Jump to content

inkylouhoo

Member
  • Content Count

    320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

inkylouhoo last won the day on July 26 2007

inkylouhoo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

318 Excellent

About inkylouhoo

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1989
  1. Can't help feeding the troll... Let me try a different track - I think the real reason Hadoken thinks homosexuality isn't genetic is because it gives him a justification for refusing them legal protection. He basically says as much, but doesn't give a reason, so I'll hazard a guess: I bet that in Hadoken's world, hierarchy exists and that's okay or even a good thing as long as a person's place on the hierarchy is determined by merit. That's why it's okay to discriminate against fat people - because they can always lose the weight! That's why it's okay to discriminate against poor people - because they can always make more money! So he thinks it's okay to discriminate against gay people because they can always choose to be meritorious, ie heterosexual, if they want to rise higher in the hierarchy. This proves to be a flimsy excuse because the whole system falls apart when "merit" is revealed to mean only "traditionally socially desirable". After all, fat people and a poor people are no is less intelligent, trustworthy, fun, kind, or are less virtuous than other people. There are structural reasons it's difficult to lose 100 lbs or make 100K that have more to do with the organization of society than individual fault. On the contrary, there are lots of reasons why fat people and poor people start far lower on the social totem pole, so even if they do prove themselves socially desirable through acheivement, they're still not treated the same way as their peers with the same achievements. That's what privilege MEANS - identity traits affect the way a person's achievements are interpreted, and sometimes identity traits are coded as "bad" because of historical prejudice rather than his fantasy of objective rationality. Perhaps Hadoken can't see this because he still hasn't seen through the pure fiction that the social playing field is mostly even, and that difference can be divided into individual identity traits that can then be classified as either "good" or "bad." Most of the rest of us start from the presumption not that hierarchy is natural and good, but from the presumption that we all share a common humanity and thus discrimination is not okay unless there is a seriously good reason for it. "I don't think their family formation is as desirable as mine" is not a good enough reason to deprive someone of civil rights, even if Hadoken is right about homosexuality being a choice.
  2. You can, however, study the efficacy rates of oral contraceptives in women who already smoke pot and already take oral contraceptives. OB/GYNs prescribe oral contraceptives to women using marijuana all the time, so you could at least retroactively determine whether women who reported smoking pot reported a higher rate of unplanned pregnancies than women who did not report smoking pot. Sure, it's not quite as solid as a controlled experimental study, but it's solid enough evidence to make predictions about whether there's a likelihood of increased contraceptive failure. The college health websites I linked to indicated that there isn't a recognized association between marijuana and birth control efficacy, so I doubt this concern about metabolic interaction is widely recognized by the medical profession. This is consistent with the experience of many women I know personally and with the advice given by OB/GYNs in my area. More importantly, the study from the Drug and Alcohol Dependence journal I linked to says they found no evidence that marijuana impacts hormone levels. I'll quote the abstract: "Chronic marijuana use showed no significant effect on hormone concentrations in either men or women." So it seems that even if they are metabolized in the same pathway, since marijuana doesn't impact hormone levels on its own, I don't think there's enough evidence to claim that marijuana prevents birth control from working properly. I think it's unlikely any evidence of contraceptive failure will emerge from further study, because if the rate of failure was substantially higher I think women would have noticed already because we'd be getting pregnant on the pill, which we would report to our doctors, who would realize there was a problem. I could be wrong, though, and if I'm wrong this is an issue women should be informed about when they're prescribed birth control - which is why I would support further study. I just don't think it's responsible to be telling women there's evidence marijuana will mess with our birth control, when there's really only an under-evidenced possibility that might be true. I think we should approach this the way the Columbia health website I linked to did - we should point out the possibility and suggest that women who are concerned about it choose not to smoke pot or choose to do further research so that they can form an opinion of the risk they're undertaking. Like I said above, you can study people who already use, and you can also do tests on the marijuana and tobacco themselves to see how much tar and particulate matter they produce when burned and pumped into an artificial lung. Even if that doesn't tell us the impacts on human lungs directly, it allows us to compare the two substances. More importantly, there IS evidence that marijuana is less likely to cause emphysema and cancer than tobacco. It'll quote from a drug policy website that cites four scholarly sources on this question: "There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marijuana, and in a large study presented to the American Thoracic Society in 2006, even heavy users of smoked marijuana were found not to have any increased risk of lung cancer. Unlike heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airway. That indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana." My overall point is - although there are some risks to using marijuana (like there are to using any drug), those risks are relatively small and a reasonable person might choose to undertake them because they like getting high, the same way people choose to undertake risks because they like getting drunk. I think the danger is comparable to or less than the danger of alcohol and tobacco, because the negative health consequences of the latter two drugs are much more well-documented. It's good to make sure everyone's informed about the risks, and that the risks are fully studied. I just don't think we should overreact to possible negative health consequences, which you seem to be doing when you say things like - we should treat them in the appropriate context. I'll ignore the rest of your post because I'm narrowly responding to your point about oral contraceptives, not the rest of the medical marijuana debate. I would defend legalization as my alt, but you've already stated you probably agree with that.
  3. or... reason #301 for YOU to get snipped, since vastectomies are so much less invasive than tubal ligation jokes aside, marijuana definitely doesn't affect the efficacy of birth control, although of course doctors recommend against smoking of any kind. it doesn't implicate hormone levels, so there's no mechanism for decreased efficacy. i mean, it's not like marijuana makes you ovulate! the other stuff you said is more plausible, but there's insufficient evidence so far. it's most likely that marijuana slightly increases a woman's risk of heart disease, but to a lesser extent than cigarettes. the studies on the relationship between marijuana and birth control are under-developed because it's difficult to research illegal substances. that's yet another reason to legalize IMO, so we can figure out if marijuana does actually increase the risk of developing a heart condition in women who use oral contraceptives.
  4. Right, but by the time the string of insults was hurled, the investigation was over. If Gates had been disrupting an active investigation, it makes sense to arrest him for disorderly conduct or hindering prosecution or whatever. But since the investigation had been completed, the police no longer needed to stay in order to keep order. You give good reasons why a person ought to choose to acquiesce to police authority, or at least appear to. But an action being wise or socially beneficial does not make it a legal requirement. I have the right to express the belief that the police are bad (because of racism, excess of authority, my personal belief in anarchism, or whatever other reason I might believe) and to say so, even in words which are disrespectful. I think this is a good thing even if the cost is that it delegitimizes the police, because I think the right to free speech is so important that it should be nearly absolute. I don't think an "atmosphere of disrespect" raises to the level of a concern which should trump free speech, and agree with the SCOTUS interpretation that words must be likely to incite an actual, imminent violent act before the public interest is pressing enough to trump the first amendment. I don't think it rises to that level because I think the role of the police, problems with the police, and the desirability of having police at all are political issues that I think it is fair for citizens to be able to debate. Even if public opinion is overwhelming that it is desirable to have police (which it isn't, in many disadvantaged communities), the right to dispute that is something I believe should be protected, and I do not think the use of profanity or loud vocal volume or the presence of an audience changes that right. Also, I recognize that the fact that my personal selfish instinct is (like yours) to cooperate is to some extent the result of privilege. I'm a white female whose apparent class status is upper-middle-class, so talking nicely to the police pretty much always gets out of trouble, especially when I really am innocent. For some people in other social locations, talking to the cops is much riskier, and minimizing contact with the police at all costs is a wiser strategy than engaging with them. Sometimes, when a person comes from a background where that is the case, but who has aquired some other form of privilege like Gates' apparent class privilege (as a well-educated, at least middle class professor), the protection that privilege provides allows them to express the anger they learned from their earlier encounters with a less privileged youth. Whether that's the case for Gates, I'm not sure, but it sounds plausible. Well, he has a right to use his popularity to rail against an organization he doesn't like. It's too bad that he went so overboard in this circumstance, but all his press conferences after his release do just as much if not more to polarize popular discourse and undermine police credibility as his original shouting did. The media coverage has certainly made sure that the audience watching now is much, much larger than the original audience who witnessed his conduct on the day he got arrested. Yet, I'm sure you don't think his press releases constitute disorderly conduct, even if you find his rhetoric in them abhorrent. What is the distinction, in your view, between his press releases and his shouting at the police in his yard? (If your answer is that the police were in the middle of investigating a crime when he was in his yard, my answer is that the police were done investigating a crime by the time the situation escalated to the point where the officer decided to arrest him.) Also, like I said above, I think his rough day and his background make his poor judgement easier to understand. But that's not what happened. The police took him into custody. My only contention is that the arrest was not justified. (Although, my personal gut instinct is definitely to defend my neighbor over the police - I am much more concerned about abuse of police power than I am supportive of police efforts to prevent me from being victimized, because my experience has been that the police don't actually prevent bad things from happening, and that they're much more likely to getme and my friends in trouble than they are likely to help us. I know a lot of people who feel this way, some because they feel that they are disproportionately harassed on the basis of race, as Gates apparently did. Maybe the neighbors felt the same way.)
  5. The presence of an audience isn't proof that his conduct was disorderly. In fact, drawing a crowd is often the express point of ranting in public - what use would the first amendment be if you were allowed to speak freely, but only if people didn't listen to you? Just like a guy standing on a soap-box on a city corner ranting about the evils of government or the decline of our national morals wants to draw a crowd so that the citizenry will become enlightened, Gates may have been conscious of his audience and wished to publicize his (apparently extreme) displeasure with the conduct of the police officers who came to his home. His right to express this displeasure, loudly and with profanity, is and should be protected so long as it does not seem likely to incite violence. No one, not even the officer, has indicated that the crowd was incited by Gate's speech (it seems that they were just watching the spectacle). Also, this crowd? It numbered less than ten people. Ten people is hardly a mob. Also, public is kind of questionable here. He was in his front yard. Anyone who felt disturbed by his language could have left, since it's unlikely that he would have left his property and wandered around the neighborhood yelling. And, if he had, that is when his behavior may have posed some sort of danger to the public. Making police officers' lives harder may not be nice, but it isn't and shouldn't be illegal. In fact, our constitution enshrines our right to make police officers' lives harder - we have the right to remain silent, we have the right to refuse to allow them to search our property without a search warrant, and we have the right to say terrible things about them in public. I defend Gates on these grounds - he was exercising his rights, and got arrested for it. Whether I'm a fan of his conduct or not, I think it's important that he be allowed to conduct himself in that manner. I don't want to live in a society where telling off a police officer who came to my door gets me arrested, whether or not that officer acted in good faith when deciding to come to my residence. The fact that they knew it was a false alarm is exactly the point. I agree that the original response was in good faith, but as soon as the officer knew he had completed his job (in this case, by determining that there was no crime committed), he had no reason to stay any longer. He may have stuck around in good faith, or it may have been because Gates was being an ass and the officer stuck around hoping to see something that justified a disorderly conduct arrest. We probably won't ever know which of the two it was, given the conflicting stories, but it doesn't really matter what the officer's motivation was, because the officer screwed up regardless by making an arrest for which there were not sufficient grounds. If you don't think his conduct was illegal, why do you think the police "must do something"?
  6. Whether or not it's socially desirable behavior, going on a tirade about racist cops is and should be legal, even when it's directed at a particular officer and especially if you're located on your private property. I think it's wiser and more conducive to social order not to yell at police, but I think the right to do so is very important - where do you think is a better line to draw between legally punishable disturbance of the peace and just being an asshole, if not at the line between verbal and physical conduct? The volume of a person's voice and the presence of obscenities are both components of uncivil discourse, but unless that uncivil language seems likely to incite violence, incivility alone is not sufficient conditions for arrest. I don't think anyone has to agree to public endorsement of the desirability of Gates' conduct to (correctly, according to current jurisprudence) defend his right to conduct himself in such a manner in his own front yard. No one's arguing that the police should assume that any person in a polo is a resident - rather, people are suggesting that once the cop had determined by looking at Gates' ID that Gates was a resident (as the officer himself says he determined at the very beginning of this encounter), he no longer had anything to investigate, and therefore should have left. Crowd or no crowd, yelling or no yelling, I am comfortable with a precedent that says "police who have completed their investigation, having determined that a crime had not committed, should leave yelling homeowners alone and return to their normal duties." Because, had the cop had simply left the premises, he would only have been leaving an angry man to yell about racist police on his own residential property, something which should be entirely acceptable in a society which supposedly values free speech. Well, he'd just gotten home from a transnational air flight after a long business trip, so it makes sense to me that he was irritable. Plus, his job and social history (that of a black man who came of age during an era when the abuse of minority populations by the police was not only acceptable, but explicitly condoned by many) provide him an extensive background in the abuses of white police against black "suspects" - it's not hard for me to understand why his first thought was "this is racist" (even if that was not in fact the officer's motivation).
  7. I thought Graham was totally disrespectful to Sotomayor. Asking her "do you understand?" about basic questions of law, as if she didn't have decades of legal experience and a series of prestigious degrees, is condescending and inappropriate. I can't help but wonder if that CX approach (although not unique to Graham) is motivated in part out of sexist and racist assumptions about aggressive women and "uppity" minorities. I'm all for tricky questions, but treating as qualified a candidate as Sotomayor as if she's doesn't get basic legal concepts is a pretty disrespectful ploy, and one that was not leveraged against say, Alito. Sotomayor was graceful, concise, and generally straightforward in her answers. Despite being pressed (and perhaps disrespected) by many of her questioners, she stuck to the answers she was willing to give and did not allow herself to be goaded into making sweeping judgments she was not willing to defend. This approach matches her style of jurisprudence - she tends to defer to law and address the legal, rather than political, questions at hand. In this light, it makes perfect sense for her to give answers like saying Roe v Wade is "settled law." Her answers defer to precedents because she defers to precedents. I think Colbert pretty much gets it right: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/238783/july-16-2009/the-word---neutral-man-s-burden
  8. I voted that none of the drugs should be banned, assuming the risks are all adequately marked on the packaging or disclosed by the doctor prescribing it.
  9. Well, shit. And I defended Wright last time around. To be fair, though, everyone associates with at least some people the general public would consider questionable. It's unsurprising that the opposing party is capable of locating them when election time rolls around. (Edit: I should note that this isn't an excuse for what Wright said. It's not. It's just a commentary on why we are often able to link politicians to people they're associated with who say messed up things.)
  10. Kanye does talk about education: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWwACQZlIlg He also raps about it. The first song that comes to mind is We Don't Care, which has this passage: Sittin in the hood like community colleges This dope money here is Lil Treys scholarship Cause aint no to tuition for havin no ambition And aint no loans for sittin your ass at home The point being that kids don't have ambition/lack opportunities for education and are forced to sell dope to get by (ya know, since the chorus is "drug dealin just to get by"). He's contributing to that by saying shit like "I am a proud non-reader of books. I like to get information from doing stuff like actually talking to people and living real life." Which kinda implies that reading isn't real and interferes with being social and living a real life. Great message... Not that I'm not a fan, but Kanye isn't exactly the most enlightened rapper out there, and this book is a pretty ridiculous example of that.
  11. a) not everything said in the 2AC is blocked out - even the most diligent blocker will come across new arguments or come up with round-specific analysis from time to time. memories are not all perfect. the 2A should be planning what they want the 2AR to look like throughout the whole debate. part of that is knowing what's said, and part of that is helping shape 1AR strategy (even if you trust your partner, there will be some moments when you'll probably need to say "emphasize this arg, I'm going to need it" or "i want you to say X about X arg", or when your partner will ask you about a particular argument, or when you need to make a joint meta-strategic decision like kicking case; if your partner isn't as experienced or even just thinks differently about argument strategy than you do, communication becomes even more important) i mean, you can probably do debate without backflowing, especially in hs. but it's still useful, especially if you're having problems remembering what you said (like the OP said they did). it's useful for inexperienced debaters because they're often less familiar with their blocks and the key arguments. it's useful for experienced debaters because it means you don't have to worry about technical on-the-flow issues, and are freed to think about strategy.
  12. This is a fair point, but to my knowledge the pro-choice movement has turned a corner, and now vehemently opposes the racist policies some of its founders advocated (although they surely did advocate them and we would be well-advised to watch our rhetoric too). Do you know of any recent instances of this?
  13. Sorry for the double post, but one more thing to add to my response to the Scu: I also think the indignant proclamations of "my body, my choice!" should be read in light of the disgusting history of abuse women have suffered. From forced sterilization to forced pregnancy to rape to sexual slavery, women's right to their own bodies have not been respected historically (or even in the present day). So when women, particularly feminist women, get really angry and yell things like "my body, my choice," a lot of us mean that as short hand for telling the larger culture "just stop it already! leave me alone! stop hurting my body and making me powerless over what happens to me! I'm smart enough to figure out what I want done to me and you should respect that!" Even for those of us who have thankfully not been the victims of misogynist violence know that it can happen to us, and adding one more fear to the list (the fear of being forced to stay pregnant when the last thing you want in the world is to be pregnant) provokes a justifiably emotional response.
  14. There's a big, big difference between having a right to tell other people what they should do with their bodies and having a right to tell other people that they have to keep a fucking fetus inside their bodies for nine fucking months.* Besides the obvious difference in degree between telling someone they can't eat a steak or use their hands to choke and telling them that they have to have carry a pregnancy for nine months and then give birth, there is also a difference in kind. It differs from the eating example because you are not telling someone what they can not put into their body - you are telling them what they must keep inside their body. It differs from the choking example because choking is a much more clearly resolvable instance of interpersonal conflict - there is no pressing reason why a person's interest in choking someone is so important that it would be a gross violation of that person's human rights to ban choking, but there are plenty pressing and significant reasons (whether you agree with them or not) why forcing someone to continue a pregnancy is such a gross violation. I think "choice" as used by pro-abortion rights advocates in their ethical statements more closely connotates the word and concept of "consent" than stupid liberal notions of rational, autonomous individualism. (At least, that's closer to what I mean when I use the word "choice" in abortion debates in the context of morals/ethics.) The reason I think this analogy is valid is because I think abortion rights give women the legal right to either consent to pregnancy or to not consent to it. I see a striking similarity in a woman's fundamental right to decide whether or not she wants a penis (or fingers, or a dildo, or whatever) in her vagina and her fundamental right to decide whether or not she wants a baby in her uterus. I also invoke "choice" because I trust women to make thoughtful decisions about abortion, hopefully in partnership with the father and her doctor. Even if abortion does constitute the taking of a life, and is therefore wrong, the ethics involved are widely disagreed about and involve many complex issues that leave reasonable people on both sides. I think that means a focus on choice - whether or not people have the right to make decisions in line with either ethical stance on the issue of abortion - is of central importance. Also, I know you're not talking about choice in the statist sense, but you should realize that the emphasis on "choice" is for statist reasons as much as it is for ethical/moral reasons. Being pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean thinking abortion is good or morally acceptable (although it can), but it does necessarily mean thinking abortion should be legal. So, a lot of the decision to use the word and concept of choice is based on beliefs about what the law should be and what the state should do, and how to protect the legality of women's decision (choice) to abort. In fact, I often invoke "choice" as a way of returning to what I see as the central question in debates over abortion policy - whether or not abortion should be a legally allowable choice. I emphasize the legal question over the ethical question in these types of debates because I think there are better places to discuss abortion ethics than in the political realm. How would you suggest framing this issue? *I apologize for the profanity, and I don't mean to convey disrespect or incivility. I chose to use profanity for emphasis, because I cannot possibly overstate how strongly I feel about that particular statement. I hope the tone of the rest of the post reads as more conciliatory. --- Edit: Somebody neg repped me on this post "its irresponsible to knowingly get pregnant if you dont want to carry it to term." I'm curious what part of my post reads as "it's okay to intentionally get pregnant if you don't want to carry to term," because I definitely never said that. I'll contend that (1) having sex is not the same thing as "knowingly getting pregnant" nor is it the same as consenting to pregnancy, and (2) that no one gets pregnant just because they want to get an abortion, which is what this rep seems to imply (seriously, who wakes up one day and is like "well, gee, I want to get pregnant so that I can go through the pleasant, risk-free, inexpensive procedure that is an abortion!"). Furthermore, having sex without contraception when you don't want to get pregnant is in fact irresponsible, but irresponsibility should not be punishable by forced pregnancy (especially given current attitudes and policies which are often hostile to safe sex). Women who abort in the late term are pretty much exclusively women who want to carry the pregnancy to term but can't because of medical complications with them or the fetus.
  15. I'm going to follow Greg's example and talk about this in terms of rhetoric and strategy, not in terms of whether abortion rights are good or bad. I feel like this debate all to frequently devolves into the same abortion good/bad debate, when there are a lot of other aspects of the cultural conflict over abortion that are worth talking about. My problem with the label "pro-life" is two-fold. First, it's misleading. It suggests that the two sides are fighting over whether abortion is good or not, and that anyone who thinks abortion is wrong should be pro-life. In actuality, the two sides are fighting over whether or not abortion should be criminalized or otherwise further restricted. You can be "pro-life" in that you would never have an abortion, think it's wrong, and would encourage anyone you knew who was pregnant to seek different options instead, and still think that it's better to have abortion be safe, legal, and rare. You might think this because you're concerned for women's safety when they inevitably seek illicit abortions, because you have empathy and don't wish to see desperate pregnant women or sympathetic doctors become jailed criminals, or simply because you think it's not the state's place to decide. The term "pro-life" polarizes a complex issue, obscuring middle ground like what I just described, because it misrepresents the policy ground represented by the two positions. Second, the public isn't real receptive to impact turns. Saying "hell yeah, I'm okay with killing sometimes" alienates potential allies in the struggle for reproductive rights. It's a turn-off to those who believe in choice, especially in desperate situations, but who still value fetal life and mourn its loss. The reproductive rights movement absolutely cannot afford to alienate those people - they are the majority, and they are the segment of the population we have to keep on our side/win over to preserve abortion. They're also the people who are persuaded by policies which expand access to birth control and sex ed and other ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place, so that they can have their cake (choice) and eat it too (but still not kill fetii). I'm not sure what to do about it, though, because telling most people who consider themselves "pro-life" that they're evil bastards who ought to call themselves "anti-choice" obviously pisses them off. It's not conducive to compromise. But at the same time, it's hard to cooperate with a movement which is backed by people like Tiller's murderer and the conservative pundits who *have praised his murder.* I realize that there are good people on both sides of this debate, but holy shit it is sometimes hard to see the pro-lifers who have hearts. It seems like we're stuck between fighting fire with fire (by resorting to inflammatory rhetoric like calling the other side anti-choice) or accepting right-wing double-speak (by calling the other side pro-life despite our problems with the term). I guess the best we can do is argue for neutral terms like "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights" (but those are too long and cumbersome for snappy political rhetoric). Maybe we can call the two sides "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion"? This is a great position if you want to be philosophically valid and consistent. I think it's a terrible one as a political strategy, because it relies on some far-left understandings of the political sphere. It's hard enough to fight for abortion rights that it makes no sense to make things harder by also trying to revolutionize our approach to politics in any way that is not extremely likely to be accepted by the mainstream American public. Yes, this kind of attack is a great strategy for the left. Pointing out the ways illegalizing abortion harms life is a good idea. The two sides are dogmatist and "hysterical" because the activists on both sides deep-down truly believe that what's at stake is very, very, very important. For many on the anti-abortion side, the debate is fundamentally over the murder of children. For many on the pro-choice side, the debate is fundamentally about forced pregnancy and the ultimate violation of women's bodies (in many ways analogous to rape). There is clearly common ground to be found when people clear their heads, but it's not just a breakdown in political discourse that contributes to the vehemence of these cultural conflicts. There are also religious, philosophical, political, and personal/emotional convictions involved. This makes sense to me. When we're talking about late-term abortions specifically, speaking in terms of regrettable, tragic loss of life in order to preserve the life and liberty of another makes absolute sense. It makes sense both for the reasons you highlighted, and because late-term abortions Early-term abortions can reasonably be defended as something which does not destroy a valuable form of life (presuming you can win that actual liberties outweigh a potential human consciousness). Late-term abortions don't have to be defended on those grounds, because they're almost exclusively performed on women who would love to be able to carry their babies to term but can't because of health problems of their own or of the fetus's. I realize the line may seem arbitrary, but it has to be drawn somewhere. On the one hand, it seems very reasonable that an organism which is a few cells big with no higher functions does not outweigh a woman's right to her own body; on the other hand, it would be heinous to kill a fetus which was 8.5 months along (unless it was already guaranteed to die of some horrible incurable illness). I think drawing the line at viability (with adequate health and life exceptions) preserves both women's opportunity to make decisions about their own reproduction, and prevents the atrocity of killing nearly-born infants. Hmm. Maybe people could understand it if we put it this way... Maybe a diversity of ways of describing the pro-choice position make sense. I agree. My long response short: There's value in objecting to the term pro-life and in creating discursive space within the pro-choice movement for those who oppose abortion (but not abortion rights). Sometimes you have to play the game a little bit to win points in the sound-bite world of political rhetoric we live in, but we should minimize the cost of simplifying our argument by using more nuance and diversity of opinion wherever we can.
×
×
  • Create New...