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

[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.

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

That was more bait for the coal miner, but it's been brought up ad nausem before. Worldview runs much, much deeper than NARAL or NRA litmus tests. If anything, that's a (literally) backward way of viewing things. I find that to be symptomatic of how completely inane and manufactured our politics really are in this country. Which might explain the incoherence of modern "conservatives" or why we have so little in the way of open socialism (or relevant libertarianism, for that matter - no more so looking at that nolan chart abomination) in this country too since such ideologies make the political particularly personal.

[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.

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.

Whoa!

I think there should be a little bit of a stigma involved≠demonized

Currently women that get abortions are called "baby killers" and they risk being blown up if they go to abortion clinics.  That is not the same as saying, "you kinda screwed up sweetheart, try using a condom next time."  There is a difference. It's subtle... but it is a difference.

If you do much dating you will also realise women cry about things like shoes.  Basing public policy on the off chance a woman somewhere might cry is not effective.

[Gustaf]

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!)

You don't seem to be very knowledgeable on the general behaviour of rape victims (or women having abortions for that matter).

Then again, that is just as true for most pro-abortion posters here as well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Anti-abortion" means a lot of things. I do oppose abortion. If I had a sister, a friend, a girlfriend who considered abortion, I think I'd do all I can to convince her not to. I think it's an extreme decision that might lead to dramatic consequences (for the mother above all). All the more that it can be easily avoided by today's contraception means.

However, I don't think everything I oppose should be banned. I don't think I have any right to tell a woman how she should act. I don't think women are selfish bitches who have unprotected sex and then abort without any scruple. I think that, if a woman is to have an abortion, it means she has taken a tough decision, weighing pros and cons, and is aware of the ethical consequences of her act.

And no, I don't really care about a fetus' life, honestly. Yes, I think a fetus is a living being, but not a self-aware human being. As long as it doesn't even feel pain, I don't really mind killing it. Of course killing a living being is always a bad thing, but don't we kill animals to eat them, or to make scientific experiences ? Yes, a fetus is a life, but not yet a human being. It deserves some dignity, but not the same we give to full human beings.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And no, I don't really care about a fetus' life, honestly. Yes, I think a fetus is a living being, but not a self-aware human being. As long as it doesn't even feel pain, I don't really mind killing it. Of course killing a living being is always a bad thing, but don't we kill animals to eat them, or to make scientific experiences ? Yes, a fetus is a life, but not yet a human being. It deserves some dignity, but not the same we give to full human beings.

And what of the severely mentally handicapped? Are they full human beings? And if they aren't, then should they have less rights than the rest of us? And to what place does that lead us?

I think in general that it's better not to philosophise too much over issues like this. Better to accept the necessity of imperfect and necessarily contradictory compromise.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And no, I don't really care about a fetus' life, honestly. Yes, I think a fetus is a living being, but not a self-aware human being. As long as it doesn't even feel pain, I don't really mind killing it. Of course killing a living being is always a bad thing, but don't we kill animals to eat them, or to make scientific experiences ? Yes, a fetus is a life, but not yet a human being. It deserves some dignity, but not the same we give to full human beings.

And what of the severely mentally handicapped? Are they full human beings? And if they aren't, then should they have less rights than the rest of us? And to what place does that lead us?

I think in general that it's better not to philosophise too much over issues like this. Better to accept the necessity of imperfect and necessarily contradictory compromise.

That might be the solution, but personally I'm uncomfortable with having a position that isn't backed by any moral judgement. How can I defend it in this case ?

As for severely handicapped people, I think they are all able to feel emotions (unless they are totally brain dead, in which case, yes, as cynical as it may sound, they are not full human being) and as such deserve human dignity. I know it's a very complicated case to make, but better having an extremely precarious and artificial conviction than having none.

[Link]

And no, I don't really care about a fetus' life, honestly. Yes, I think a fetus is a living being, but not a self-aware human being. As long as it doesn't even feel pain, I don't really mind killing it. Of course killing a living being is always a bad thing, but don't we kill animals to eat them, or to make scientific experiences ? Yes, a fetus is a life, but not yet a human being. It deserves some dignity, but not the same we give to full human beings.

And what of the severely mentally handicapped? Are they full human beings? And if they aren't, then should they have less rights than the rest of us? And to what place does that lead us?

I think in general that it's better not to philosophise too much over issues like this. Better to accept the necessity of imperfect and necessarily contradictory compromise.

Depending on how you define "full human being" I would say no.  Frankly we shouldn't pour valuable resources into keeping the severely mentally handicapped alive while entire families are having their homes foreclosed on and being tossed out into the street.  Our priorities in America are completely nonsensical.  I've seen severely mentally handicapped people that don't move, don't speak, who can't even feed themselves be admitted to the hospital time after time and have all kinds of interventions done to prolong their lives.  All at the tax payers expense.  If I were to have severe dementia and a stroke I wouldn't want people to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prolong my "life."

The hundreds of thousands of dollar that were used to prolong the "life" of Terri Schiavo were a complete waste.

Frankly I think all Down syndrome babies should be aborted.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And no, I don't really care about a fetus' life, honestly. Yes, I think a fetus is a living being, but not a self-aware human being. As long as it doesn't even feel pain, I don't really mind killing it. Of course killing a living being is always a bad thing, but don't we kill animals to eat them, or to make scientific experiences ? Yes, a fetus is a life, but not yet a human being. It deserves some dignity, but not the same we give to full human beings.

And what of the severely mentally handicapped? Are they full human beings? And if they aren't, then should they have less rights than the rest of us? And to what place does that lead us?

I think in general that it's better not to philosophise too much over issues like this. Better to accept the necessity of imperfect and necessarily contradictory compromise.

Depending on how you define "full human being" I would say no.  Frankly we shouldn't pour valuable resources into keeping the severely mentally handicapped alive while entire families are having their homes foreclosed on and being tossed out into the street.  Our priorities in America are completely nonsensical.  I've seen severely mentally handicapped people that don't move, don't speak, who can't even feed themselves be admitted to the hospital time after time and have all kinds of interventions done to prolong their lives.  All at the tax payers expense.  If I were to have severe dementia and a stroke I wouldn't want people to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prolong my "life."

The hundreds of thousands of dollar that were used to prolong the "life" of Terri Schiavo were a complete waste.

Frankly I think all Down syndrome babies should be aborted.

Now, this definitely creeps me out. Please take note that what I'm saying has nothing in common with Link's post.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Frankly I think all Down syndrome babies should be aborted.

Okay. Say goodbye to my favorite aunt, asshole.

The answer to the original question in my case is 'yes', with some exceptions in extreme circumstances.

[Mechaman]

And no, I don't really care about a fetus' life, honestly. Yes, I think a fetus is a living being, but not a self-aware human being. As long as it doesn't even feel pain, I don't really mind killing it. Of course killing a living being is always a bad thing, but don't we kill animals to eat them, or to make scientific experiences ? Yes, a fetus is a life, but not yet a human being. It deserves some dignity, but not the same we give to full human beings.

And what of the severely mentally handicapped? Are they full human beings? And if they aren't, then should they have less rights than the rest of us? And to what place does that lead us?

I think in general that it's better not to philosophise too much over issues like this. Better to accept the necessity of imperfect and necessarily contradictory compromise.

Depending on how you define "full human being" I would say no.  Frankly we shouldn't pour valuable resources into keeping the severely mentally handicapped alive while entire families are having their homes foreclosed on and being tossed out into the street.  Our priorities in America are completely nonsensical.  I've seen severely mentally handicapped people that don't move, don't speak, who can't even feed themselves be admitted to the hospital time after time and have all kinds of interventions done to prolong their lives.  All at the tax payers expense.  If I were to have severe dementia and a stroke I wouldn't want people to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prolong my "life."

The hundreds of thousands of dollar that were used to prolong the "life" of Terri Schiavo were a complete waste.

Frankly I think all Down syndrome babies should be aborted.

Now, this definitely creeps me out. Please take note that what I'm saying has nothing in common with Link's post.

Definitely not.

His post is one of the most disgustingly vile things I've ever read on here.
And I'm saying that with as much respect as I possibly could considering what was posted.

[LastVoter]

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.

So you are a "conservative/moral" social democrat? Or a "Christian democrat"?

[RI]

So you are a "conservative/moral" social democrat? Or a "Christian democrat"?

I'm not exactly sure what distinction you're trying to make. I suppose the term "Christian democrat" has certain conservative connotations in some countries, so that's not exactly what I am, no, but I'm not a social democrat either; I disagree strongly with some of their core assumptions. I do have left-of-center ideals on most economic issues (though tempered by economic studies) and social beliefs that net to right-of-center, though some are very liberal and some are very conservative by traditional metrics (and a mixed-to-liberalist view of foreign policy). If this bifurcated description displeases some, it's simply the easiest way to describe it. I try to make core claims and work logically consistent view out from them. I don't always succeed, but I try. My views are influenced by my religion, but I try to justify them with secular arguments.

[patrick1]

And no, I don't really care about a fetus' life, honestly. Yes, I think a fetus is a living being, but not a self-aware human being. As long as it doesn't even feel pain, I don't really mind killing it. Of course killing a living being is always a bad thing, but don't we kill animals to eat them, or to make scientific experiences ? Yes, a fetus is a life, but not yet a human being. It deserves some dignity, but not the same we give to full human beings.

And what of the severely mentally handicapped? Are they full human beings? And if they aren't, then should they have less rights than the rest of us? And to what place does that lead us?

I think in general that it's better not to philosophise too much over issues like this. Better to accept the necessity of imperfect and necessarily contradictory compromise.

Depending on how you define "full human being" I would say no.  Frankly we shouldn't pour valuable resources into keeping the severely mentally handicapped alive while entire families are having their homes foreclosed on and being tossed out into the street.  Our priorities in America are completely nonsensical.  I've seen severely mentally handicapped people that don't move, don't speak, who can't even feed themselves be admitted to the hospital time after time and have all kinds of interventions done to prolong their lives.  All at the tax payers expense.  If I were to have severe dementia and a stroke I wouldn't want people to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prolong my "life."

The hundreds of thousands of dollar that were used to prolong the "life" of Terri Schiavo were a complete waste.

Frankly I think all Down syndrome babies should be aborted.

Yeah, I mean a pornstar might try to help the little untermenshen read one day.  Now that would be tragic....

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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?

I'm not entirely sure how I would define ideology (it being one of those notoriously slippery concepts), but I think I would demand a little bit more than the position (that I agree with, btw) that community is basically a good thing,  that individuals can't be understood properly without reference to it, and that policy ought to be shaped in reference to these facts. There is certainly no such thing as a communitarian political movement, and (significantly) the only self-declared communitarians in existence are intellectuals, most of which have other ideological positions.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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?

I'm not entirely sure how I would define ideology (it being one of those notoriously slippery concepts), but I think I would demand a little bit more than the position (that I agree with, btw) that community is basically a good thing,  that individuals can't be understood properly without reference to it, and that policy ought to be shaped in reference to these facts. There is certainly no such thing as a communitarian political movement, and (significantly) the only self-declared communitarians in existence are intellectuals, most of which have other ideological positions.

If you can, I recommend seeking out a Japanese sociopolitical treatise from the early nineteenth century called 'Hitori kangae', and then some of Charles Taylor's stuff. Good introductions to old-style right-communitarianism (or, the sort of instincts a couple hundred years ago that any sort of 'communitarian ideology' comes from, sort of like Edmund Burke for conservatism and liberalism except there really wasn't much of it in the West at that point) and modern left-communitarianism of the sort that I identify with (Taylor was actually an NDP candidate for several offices in the sixties and seventies before devoting himself to philosophy full-time).

About the only recent communitarian-identified elected leader that I can think of is Jan Peter Balkenende, which...it's safe to say that's a little worrying and not really an ideal association to have. Rita Süssmuth I think also has ties to that set of ideas. Bill Clinton claimed to have communitarian leanings (or, at least, support aspects of Amitai Etzioni's philosophy) but I don't think many people would argue that he actually put such into practice very much at all. (I should point out that Etzioni is not really one of my favorites anyway.)

[Sam Spade]

And no, I don't really care about a fetus' life, honestly. Yes, I think a fetus is a living being, but not a self-aware human being. As long as it doesn't even feel pain, I don't really mind killing it. Of course killing a living being is always a bad thing, but don't we kill animals to eat them, or to make scientific experiences ? Yes, a fetus is a life, but not yet a human being. It deserves some dignity, but not the same we give to full human beings.

And what of the severely mentally handicapped? Are they full human beings? And if they aren't, then should they have less rights than the rest of us? And to what place does that lead us?

I think in general that it's better not to philosophise too much over issues like this. Better to accept the necessity of imperfect and necessarily contradictory compromise.

Depending on how you define "full human being" I would say no.  Frankly we shouldn't pour valuable resources into keeping the severely mentally handicapped alive while entire families are having their homes foreclosed on and being tossed out into the street.  Our priorities in America are completely nonsensical.  I've seen severely mentally handicapped people that don't move, don't speak, who can't even feed themselves be admitted to the hospital time after time and have all kinds of interventions done to prolong their lives.  All at the tax payers expense.  If I were to have severe dementia and a stroke I wouldn't want people to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prolong my "life."

The hundreds of thousands of dollar that were used to prolong the "life" of Terri Schiavo were a complete waste.

Frankly I think all Down syndrome babies should be aborted.

Depending on how you define "full human being" I would say no.  Frankly we shouldn't pour valuable resources into keeping the blacks alive while entire families are having their homes foreclosed on and being tossed out into the street.  Our priorities in America are completely nonsensical.  I've seen black people that don't move, don't speak, who can't even feed themselves be given taxpayer money time after time and have all kinds of interventions done to prolong their lives.  All at the tax payers expense.  If I were to waste money on sneakers and blow, I wouldn't want people to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prolong my "life."

The hundreds of thousands of dollar that were used to prolong the "life" of a black like Linda Taylor were a complete waste.

Frankly I think all black babies should be aborted.

[Badger]

Your opinion on aborting all Down's Syndrome babies is monsterous, Link.

[The Mikado]

Eugenics.  On Atlas.  I never thought I'd see the day (at least when Stark isn't making his periodic visits).

[Username MechaRFK]

I'm all for the women right to choose but Link creeps me out.

[Mechaman]

Eugenics.  On Atlas.  I never thought I'd see the day (at least when Stark isn't making his periodic visits).

I'm not really all that surprised really.

You have to remember this is also the same forum where more than a few people have spoken, probably with grins on their faces and with hands moving furiously in their pants, about how a Bolshevik like purge of former Confederate leaders and the Southern planter class would've been ideal.  Then again feelings of retribution are at least more rational than natural bigotry from the likes of people like Link who believes we should destroy people who haven't had the opportunity to wrong anybody just because of their disabilities.

Just saying.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's an interesting one - as I've said my view has changed.

I think in the case of otherwise healthy pregnancies anything beyond the first trimester should require a medically valid reason. You know you're pregnant by 12 weeks... if you don't... you shouldn't be breeding anyway.

I think what's clear from the response for the 'no exception' pro-life people is that men really shouldn't get involved unless its their own family. I think none of you have known a woman who was raped... is it the foetus' fault? no - but the woman had no choice in getting pregnant... if there was no choice in the pregnancy, I believe it's a fair right.

Equally, as someone with a severe genetic disorder in the family, I fully support the right of parents to abort when it's clear such a disorder exists. Downs Syndrome and other disorders that will allow a relatively full and productive life are not grounds for abortion in my mind... this particular disorder has no motor development beyond about 8 months old - and ends up with dismilenation of the nerves and a slow death by self-suffocation - I saw one cousin I was very close to die at 15, and there are two more in the family with it.

So, I think it's important to base your views on reality, not what some book tells you.

It's about personal responsibility, but it also has to be about choice... but that's my own personal view - and would never seek to force it on anyone... unlike some.


.... I've said this before.... and I believe it very strongly...

If you're pro-life, but don't support comprehensive sex-education - you're an utter hypocrite.

[courts]

If you're pro-life, but don't support comprehensive sex-education - you're an utter hypocrite.

What does that have to do with anything? I mean, I'm pro life and support distributing condoms in public schools in part because of that but I wouldn't say either logically follows...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If you're pro-life, but don't support comprehensive sex-education - you're an utter hypocrite.

What does that have to do with anything? I mean, I'm pro life and support distributing condoms in public schools for various reasons but I wouldn't say either logically follows...

Well, one way to reduce abortions is to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.