Not only is it insightful, but one that can be actively watched play out in the US with the 50-ish years morality war turning to a war for state voting control and supreme court power to overturn Roe. Watch as states try to out do each other within their purity spiral. What was once thought to be too extreme (no exceptions clauses, even to save the life of the living breathing human in front of them or criminal charges if you save the persons life anyway) is now a required hard line to prove their "moral purity".
I think there's a subtle distinction between morality wars on the left and the right, at least one that I can see from my own perspective.
On the right, there's a coherent, objective moral value statement that voters want upheld, namely "babies are people too, beginning at conception, and must be treated as such by the law." It's pretty straightforward whether this value is being upheld, and there's no risk of a "purity spiral" where people propose increasingly crazy ideas to signal their loyalty to the cause. Just don't kill babies... that is all.
On the left, unless I'm mistaken, there aren't coherent, objective moral value statements at the heart of CRT, identity politics, or pro-choice arguments ("my body, my choice" isn't a well-defined philosophical statement) which does lead to a purity spiral. For example, there have been serious proposals to allow "after birth abortion" -- i.e. it's OK to kill babies after they're born - for a recent example see [0], but there are many other examples as well. TA mentions other purity spirals that occur on the left.
But regardless, yes, there are absolutely politicians on both sides of the aisle who use people's moral values as a means to power (I'm especially thinking of a recent US president, but there are many others). "You want to get rid of abortion? Vote for me!" -- but disingenuously. They don't appear to care personally about whatever it is, they posture to get power while not understanding the nuances of how to wisely implement laws that reflect the peoples' values, or even what those values are exactly in the first place.
---
[0] CA AB-2223, in its original text (now amended), read "Notwithstanding any other law, a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death" (emphasis mine). Note "perinatal death" means death within the first 7 days after birth (thus legalizing infanticide). This has thankfully been edited to perinatal death due to a pregnancy-related cause -- but that could still encompass scenarios like "intentional injury to the child moments before or during birth".
“It’s wrong to force people into childbirth against their will” holds up well as a coherent, objective moral value statement. I’m a bit baffled that you supposedly can’t see the morality argument for respecting bodily autonomy.
On the other side, many of the politicians currently running for office as Republicans in my state have been dragged so deep into the anti-abortion purity spiral that they’re publicly insisting women should die rather than terminate a non-viable and life-threatening pregnancy.
The no exceptions clauses includes no exceptions for either rape or incest.
> The real choice was months earlier.
That is a large blanket assumption. Condom breakage, having a specific gene which makes female birth control very unreliable [1], partner reproductive coercion [2]. Among others. Given enough time, moral purity spirals into attacking then punishing the people wronged or having found themselves in an unfortunate situation. In this particular case, condom breakage, an unfortunate gene one didn't know they had, finding out too late you trusted the wrong partner [sneaky birth control sabotage] etc.
By modern values, yes those are reasons to allow abortions.
But modern values devalue life in part because they also devalue sex. They treat sex casually, as though it isn't the outward symbol and seal of a lifelong commitment and promise, and the very means by which more human life is created.
There would be no felt need for abortion to exist if sex and human life were both valued as they ought to be - as sacred, as gifts with a particular design not our own, as capable of great glory when used rightly -- and great devastation when used wrongly.
Consider how delicately and carefully we handle matters when the stakes are high - when there's the possibility of gaining or losing much based on our decisions. Sex and marriage and family ought to be held in high regard, because the stakes are so high. They can end so well -- or incredibly badly when handled outside their designed operating parameters.
Abortion to me represents the human collateral and fallout from having abandoned a right view of sex and marriage and family. So much death. Ideas have consequences, indeed.
As a side note, a high view of sex and life also increases the travesty that rape is. It's so much worse, morally speaking, than liberals can say it is given their moral framework.
We’re certainly not going to agree on this heightened morality you’ve applied to sex. But ignoring that for a minute, I’m sure you’re aware that complications are not exactly rare during pregnancy. The majority of women who undergo abortions are already mothers. You can handle the high stakes carefully, you can want the pregnancy, and still wind up in need of an abortion. To say that without “liberal attitudes” there would be “no need for abortions” is terribly naive.
> You can handle the high stakes carefully, you can want the pregnancy, and still wind up in need of an abortion.
I hear this a lot, and it's currently a popular "wedge scenario" pro-abortion advocates are using to try to convince people that abortion shouldn't be outlawed.
But I think it's largely a red herring. Either the baby is still alive, or it's not. A high view of human life rules out all intentional taking of life, including assisted suicide. It would also rule out these types of abortions, as they are taking life at a time when life would not end naturally.
Valuing human life highly means accepting that while some people are different, we are all equally valuable -- even those who have birth defects or who die as an infant. And people with Down's syndrome are as equally valuable as those who don't.
Who said anything about Down’s syndrome? 1 in 10 clinically recognized pregnancies results in miscarriage (to say nothing of the pregnancies that end in miscarriage before they’re detected). When a wanted pregnancy naturally terminates or is deemed non-viable, doctors must often use abortion to extract the fetus in order to prevent further complications for the mother.
If you’re concerned about people terminating fertilized cells as a means for genetic selection, you should rather turn your attention to IVF.
> doctors must often use abortion to extract the fetus
Which is fine if the baby is dead or there's a complication in which the mother's life is in immediate danger.
> you should rather turn your attention to IVF.
Agreed, that is a serious ethical issue, and yes it's morally equivalent to abortion. However, I'm afraid there aren't enough people who agree with my stance to make a difference (maybe I'm wrong?)
> Which is fine if the baby is dead or there's a complication in which the mother's life is in immediate danger.
As stated in my first comment, the politicians currently running for office in my area do not agree with your viewpoint, as they have insisted that they will ban abortion even in the case of fetal death or to save the life of the mother. This, imo, is the anti-abortion purity spiral.
And yet it still happens, and it continues to be one of many reasons why someone might need an abortion. Notably, the politicians I mentioned in my original reply all have professed their intent to force women to give birth in cases of rape.
It's wrong to put an innocent human being to death. One or both of that innocent person's parents being a criminal is morally irrelevant. Civilized societies don't hold children guilty for parental acts. Put in simple terms: two wrongs don't make a right.
Nobody needs to intentionally kill an innocent human being, ever. Full stop. Bear in mind that unintentionally killing an innocent human being can be morally acceptable, such as in the case of a medical intervention to save the mother's life. The intent is to save the mother, and if the necessary treatment unfortunately ends the innocent baby's life that is a tragedy, but not immoral. One might say the outcome is the same, but in ethics intent is very important.
It’s also wrong to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their will. Civilized societies don’t coerce living people (or even cadavers for that matter) to give up their body parts to save the life of another.
Edit: And returning to my original point from the earlier comment, the anti-abortion purity spiral has led these politicians to vow to outlaw abortion even to save the life of the mother. They apparently don’t agree with your evaluation of intent in the eyes of the law.
> It’s also wrong to force a person to undergo a medical procedure against their will.
I suppose then that you oppose vaccine mandates?
> Civilized societies don’t coerce living people (or even cadavers for that matter) to give up their body parts to save the life of another.
It's fortunate that childbirth typically leaves the mother with all of her body parts.
> the anti-abortion purity spiral has led these politicians to vow to outlaw abortion even to save the life of the mother. They apparently don’t agree with your evaluation of intent in the eyes of the law.
By definition an abortion is an intentional killing. The killing of the child isn't an unfortunate side effect, it's the primary purpose of the procedure.
How does intentionally killing the innocent child in itself save the life of the mother? A medical procedure to save the life of the mother isn't an abortion. For example an ectopic pregnancy will kill the mother if not treated and all effective treatments unfortunately kill the child. That doesn't make it an abortion.
Furthermore, medical technology has come a long way. It's often an option to induce a premature delivery rather than just kill an innocent human being. And the odds are better than they've ever been that the baby will even survive and be healthy.
> I suppose then that you oppose vaccine mandates?
Yes, it is wrong to force someone to undergo a medical procedure against their will.
> It's fortunate that childbirth typically leaves the mother with all of her body parts.
This is, simply, factually incorrect.
> By definition an abortion is an intentional killing. The killing of the child isn't an unfortunate side effect, it's the primary purpose of the procedure.
Also factually incorrect.
> A medical procedure to save the life of the mother isn't an abortion.
Dude, it takes a 3-second Google search to determine that this is false
Not in any accepted usage of the term. With your tortured definition a woman is maimed every time she has a period. Please at least try to be serious. We’re talking about killing human beings, not fooling about what the best editor is.
>> I know many mothers and not one is missing any body parts as a direct result of childbirth.
That is a really small sample to decide that it is okay for the government to interfere into the private medical decisions between it's citizens and their doctor.
>> You’ll have to be more specific if you don’t want this to parse as nonsense.
To accept this kind of government overreach without understanding the consequences to independently living breathing humans is unfortunate for the families and lives it will take and harm. The risk that pregnancy carries, especially in older and youngest females and those with pre-existing conditions are risk that the United States of America, of all places, should not be forcing on it's citizens. This country was once a symbol of liberty and freedom and has been losing it's way for a minute now - as most things do periodically. This time it will have long term consequences for families and communities of those not affluent enough to travel for or afford proper medical care, for which-ever choice the patient and their doctor decide is best.
- Severe maternal morbidity [1] - "unexpected outcomes of labor and delivery that result in significant short- or long-term consequences to a woman's health.”
- High-risk pregnancy [2] - "About 50,000 people in the U.S. experience severe pregnancy complications each year."
It's not about fetuses, it's about sex. Some conservatives are already making noise about contraceptives, IVF, even miscarriages are becoming suspicious. Also, other rights based on privacy such as gay marriage are on the chopping blocks. Also sex ed, and 100 other school sex issues that the right has already been in a purity spiral over. There are endless ways that conservatives dream about restricting our sex lives.
As far as I know, the only contraceptives conservatives want to outlaw are those that cause abortions -- namely those labeled as "plan B".
> It's not about fetuses, it's about sex.
You may have a point, but I could make the same argument in reverse. One could argue the only reason those on the left want to preserve the right to abortion is because they want to have sex divorced from its potential consequences.
> There are endless ways that conservatives dream about restricting our sex lives.
I'm a conservative (at least w.r.t. moral issues), and let me assure you I do not think (much less dream) about the sex lives of liberals.
What I do think, wish, and pray for is a country that is collectively characterized by knowing God, acknowledging him, giving thanks to him, and asking for his help when we need it -- something both the left and the right in Washington are sadly far from.
It is highly disputed among Christians that our holy books claim the God-imbued soul begins at conception as opposed to the first breath. Yet you are asking every citizen in a diverse nation of 300M to abide by your embattled interpretation of those scriptures.
You ask us to accept your assurance regarding the sex life of liberals but you nonetheless seek to inject your non-authoritative scriptural interpretation into the decisions they make with their bodies. Jesus did not lead this way nor are we called to.
If we treated our peers like Jesus treated the woman at the well, rather than like the subjects of our moral empire, then the country we pray for would be closer to a reality.
> It is highly disputed among Christians that our holy books claim the God-imbued soul begins at conception as opposed to the first breath
That may be so, but it doesn't change what I believe to be true - that babies are people too and should be treated as such.
> If we treated our peers like Jesus treated the woman at the well, rather than like the subjects of our moral empire, then the country we pray for would be closer to a reality.
I agree with you on that - and I believe it's right to live and speak that way with people who are in need. Doing so doesn't mean not advocating for specific policies and laws based on what I believe to be true -- namely that all people are valuable, including babies.
This explanation doesn't resonate with me to be honest even if it gets repeated ad nauseam. I am for abortion and I think this explanation is very likely wrong.
First of all it suggest bad faith in this debate so how would any honest opponent respond here? I do think the group that wants to control anyone's sex life is quite small in reality. The conflict is mostly ideological and it is an ideological question at the core.
Proponents and opponents are pretty evenly split between genders but conservatives are framed to be men trying to police the bodies of women.
There is also a conservative argument pro abortion but it is mainly militant proponents that make a consensus here more difficult. I am not from the US but to my knowledge activists pushed the topic of abortion as a topic and are now in a worse place than before.
> It's not about fetuses, it's about sex. Some conservatives are already making noise about contraceptives, IVF
It’s about human life. Naturally that means sex has something to do with it on account of that’s where human life begins.
Here is the simple moral reasoning: Killing innocent human beings is wrong. Pre-born babies are innocent human beings. Therefore, killing pre-born babies is wrong.
IVF involves killing innocent human beings in virtually all cases, because undesired babies are “donated.”
> Also sex ed, and 100 other school sex issues
Yes, many parents object to schoolteachers grooming their children.
> dream about restricting our sex lives.
I can assure you that your sex life has never entered my dreams.
