Without diving too deeply into this thread, and perhaps it has been mentioned before, but what interests me here is the problem of adumbration in using the term(s) anti-/pro- abortionist, as though there really were an abortion-ism, ideologically speaking. Is there really a fully articulated theory of it as such? ( I probably missed it, so hopefully someone will give me such a reference again, apologies in advance). I am reminded of the lexical and philosophical problem of where the antiabortionists ( see Fascism/-ists) need to get (pro-)abortionists (pro-choice advocates ( nee public choice theorists ) (vs. (methodological) individual choice theorists? ( an excellent pairing for Comedy Central's game show:))) to use or accept the word 'killing' or 'murder' as a mutual term of discourse. Anyway I am grateful for the 19th century references made by others here, because it does fit into other forms of regulatory activity, esp. in England ie prostitution and public health. Abortion-ism regardless or perhaps because of the role of the state should fall into disuse as a term, lest all of the interesting constitutional concerns get obscured. The concept of 'racial quotas' and legislative districts seems similar, as well as the threads on a north american apartheid. Facist action in word (as deed) also seems important as well. (Orrin Hatch's comments on gays and lesbians seems appropriate here) Ann Li ----- Original Message ----- From: Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 3:32 PM Subject: [PEN-L:10009] Re: Fwd: Re: RE: Value Theory and Abortion: [Was Free Speech and Opport > > > Ellen Frank wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I can't say I'm certain about > > >it. But how else to explain the concurrent erosion of > > >access and the apparent sway of pro-choice philosophy? > > > > The cravenness of political "leadership" (as you so amusingly > > term it)? The misogyny and cowardice of the medical profession? > > Max assumes that pro-abortionists must somehow persuade the > anti-abortionists to change their minds. But, rather, it is necessary > to make abortion into something that simply can't be fought -- > make it commonplace. And I suspect that behind the scenes this > may even be happening as a larger and larger proportion of the > population either have had an abortion or know someone who has. > The debate won't ever be "won" or "lost" in terms of parliamentary > politics -- it will simply cease to be a debate. > > In the meantime, the kind of impossible dialogue Max asks for would > only contribute to the illusion that abortion is a moral issue and hence > > a legitimate subject of debate. > > I can offer a little anecdotal evidence that this approach works. > Whenever > the topic of abortion came up in any of my classes, I never argued > the merits but merely pooh-poohed the anti-abortion case as not > worth refuting. This did not change any minds -- *but it did > enhance the firmness of students who wanted to accept abortion > but were daunted by all the anti-abortion flak.* Anti-abortion > arguments should be treated with the same contempt as > creationist arguments. > > Moreover, Max, you might as well give up on this issue. Despite > anything you might say, the general public will always, on this > issue, lump you in with pro-abortionists such as myself. It's an > issue on which opportunism fails completely to be opportune. > > Carrol > >
