there is 2 kinds of idealism in life: unrealized idealism, and the idealism of the never-will-be
additionally, there is compassion that is proof positive, and compassion that is proof negative
pro-life positions are the idealism of the never-will-be and it's compassion is proof negative
let me explain
everybody hates war, but some begrudgingly accept it as a necessary but hateful part of human existence, while others adhere to the belief that war is never necessary, the true blue idealistic peaceniks who think that hugging a despot and singing campfire songs and giving him flowers will burst his evil heart and make him full of love
unrealized idealism is as you say: such as slavery. many argued for slavery in a lot of the ways you say i do, which is a good point. however, the allegory of slavery does not hold to abortion. slavery is, and was repugnant, but machinery replaced the need for a lot of repetitive human tasks, so slavery's repugnance rendered it unnecessary once and for given a viable option, and it could be abolished. the cotton gin probably did more to get rid of slavery in the american south than a million bombs ever did. (although considering the plight of mexican day laborers, you could say it still persists in a milder form, economic slavery, but that is another topic and the allegory doesn't hold that true really)
in the future, they may be able to grow beef in vats... real beef, with the same taste, mouthfeel, cellular makeup... at which point, the repugnance of killing domestic animals rises to the level where indeed, killing animals for food becomes unnecessary, the animal rightists win, but we're not there yet, so the repugnance of killing animals for foods continues today (so peta should do more biotech research methinks and get those vats going, lol)
in the future, some women may elect to have their children grown in artificial embryos, outside their bodies, to save their bodies the wear and tear, rendering humanity akin to egg-laying species. however, there will always be women who will want to go natural, just nostalgia is good enough, for indeed, humans are mammals: we do not lay eggs. for awhile, the mother's life and the baby's life are entwined on a level in which your teasing them apart makes no sense whatsoever, because they are united by god/ darwin/ whatever.
in such a case, you cannot ever talk about the rights of the fetus without considering the rights of the mother, and so you cannot, in intellectual honesty, discount the fact that at some point, in some instances, the rights of the mother outweight the rights of the fetus to live. if and when you admit that, then the question simply becomes a matter of at what point, and since every woman's case is different, ther is no idealistic, fundamentalist line in the sand that exists that you can adhere to as a edict for good behavior: it is different for every woman
my solution is to trust the judgment of the woman. this is an instinctual opinion base don one of trust. your opinion has no trust in women. it redners women as little more than reproductive machinery: their wants and needs are less important than her uterus in your eyes.
life is not a place of infinite resources. a woman is not an omniscient being. you cannot expect her to adhere to your unbending, idealistic edicts on abortion, and completely discount her feelings or wants and desires. it is not a matter of being unfair, it is a matter of design of homo sapiens as mammals: women grow our children in their bodies, attached on a very basic level which shatters your idealistic views, your gambit of removign her free will, completely.
if humans laid eggs, you would be 100% correct. since we do not, your beliefs are incorrect, idealistic, wrong, immoral.
i will make some assumptions and say i think you are someone who accepts war under certain conditions, that war is evil, ugly, hateful, but unfortunately, a necessary part of human existence: as long as people have different beliefs and are passionate enough about their beliefs to go to mortal danger for them, there will be war, or at least violent, deadly strife and conflict on some level, forever.
that will never change.
there will always be pedophiles in life. out of pure statistical inevitability, there will always be born or created, despite our best attempts at vigilance, pedophiles: those who disregard the innocence of children in order to satisfy a sexual urge. so we will always be at war with pedophiles. but this fact doesn't mean we accept pedophiles. it doesn't mean that just because there is nothing we can do about their continued creation that we just throw up our arms and walk away, we will always be at war on pedophilia, and we alway should be, and we always will be, our moral outrage never wavering one second.
abortion is not like slavery, it is like war or pedophilia: it will always be there, as long as women have children. necessary but unfortunate like war, and continuously recreated and lamentable like pedophilia.
do you see?
now, about compassion: for women in the situation of abortion, do you deny them? does that solve the problem of abortion? no, we have demonstrated it doesn't go away. we have deomnstrated why it is inevitable, we have demonstrated why it must be accepted: a woman must be allowed to go to a doctor to perform an abortion, or she will do it herself, and put her life in risk. this is the moral, conscious, compassionate thing to do: give her a safe space in order to have an abortion. not because we like killing babies, but because we have compassion for human life: the mother's.
proof positive compassion: compassion that then leads to fighting misogyny, fighting sexism, elevating the rights of women, elevating the earning equity of women to men, elevating women's access to contraception and family planning... all of these compassionate fights put owmen in less and less situation sin which aboriton must be considered. that's the real fight against abortion righ thtere. if you had real comapssion and real understanding, that is where your fight to save unborn fetuses would lead oyu to, instead of passing impossible idealistic unbending one-size-fits-all edicts on proper behavior which are diametrically opposed to the concept of human free will.
this is proof positive compassion in the fight against the situations which lead to abortion: helping women, not chastising them. less stick, more carrot. get it?
proof negative compassion is that classic bullshit: "compassionate conservatism"
conservatism is holding things back, by very definition of the word "to conserve". there is no compassion in the word conservatism, there is no bigger oxymoron.
here is an aesop's fable for you that may help you see the moral light in the fight against abortion, and the best way for you to proceed:
The North Wind and the Sun
The North Wind and the Sun disputed as to which was the most powerful, and agreed that he should be declared the victor who could first strip a wayfaring man of his clothes.
The North Wind first tried his power and blew with all his might, but the keener his blasts, the closer the Traveler wrapped his cloak around him, until at last, resigning all hope of victory, the Wind called upon the Sun to see what he could do.
The Sun suddenly shone out with all his warmth. The Traveler no sooner felt his genial rays than he took off one garment after another, and at last, fairly overcome with heat, undressed and bathed in a stream that lay in his path.
Moral: Persuasion is better than Force.
do you hate abortion? do you want to fight it? then stop pounding on the rights and free will of women, and start shining some of your goodwill on their plights in life which would lead them to that option in the first place
then you will truly be compassionate, then you will truly be moral, then you will truly be tolerant
The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.
[ Parent ]