.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sunday, March 12, 2006


The abortion debate has started up (again) at Sir Humphreys.

I have been following it bemused. People get so het up about this topic. No one seems to actually change anyone else's mind either.

Sometimes I comment but I don't think I think on the same wavelength as everyone else. It is pointless and no fun when no one understands where I'm coming from. People have such set ideas, and I don't care enough to try and change anyone else's mind.

No. That's wrong. I do care, but I just think that the people who endlessly debate abortion are probably not the ones who a) will change their mind or b) would benefit from having their minds changed.

It seems that those who debate the topic want to influence the law. Thats all very nice and stuff but for someone like me, who doesn't take any notice of the law when it comes to important things, the law is not all that relevant. I am sure there will be abortions regardless of whether it is legal or not.

Oh and apparently I might be a moral relativist, which is apparently a bad thing. I think that's kind of funny!

This is one of those things that no one will ever convince anyone to change their minds on. All anyone will ever do is argue past one another. It is one of numerous arguments I will not get myself involved in.
Out of interest, did you think I was for a law change?

And whenever some-one assigns a label to you, remember, that's from their perspective.

And for a while, I thought we all were actually discussing, rather than arguing, which would be a rare occurrence on the internet, and rarer still at Sir Humphrey's. I thought that was interesting in itself.
I couldn't tell whether you were for a law change or not. You are very good at being diplomatic...so it's sometimes hard to decipher what your opinion is and if you have a strong opinion. Of course, I have tendencies that way too ;)

Most of the time I don't mind be labelled and most of the time I don' get offended - certainly not when it comes to morality and philosophy and opinions. I think I may actually be a moral relativist of sorts. I thought it was funny because I think Andrei meant it as, well not as an insult because Andrei is cool, but as an unfortunate thing, whereas, I would take it as a compliment!

It was a very reasonable discussion, which is quite an impressive feat I must say! Yet...does anyone actually change their view on this as a result of these discussions? I don't think I have, but maybe others do. And I notice myself saying the same things over again. Although maybe my opinions have evolved. I'd like to think they have, but I'm pretty sure they haven't.
Thanks for that. I wasn't specifically being diplomatic or guarded. In this case, I do think that the foetus is killed, and that is a great tragedy, but I haven't evolved my opinion beyond quite knowing what to do about it. So beyond the initial discussion, I aren't quite ready to venture an opinion, as I'm still working it out. In that sense, there's at least one person in that debate that could go from "not sure" to "I'll go with this idea for now"

I really think it is as Tincanman said - getting back to before we are even in this situation. That means changing the way people think about things, and the actions they take, at a far deeper level, which would be an even bigger challenge.

That would then ultimately mean the number of women requiring abortions, diminishes, which would be a good thing.

I didn't get to answer RandomVeganPhil's question about what happens after the birth. He could only see the solution as something requiring the government to hand over money to single mothers. That would have changed the topic of the debate.

But he could rest assured that my concern for people extends beyond the womb. Right wing people (lets call me that for the moment) can care about people too. The hand-up/hand-out balance is just different.

Whenever I think of Moral Relativism, I think of my funny debate with Spooks ("Throwing Stones" under my Top Posts Category). However a bit of moral relativism is a healthy thing I think. We need to be able to respect other values that differ from ours, which seems to require some relativism.

But then perhaps we are getting into metaethics and value pluralism, which is a deeper discussion for another night.

Hah. That reminds me. Icehawk labelled me a Consequentialist. I do like the theories of consequentialism and utilitarianism, but he missed the point of the advantage of taking on a different framework - or more importantly, in this part of the debate, being able to drop a framework. People (maybe not Icehawk, but he seemed a little fixated) are so wrapped up in rights, they can't drop them. And I still haven't done my rights post.

Lucky I don't really have a deadline.

Live well Suze.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?