tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post115015157045927200..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Legal Legitimacy and Abortion PoliticsDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1150383562821539962006-06-15T07:59:00.000-07:002006-06-15T07:59:00.000-07:00Jack,I think characterizing the pro-life side of t...Jack,<BR/><BR/>I think characterizing the pro-life side of the debate as being more about controlling people than the fetus is quite a stretch. All of the positions you cite as support for a "they want to control your life" view of the debate are fairly standard (historically speaking) teachings of the Christian Church (in the small-c catholic sense). Is it not a bit more likely that these people simply believe the historical moral teachings of the church? No need to pin it on a need for control.<BR/><BR/>I'll second "d fresh" that the two groups are operating from different premises, and so convincing someone to change sides means conincing them that fetuses are (or are not) rights-possessing people. That's why I'm for overturning Roe and leaving it to the states. Nothing objective can answer the question of whether fetuses are moral persons deserving of rights. Science cannot answer it, and religion is (rightly) not allowed to. But there are extremely strong moral cases to be made for either position. Let the people of each state decide, and if the individuals believe strongly enough that their state voted poorly, they can move.Randomscrubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16907420981269677826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1150197843752341502006-06-13T04:24:00.000-07:002006-06-13T04:24:00.000-07:00David, Isn't your concluding statement a trival on...David, <BR/>Isn't your concluding statement a trival one? To stem a illegal community from breaking the law, make the thing they are doing which defines them as illegal, legal and the crime goes away. <BR/><BR/>Take shoplifters. If we take the "community of shoplifters", we can stop them from breaking the law by legalizing shoplifting. Ok. It might true, but that's just a tad silly and not a very useful observation.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10837999838469082203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1150177724299172322006-06-12T22:48:00.000-07:002006-06-12T22:48:00.000-07:00Perhaps, but my guess is that abortion and other i...Perhaps, but my guess is that abortion and other issues like gay marriage and assisted suicide keep coming up because they are very emotional issues for some people and because they are subjects of rigid religious dogma. Either way they will always be fertile ground for demogogues.<BR/><BR/>Mark <BR/><BR/>...not really anonymous, just don't want one more ID and password.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1150156148653645572006-06-12T16:49:00.000-07:002006-06-12T16:49:00.000-07:00I would like to counter by suggesting (& focusing ...I would like to counter by suggesting (& focusing on the abortion) the debate isn't one regarding procedural justice. By framing the abortion issue in terms of procedural justice, it suggests we all agree there can only be one right answer (a premise I reject). Instead of viewing the abortion debate as one of procedural justice, I view it as a conflict of visions. Conflicts of visions occur when there is disagreement over the scope and weight of relevant information. While we can agree that like cases should be treated alike and different cases should be treated differently (concept of (procedural) justice), in the abortion case, the "two" sides refer to different criteria and methodologies for articulating what is just (conceptions of justice). By recognizing the existence of plural conceptions of justice it can be argued there is more than one right answer on a particular issue. Phrasing it differently, it is possible for both sides to be right and judges must refer to moral and practical criteria to reach their verdicts. Schraub's piece refers to 'democracy' as a relevant legitimizing criteria. I don't necessarily agree that democratic principles, are in principle, systematically relevant (note: I'm not interpreting Schraub as making this argument - perhaps he is). Democracy as a systematic relevant criteria is vulnerable to majoritarian rule problems and makes the rights of minorities vulnerable. <BR/><BR/>In the abortion case, I'll frame my argument in terms of rights. The pro-life community posits it is possible for embryoes/fetuses (opinions vary over the stage of pregnancy when this right comes into existence) possess rights. Accordingly, abortion constitutes a violation of the rights of embryoes/fetuses. The pro-choice community, on the other hand, (as far as I know) does not see the issue as one of embryo/fetus rights. If they did, this would be an issue of procedural justice. Rather, the pro-choice community posits their arguement in terms of women possessing the right to control reproductive organs. From my perspective the abortion debate more closely resembles a conflict of visions rather than one over procedural justice. <BR/><BR/>I share my thoughts not to force feed my opinion but rather to contribute constructively. I'm sure some will think otherwise.Douglas Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05647851989559040258noreply@blogger.com