David repeatedly talks about what the pro-life movement stands for as if he speaks for it, but he does not. I don’t think a discussion of tactics on “both sides” is complete without an accounting of the enduring and pervasive history of violence and harassment in the pro-life movement https://jacobin.com/2022/05/antiabortion-movement-violence-pro-life-roe-v-wade-womens-rights
I think this conversation reflects a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of all three of you. You three are commentators and intellectuals. You have mistakenly assumed that if you gathered three who held differing beliefs, you’d have covered the important ground of the controversy. But that’s simply not so. One can be pro-choice but not feel especially strong about it as a priority among other issues, for example. A discussion among people for whom this is their number one issue, and where the ugly reality of activist tactics and actual red state laws on the books or being proposed was openly discussed (rather than dismissing them with “I’m against that” and looking no deeper) might have been more productive or interesting.
As it is, it does not surprise me that the three of you were able to speak politely about it. But I’m not sure what was learned from it.
I appreciate the thoughtful arguments of all three participants. I would probably even go further and say that the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are misleading; my preferred labels would be "Supporter of Abortion Right" (SRA) and "Opponent of Abortion Right" (ORA). In that regard, majority of SRA are not celebrating any abortion, they just feel that sometimes this option needs to be open, as nicely articulated by Cathy.
I am wondering about a different question. The Alito opinion is essentially contemptuous not just of the Roe decision but of all the actions of the Supreme Court in the second half of the XX century. Furthermore, the opinion talks about historical traditions -- and the Justices are happy to consider the experiences of the XVII century England as "relevant" but discard the experiences of the XX century America and Europe as "irrelevant". David has a well-thought argument why abortion is different from everything else. Alito mentions the same -- but can he be trusted (given that he and his collaborators deceived the senators on this same topic on multiple occasions)?
My question to David and other honest people on his side of the divide is then as follows. Can the "classical liberal" pro-lifers (or ORAs) articulate a political and philosophical arguments how we can live under modern liberal democracy where abortion is prohibited? In other words -- the Supreme Court is happy to have us all live under the same laws as in 1890-s Kansas (male dominance with some rights for women, no restrictions on gun carry, no worker rights, no welfare or other safety provisions, no progressive taxation, anti-immigrant animus, soft -- and sometimes hard -- racism, freedom of speech subject to the whims of the local sheriff, enforced religious participation, etc.) Most Americans never lived under such a regime. Is this something that ORAs are willing to countenance for this country? If not, where is a political force that can fight for liberal democracy without abortions?
David repeatedly talks about what the pro-life movement stands for as if he speaks for it, but he does not. I don’t think a discussion of tactics on “both sides” is complete without an accounting of the enduring and pervasive history of violence and harassment in the pro-life movement https://jacobin.com/2022/05/antiabortion-movement-violence-pro-life-roe-v-wade-womens-rights
They engaged in tactics like protesting *at the middle school* of the child of the landlord of a clinic https://thinkprogress.org/in-protest-outside-middle-school-anti-abortion-activists-target-daughter-of-abortion-clinics-1fb71cf3a3c0/
I think this conversation reflects a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of all three of you. You three are commentators and intellectuals. You have mistakenly assumed that if you gathered three who held differing beliefs, you’d have covered the important ground of the controversy. But that’s simply not so. One can be pro-choice but not feel especially strong about it as a priority among other issues, for example. A discussion among people for whom this is their number one issue, and where the ugly reality of activist tactics and actual red state laws on the books or being proposed was openly discussed (rather than dismissing them with “I’m against that” and looking no deeper) might have been more productive or interesting.
As it is, it does not surprise me that the three of you were able to speak politely about it. But I’m not sure what was learned from it.
I appreciate the thoughtful arguments of all three participants. I would probably even go further and say that the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are misleading; my preferred labels would be "Supporter of Abortion Right" (SRA) and "Opponent of Abortion Right" (ORA). In that regard, majority of SRA are not celebrating any abortion, they just feel that sometimes this option needs to be open, as nicely articulated by Cathy.
I am wondering about a different question. The Alito opinion is essentially contemptuous not just of the Roe decision but of all the actions of the Supreme Court in the second half of the XX century. Furthermore, the opinion talks about historical traditions -- and the Justices are happy to consider the experiences of the XVII century England as "relevant" but discard the experiences of the XX century America and Europe as "irrelevant". David has a well-thought argument why abortion is different from everything else. Alito mentions the same -- but can he be trusted (given that he and his collaborators deceived the senators on this same topic on multiple occasions)?
My question to David and other honest people on his side of the divide is then as follows. Can the "classical liberal" pro-lifers (or ORAs) articulate a political and philosophical arguments how we can live under modern liberal democracy where abortion is prohibited? In other words -- the Supreme Court is happy to have us all live under the same laws as in 1890-s Kansas (male dominance with some rights for women, no restrictions on gun carry, no worker rights, no welfare or other safety provisions, no progressive taxation, anti-immigrant animus, soft -- and sometimes hard -- racism, freedom of speech subject to the whims of the local sheriff, enforced religious participation, etc.) Most Americans never lived under such a regime. Is this something that ORAs are willing to countenance for this country? If not, where is a political force that can fight for liberal democracy without abortions?