Not a Complete Disaster
I find it interesting that nobody is willing to identify as anti-abortion and either agree or disagree with the proposal.
Possible explanations:
• There are no anti-abortion advocates taking part in this discussion.
• Anti-abortion advocates taking part in the discussion don't want to admit that they would suspend a woman's human rights for forty weeks, despite the clear implications of LACP under American law.
• Anti-abortion advocates feel their political appeal is threatened by the prospect of other people stopping to think about what LACP entails, and are working very hard to distract the discussion from such considerations.
• Anti-abortion advocates are intellectually stunted to the point that they do not understand the general concepts of implications, ramifications, or logical results of an abstract process.
The first of those possibilities is observably wrong.
The last, well, I'm as certain as I can be that anti-abortion advocates do not appreciate being viewed as retarded. Nonetheless, while we can strike the first of those possibilities for being observably wrong, the fourth does seem to be in effect insofar as people making anti-abortion arguments refuse to acknowledge certain implications of their rhetoric.
"
I am without any parallel that might compare or provide example of a similar circumstance. This is truly unique to the abortion question."
—Bowser
I believe our neighbor hit the proverbial nail as squarely as possible:
There is no living analogue to the questions implied by LACP. Influenza and
E. coli are absurd comparisons, and not because they are microorganisms, but because there is no law preventing someone from medically addressing the presence of these microorganisms within their body. The argument, like so much anti-abortion rhetoric, misses the point.
And in terms of rhetoric, it is certainly one thing to insist on the rights of the unborn, but because of the unique issues involved, it is impossible to avoid the considerations of a woman's human rights during pregnancy. One cannot simply sweep the point into the dustbin and forget about it.
In a society without a supreme guarantee of equal protection, it is easy enough to design cosmetic solutions to the problem:
Simply ban abortion, enumerate the optimal maternal conduct for the health of the fetus, and oblige women to that conduct by force of law.
In a society that does have a supreme guarantee of equal protection, though, what is the solution?
The best summary of the most ferocious parts of this debate would be that the anti-abortion advocates are vociferously reiterating their justification for LACP and its implications while trying to avoid considering those implications. Certes, this looks fundamentally dishonest, but we must remember that all they are doing is shouting out their articles of faith.
As far as I can tell, though, LACP really
does seem to be just about abortion. The rest of it? Well, it doesn't seem the anti-abortion argument really cares about the implications; and that is, morally and ethically, the best that can be said about it.
And this is part of the reason why the anti-abortion movement is more and more viewed as misogynistic. It's not just the damaging implications the argument has for a woman's human status, but also the grim determination to disrupt any consideration of those implications. Quite clearly, resolving the question of a woman's status is something the movement does not wish to do.
It's one thing to make a mistake because one hasn't thought through the implications of an action. It is another to actively work to disrupt other peoples' consideration of those implications.
If nothing else, this thread has affirmed what I've long suspected of the anti-abortion movement: It really
is about putting women back in their place.
For that, if nothing else, we can say this thread hasn't been a
complete waste of time and energy.