Thursday, March 09, 2006

More on South Dakota

That was a fruitful discussion yesterday. I feel like I learned a lot of new things from everyone involved. But I especially thought Jodasm enhanced the discussion with his post today. I especially like this blast of common sense:

The "reasonable" pro-choice position among the idiots in charge of the [Democrats] is something along the lines of "abortion is bad but necessary." How much more effective is, "in the age of DNA testing, abortion keeps a lot of men from having to pay child support."
Ya straight damn right! The truth still aint nothin' but the truth in '06.


PK said...


You mentioned this to me yesterday and I thought you were joking. Are you seriously implying that it's a good idea to try to replace a serious and complex moral issue with this kind of facile logic? (I didn't have time to check the link to make sure it's tongue-in-cheek... but I get the impression it's not!)

The Deceiver said...

It is semi-tongue in cheek. And of course, I wouldn't put it in a campaign commercial. But I'm telling you, the biggest reason I never knocked someone up in my youth was that my father fully explained what "child support" was in harrowing detail.

It wouldn't be a bad thing if the pro-choice movement had some people in the field doing this sort of WHISPERING. At the very least, it solves the problem of getting males engaged in the issue!

Jodasm said...

My point is that we need to shift the debate away from things like whether or not there is some abstract right to reproductive choice somewhere in the Constitution, and towards things like how do you actually ban abortion, who gets penalized if such a ban is put in place, how will our society support the large numbers of children who will be born to parents that do not have the financial or emotional wherewithall to raise them? I just don't think the current dynamic of "women" v. "unborn babies" really allows us to have the serious, complex moral debate that you want to have.

PK said...

OK, I get your point and I agree. I would actually take the opposite tack from Jason - instead of moving from legalistic arguments to kitchen-table ones, I think abortion needs to move from legalistic arguments to sounder moral ones, like the ones you raise (kids being born in households that can't support them). Jason would appeal to the self-interest the would-be fathers themselves, which is a horrible thought; but it's a moral, anti-poverty, pro-society message to say, "People who know they can't fend for children shouldn't be forced to decide to have them."

By analogy, there are about a billion reasons to be against the war. But if you make its sheer cost to taxpayers your principle argument, you open yourself up to a wide variety of attacks from the other side because it seems so heartless (you don't care about Iraqis, you don't care about security, you're not supporting the troops since they need MORE resources not less, etc.). Better to have the costs just loom in the background to give empirical weight and urgency to more compassionate and noble arguments.

Anonymous said...

A good example of how much more responsive the public is to practical considerations as opposed to rights is the shift in opinion against the death penalty as the argument becomes more about actual innocence and less about cruel and unusual punishment.

AlanSmithee said...

"Good News Fellas! Abortion saves you money!"

How much more repulsive is this gonna get? How about "Slavery is a great source of cheap labor!" Yeah, that sounds about right for this guy.