a lot of Reasonator's question can not be answered. He's dealing in counterfactuals and we just can't know the full influence a differing social opinion would have on us. It's easy to say "I'd still believe this" but so many social factors such as religion and cultural views of women's rights would be different. None of us can say we'd know with any certainty where we'd stand on this issue because none of us can set up an experiment to test this in isolation.
Better philosophical question, how many angels can dance on the head of a needle? Another, does God exist?
-
Scientists would be conservative on abortion, too.
There are plenty of scientists who are pro-life now. Plenty of biologists, doctors, nurses, and the like that are pro-life. There are also plenty of scientific fields that have little to nothing to do with life. Scientific education may correlate with being pro-choice, but it in no way causes one to be. The issue of when life begins is not a scientific one nor is it one science seeks to answer with certainty, it is a philosophical question that is often shaped by religious attitudes.
Likewise, I think a lot of Reasonator's question can not be answered. He's dealing in counterfactuals and we just can't know the full influence a differing social opinion would have on us. It's easy to say "I'd still believe this" but so many social factors such as religion and cultural views of women's rights would be different. None of us can say we'd know with any certainty where we'd stand on this issue because none of us can set up an experiment to test this in isolation.
Better philosophical question, how many angels can dance on the head of a needle? Another, does God exist?
Does a set of all sets contain itself? What is the meaning of life? How much would could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
-
Does a set of all sets contain itself?
No such thing--it's a class.
-
Scientists would be conservative on abortion, too.
There are plenty of scientists who are pro-life now. Plenty of biologists, doctors, nurses, and the like that are pro-life. There are also plenty of scientific fields that have little to nothing to do with life. Scientific education may correlate with being pro-choice, but it in no way causes one to be. The issue of when life begins is not a scientific one nor is it one science seeks to answer with certainty, it is a philosophical question that is often shaped by religious attitudes.
Likewise, I think a lot of Reasonator's question can not be answered. He's dealing in counterfactuals and we just can't know the full influence a differing social opinion would have on us. It's easy to say "I'd still believe this" but so many social factors such as religion and cultural views of women's rights would be different. None of us can say we'd know with any certainty where we'd stand on this issue because none of us can set up an experiment to test this in isolation.
Better philosophical question, how many angels can dance on the head of a needle? Another, does God exist?
Does a set of all sets contain itself? What is the meaning of life? How much would could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
-
For Christ's sake spell the goddamn party right. It's not fucking hard. DemocratIC. DemocratIC. CHRIST.
What is your problem?
I have a thing about people deliberately mispelling things for derogatory purposes.
Next time someone misspells the DemocratIC Party, I'm calling their party the Fuckface Party.
I don't think people are doing it intentionally and with mal-intent, I think people genuinely don't know or forget the way it actually is. Though, Fred, you live outside the US, right? It says something when someone who isn't even a resident of a country is able to get the name of a political party correct when most people living in the country get it wrong.
-
We know our positions wouldn't change... but what about voting?
Oh well, it's not like we're given much of a choice anyways.
In this case, voting is still kind of obvious. You vote for the side that's mostly right and a little wrong than the other way around. While still difficult, it tends to be easier to sway opinion about one part of a party's platform, than trying to drastically change the party around the one or two things they get right.
This will be pretty difficult considering 1/3 of women will have abortions and 1/4 of pregnancies end in abortions. Making abortion illegal will have a devastating effect on the economy and society. On the other hand, democrats should be supporting birth control reform in businesses and set up programs to help those affected. Plut republicans are nutty on most every other issue, although that's more the politicians than the members.
-
Scientists would be conservative on abortion, too.
There are plenty of scientists who are pro-life now. Plenty of biologists, doctors, nurses, and the like that are pro-life. There are also plenty of scientific fields that have little to nothing to do with life. Scientific education may correlate with being pro-choice, but it in no way causes one to be. The issue of when life begins is not a scientific one nor is it one science seeks to answer with certainty, it is a philosophical question that is often shaped by religious attitudes.
Likewise, I think a lot of Reasonator's question can not be answered. He's dealing in counterfactuals and we just can't know the full influence a differing social opinion would have on us. It's easy to say "I'd still believe this" but so many social factors such as religion and cultural views of women's rights would be different. None of us can say we'd know with any certainty where we'd stand on this issue because none of us can set up an experiment to test this in isolation.
Better philosophical question, how many angels can dance on the head of a needle? Another, does God exist?
Does a set of all sets contain itself? What is the meaning of life? How much would could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1tsCOkCoC8
-
This will be pretty difficult considering 1/3 of women will have abortions and 1/4 of pregnancies end in abortions.
Those are some pretty high numbers. Where did you find them?
-
My views on abortion used to be more influenced by political association, later on by philosophical considerations. Nowadays they are mostly informed by an ethical question I cannot solve to my satisfaction ("Is destroying a person ethically equivalent to preventing that person from coming into existence?"), but I strongly suspect the answer is no.
So, in the counterfactual universe where the right to abortion is a socially conservative value, I might have been pro-life for some period of time, then become pro-choice.
Better philosophical question, how many angels can dance on the head of a needle? Another, does God exist?
Does a set of all sets contain itself? What is the meaning of life? How much would could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
Five. No. No sets of sets because of Russell's Paradox. "Meaning" isn't well-defined as applied to life. Five. *Slap*
It is my firm belief that the answer to all numerical counterfactuals is five. Five what? Five units.
-
It wouldn't change my beliefs one bit, I'm pro-choice and that's not going to change.
Then again, both sides of the Political spectrum have things that I agree with.
-
Scientists would be conservative on abortion, too.
There are plenty of scientists who are pro-life now. Plenty of biologists, doctors, nurses, and the like that are pro-life. There are also plenty of scientific fields that have little to nothing to do with life. Scientific education may correlate with being pro-choice, but it in no way causes one to be. The issue of when life begins is not a scientific one nor is it one science seeks to answer with certainty, it is a philosophical question that is often shaped by religious attitudes.
Likewise, I think a lot of Reasonator's question can not be answered. He's dealing in counterfactuals and we just can't know the full influence a differing social opinion would have on us. It's easy to say "I'd still believe this" but so many social factors such as religion and cultural views of women's rights would be different. None of us can say we'd know with any certainty where we'd stand on this issue because none of us can set up an experiment to test this in isolation.
Better philosophical question, how many angels can dance on the head of a needle? Another, does God exist?
Does a set of all sets contain itself? What is the meaning of life? How much would could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
You can clap with one hand (albeit not very loud or well) by slapping the palm of the respective hand with the fingers of said hand. Curl your fingers in such a way that the last joint doesn't bend.
-
See Art Vandelay's Simpsons clip above.
-
That was the clip I was referencing, too. I just knew people would immediately think of that scene :P
-
The sound of one hand clapping is CL. You need the other hand to make the AP sound.
-
Likewise, I think a lot of Reasonator's question can not be answered.
I agree it can not be answered, definitively. But one is not helpless to answer the question. It can be based on educated guess and inference and answering such questions can help to understand why one stands for what one stands for and may even lead to more informed stances.