----- Original Message ----- From: "Miles Jackson" <cqmv at pdx.edu>
> --Am I dodging the question of how to come up with a convincing,
> effective "soccer mom" argument in favor of abortion rights?
> Yep. As I think more about it, though, I wonder how important
> that is. It's not like most people have rationally considered all
> the arguments for and against abortion, like a diligently trained
> philosopher/scientist, and drawn an objective conclusion based
> on logic and evidence. Rather than trying to change people's
> minds via argumentation, we should try to reinforce social relations
> that maintain abortion as a safe, legal activity. Just as a
> change in material reality in the South--integration of schools--
> led to a change in consciousness, so that about 90% of whites in
> the South now think integrated schools are appropriate, I think
> attitudes about abortion will follow from material practice. We
> don't need to provide rigorous ethical arguments that
> abortion is justifiable; we need to engage in political activity
> to expand abortion services in our society.
>
> Again, if this isn't political, I don't know what is. (And if it
> isn't clear from this post, I detest idle metaphysics even more
> than Justin does. Do I protest too much?)
>
> Miles
=================
Seems to me the practice should include forcing the opposition to meet the impossible demand of providing a non-circular explanation/justification as to why abortion should be criminable at all, if only because expanding abortion services should go along with facilitating greater skepticism as regards sexual norms parading as ethics-morality.
The big wall, as I was struggling to point out earlier with Yoshie, is taxation. For in calling for abortion as part of a larger health-care social program we open ourselves to those who would say "gun ownership is a right, should the State provide everyone who wants one or more with guns ?" To a libertarian, taxpayer funded abortions are an unjustified externality.
Ian