Anyone else on here both solidly on the left and anti-abortion?

[Insula Dei]

So, as the thread title says, I consider myself to be anti-abortion. This very concretely means that I think that abortion is always immoral and in the vast majority of cases should not be legal, with exceptions for rape, incest,conditions that endanger the mother's life or severe disability. In all other cases, I don't see any reason why abortion should be any better to the mother than giving up the child for adoption, which is very decidedly not an immoral course of action. This may be a bit of a remarkable position, given the fact that I would indeed consider myself solidly on the left, and that I'm certainly not generally overtly socially conservative.

I guess it's quite obvious where I'm coming from on this, yet it would be not completely fair to think my position was only informed by religious conviction. Even in a world without God, abortion would be immoral, even if it would not be a sin in such a world. I feel a very real, pre-religious indignation towards abortion, as I'd say there's very clearly another person being wronged to an incredible degree by it.

Is there anyone else on here with a similar general political background and a similar attitude towards the abortion issue?

PS: I've opted for 'anti-abortion', rather than 'pro-life' to describe my position, because I'm a bit conflicted on the latter term. On the one hand it very clearly sums up my general position on this kind of issue (anti-abortion, anti-death penalty in general, anti-euthanasia for people unable of a clear voluntary decision), on the other hand it's a disgusting piece of American Politspeak. Better to call things by their name.

[republicanism]

I think I fit in the scheme.

I'm a Social Democrat / Socialist, non-religious and strongly oppose abortion.

[WillK]

So, as the thread title says, I consider myself to be anti-abortion. This very concretely means that I think that abortion is always immoral and in the vast majority of cases should not be legal, with exceptions for rape, incest,conditions that endanger the mother's life or severe disability ...

Why are you willing to accept these exceptions for something you consider immoral?

[Insula Dei]

So, as the thread title says, I consider myself to be anti-abortion. This very concretely means that I think that abortion is always immoral and in the vast majority of cases should not be legal, with exceptions for rape, incest,conditions that endanger the mother's life or severe disability ...

Why are you willing to accept these exceptions for something you consider immoral?

It is not impossible for an act to be both immoral and eligible to the alternative, I would say. In very problematic cases like these, I do think there's a role reserved for the individual conscience.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I understand that there are a few people here who could certainly be described in such terms.

Mind you, how are do you take that? To a general dislike of it and support for heavy restriction, or to the counter-productive absurdities of the American (and, in many other countries, American-inspired) 'pro-life' movement?

[WillK]

It is not impossible for an act to be both immoral and eligible to the alternative, I would say. In very problematic cases like these, I do think there's a role reserved for the individual conscience.

Let me ask my question in another way.  Why do you feel a different legal standard should apply for cases you consider to be "problematic cases"?    Isn't it still the case that "very clearly another person being wronged to an incredible degree by it"?


I am firmly on the left and I strongly oppose late-term abortion (without exceptions) though I do not oppose early-term abortion at all.  

[Insula Dei]

Isn't it still the case that "very clearly another person being wronged to an incredible degree by it"?

Yes, but I would say that these are cases where whatever happens someone is going to be harmed, so it would make sense for these cases to be left to the persons directly involved. General ethical rules always are a bit problematic in that they can never account for all possibilities, in very troubling  cases we should trust people to make their own judgement.

[Link]

This very concretely means that I think that abortion is always immoral and in the vast majority of cases should not be legal, with exceptions for rape, incest,conditions that endanger the mother's life or severe disability.

So what is to prevent every woman that wants an abortion from coming in and saying I got raped six weeks ago by a stranger.  She has showered and washed her clothes numerous times since the "attack."  How could you bar her from having an abortion?  This is what the conservatives in America quite effectively and accurately have argued.  I mean if you are willing to have an abortion lying about a rape to a doctor isn't really going to be a big deal.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I never understood the rape/incest exception, because

(1) you don't allow the child to get aborted because of something the father did (unless you don't oppose abortion in the first place, of course), and
(2) there's always the possibility of abuse (which is what Link is talking about). If a woman is going to kill her baby (already a despicable thing to do), what's to stop her from lying about rape? Anyone can say I got raped and no one will bother to check (certainly not the abortion clinic!)

[Free Palestine]

I'm firmly on the left, and I think abortion should be totally legal, and I think the stigma against it should be removed.

[Link]

I'm firmly on the left, and I think abortion should be totally legal, and I think the stigma against it should be removed.

I'm firmly with you on that.  Well I think there should be a little bit of a stigma involved for the woman and man.  I was just showing belgiansocialist the flaw in his argument.

[courts]

I never understood the rape/incest exception, because

(1) you don't allow the child to get aborted because of something the father did (unless you don't oppose abortion in the first place, of course), and
(2) there's always the possibility of abuse (which is what Link is talking about). If a woman is going to kill her baby (already a despicable thing to do), what's to stop her from lying about rape? Anyone can say I got raped and no one will bother to check (certainly not the abortion clinic!)

Yeah, obviously what's going through her mind the day after is that she wants to kill her baby.

[Free Palestine]

I'm firmly on the left, and I think abortion should be totally legal, and I think the stigma against it should be removed.

I'm firmly with you on that.  Well I think there should be a little bit of a stigma involved for the woman and man.  I was just showing belgiansocialist the flaw in his argument.

By stigma, I mean the whole social...thing that leads women to cry and hurt over having gotten an abortion, that also leads many women to not get an abortion at all.

I also think they should be subsidized at least for persons under the age of eighteen.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'm in agreement with FallenMorgan here, I'm really firm in my support of women having full and total control of their reproductive rights along with support from governmental bodies to make sure that the wealthy don't have more a free reign to prevent accidents than the poor do. I suppose this makes me "pro-abortion", although I still strongly believe that abortion should only be the option of last resort (who doesn't think this though).

[Marokai Backbeat]

I never understood the rape/incest exception, because

(1) you don't allow the child to get aborted because of something the father did (unless you don't oppose abortion in the first place, of course), and
(2) there's always the possibility of abuse (which is what Link is talking about). If a woman is going to kill her baby (already a despicable thing to do), what's to stop her from lying about rape? Anyone can say I got raped and no one will bother to check (certainly not the abortion clinic!)

This post is why men should not make decisions on women's bodies.

[courts]

I never understood the rape/incest exception, because

(1) you don't allow the child to get aborted because of something the father did (unless you don't oppose abortion in the first place, of course), and
(2) there's always the possibility of abuse (which is what Link is talking about). If a woman is going to kill her baby (already a despicable thing to do), what's to stop her from lying about rape? Anyone can say I got raped and no one will bother to check (certainly not the abortion clinic!)

This post is why men should not make decisions on women's bodies.

Obviously not all of us on the "wrong side" are uh.. yeah. Let's just say I like to think most of us pro-lifers (that aren't preparing some special cocktails outside the clinic) still have a little more gray in our thinking.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

My roomate, like most Vegans, is.

[Хahar 🤔]

Certainly I'm against abortion. I'm not entirely sure what that means in a more specific sense, but it doesn't matter. I'm not running for elective office.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I think such issues should be left to women.

What a novel concept, I know.

[Хahar 🤔]

I don't know if I count as being on the left or not, but I think that I'm closer to the Dems than Reps, and I'm firmly against abortion. I also believe that the rape/incest exception is stupid and completely illogical as officepark said.

This is an arbitrary place to put this, but your emphasis on your identification as communitarian has always puzzled me. Communitarianism isn't a thing. There are no communitarian works, nor are there communitarian movements, because there is no such thing as a communitarian ideology. It's nothing more than a quadrant on the Political Matrix. I find the way you constantly talk about how socially conservative you are rather strange, because it's an odd way to view the world. Generally it's only libertarians who separate their worldview into discrete economic and social sections. A value system (and, really, our PM scores are all in some way reflections of our own value systems) isn't the sort of thing that is chopped up into portions, which are then reassembled to form a label by which we can identify ourselves (again, except for libertarians). My PM score might be in the upper left quadrant, but I don't identify with that quadrant because it's naught but a quadrant. What matters are the beliefs that underlie that score, and there's no such thing as communitarian beliefs.

[RI]

I don't know if I count as being on the left or not, but I think that I'm closer to the Dems than Reps, and I'm firmly against abortion. I also believe that the rape/incest exception is stupid and completely illogical as officepark said.

This is an arbitrary place to put this, but your emphasis on your identification as communitarian has always puzzled me. Communitarianism isn't a thing. There are no communitarian works, nor are there communitarian movements, because there is no such thing as a communitarian ideology. It's nothing more than a quadrant on the Political Matrix. I find the way you constantly talk about how socially conservative you are rather strange, because it's an odd way to view the world. Generally it's only libertarians who separate their worldview into discrete economic and social sections. A value system (and, really, our PM scores are all in some way reflections of our own value systems) isn't the sort of thing that is chopped up into portions, which are then reassembled to form a label by which we can identify ourselves (again, except for libertarians). My PM score might be in the upper left quadrant, but I don't identify with that quadrant because it's naught but a quadrant. What matters are the beliefs that underlie that score, and there's no such thing as communitarian beliefs.

That's not true. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (Now I sound like a hipster...lovely)

It is true that compared to liberalism, conservatism, socialism, communism, and even libertarianism that communitarianism is highly underdeveloped intellectually (not to say that is completely so; it certainly isn't) and has little organization as a movement. My values, I believe, are consistent around a core set that manifests itself as the PM score I have. That set may not be the same as others, like Nathan, for example, who are in some way communitarian ideologically, but that's ok. To me, communitarianism is about the interconnectivity of individuals and the effects that actions have in an environment where every action has a consequence and how we should respond to such a condition in order to maximize people's happiness and self-fulfillment. Additionally, communitarians generally believe that we should look at rights in the context of human good rather than in an amoral vaccuum.

I don't really see things in terms of econ issues vs social issues. I do think categorically, I suppose, but I assure you it's much more dimensional than that. I rather like graphs, charts, maps, numbers, equations, etc because they allow me to gain some perspective on the landscape of some aspect of reality (or at least some attempt at such a depiction) and to attempt to understand the relativity of things to each other in a continuum. It's certainly imperfect, but there are many things you can gain from looking from such a perspective. I don't mind using a more qualitative perspective, too, but I think quantitative analysis is generally lacking in political science.

But this is really for another thread.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Isn't it more of an ethical position (especially with reference to that absolutely absurd multi-dimensional civil war within English language political philosophy in the 1980s; right at the point at which right-wing governments and postmodernism were - in a kind of bizarre and accidental way - combining to undercut everything most participants stood for. Well done guys!) than owt else? Certainly it's not an ideology.

[RI]

Isn't it more of an ethical position (especially with reference to that absolutely absurd multi-dimensional civil war within English language political philosophy in the 1980s; right at the point at which right-wing governments and postmodernism were - in a kind of bizarre and accidental way - combining to undercut everything most participants stood for. Well done guys!) than owt else? Certainly it's not an ideology.

There certainly is an ethical strain of communitarianism, but there is also a communitarianism that I would definitely say is a political ideology, though they aren't always the same. How are you defining ideology here?

[courts]

Isn't it more of an ethical position (especially with reference to that absolutely absurd multi-dimensional civil war within English language political philosophy in the 1980s; right at the point at which right-wing governments and postmodernism were - in a kind of bizarre and accidental way - combining to undercut everything most participants stood for. Well done guys!) than owt else? Certainly it's not an ideology.

There certainly is an ethical strain of communitarianism, but there is also a communitarianism that I would definitely say is a political ideology, though they aren't always the same. How are you defining ideology here?

By how you fall on a checklist of issues, obviously.

[RI]

Isn't it more of an ethical position (especially with reference to that absolutely absurd multi-dimensional civil war within English language political philosophy in the 1980s; right at the point at which right-wing governments and postmodernism were - in a kind of bizarre and accidental way - combining to undercut everything most participants stood for. Well done guys!) than owt else? Certainly it's not an ideology.

There certainly is an ethical strain of communitarianism, but there is also a communitarianism that I would definitely say is a political ideology, though they aren't always the same. How are you defining ideology here?

By how you fall on a checklist of issues, obviously.

I think I detect sarcasm, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say.