Thread: If you had to choose...

THIS POLL IS FOR PROGRESSIVES/PRO-CHOICERS ONLY
(please do not vote if you are pro-life)

Could you bring yourself to support racially discriminatory legislation if it was the only way to expand access to abortion?

We all know that progressives want free healthcare and abortions. So let me pose a hypothetical situation to all the liberals. Suppose the government begins to cover part of the cost of healthcare, but refuses to pay for any abortions. And suppose your government currently only allows abortions within the first six weeks of the pregnancy. There are just too many pro-life conservative religious congressmen/MP's in the government who absolutely refuse to allow taxpayer money to be used to fund abortion. Suppose new legislation is proposed that would allow abortions later in pregnancy and provide free abortions to all, but it fails by only three votes. There seems to be absolutely no way that free abortions will ever be provided, but then suddenly a couple of racist politicians, who previously opposed the legislation, present their own alternative idea. Abortions would be allowed up to 22 weeks in the pregnancy and the government would pay for these abortions, but only for non-white women. The pro-choice politicians absolutely need these three more votes. It comes down to a difficult decission: expand abortion access to non-white women, or no abortions at all. Would you, as a progressive politician, be willing to compromise with the racists? Surely it would be better to expand abortion to some women rather than no women at all?

Since pro-choice progressives claim the foetus is not a human being until it is born, would not such a compromise actually be racism against white women, since there is absolutely nothing wrong with aborting a foetus? Even if the proposed idea was motivated by racist reasons, surely progressives can not make the argument that it would be moving in the wrong direction? To emphasise again, the choice is between NO abortions, and abortions for at least some women. Which is better?


Now you might say that this hypothetical scenario is completely unrealistic, but it actually may not be. In America, in several states, opinion on abortion is split about evenly. Abortions are very restricted, and the pro-choicers only need a few more votes to sway the state legislatures in their favor. There are quite a few people that would be willing to switch from pro-life to pro-choice if the abortions were only allowed on non-white women. Is the pro-choice crowd really going to wait around for many years, hoping the public will eventually change its mind, which could be never? Would the pro-choice crowd prefer that no women have access to abortion, rather than to allow a racially discriminatory compromise?

And then there is the moral argument. The majority of whites in America are pro-life, while the majority of non-whites in America are pro-choice. Is it fair for the white people to tell non-white mothers that they cannot have abortions? Is that not a form of racial oppression? Non-whites also have much higher fertility rates. Perhaps, from one perspective, non-white women could have more of a need for abortion, whereas white women may tend to seek abortions for more selfish reasons. This could also help narrow the income inequality between white women and minority women, because it is often children that hinder a mother's ability to persure a career.

Abortion can be a difficult ethical issue. There are good reasons both for and against abortion. While race may only be a relatively minor factor, for some people it might only take such a minor factor to be enough to tip the scale towards the other direction.

I would say yes. Its by far not ideal, but from a purely utilitarian standpoint, better to allow at least some women the freedom of choice than no women at all.

I support equal rights, so could not vote on your poll as your poll did not offer a nondiscriminatory choice


.

Originally Posted by FreshAir

I support equal rights, so could not vote on your poll as your poll did not offer a nondiscriminatory choice

Why did you not vote for the "I would abstain from voting" choice?
What would you do if you were a politician in those circumstances? You would have only three possible options: vote in favor, vote against, or not vote.

That is the whole point of this poll. Most pro-choicers are liberal, and nearly all of them are against discrimination. This question forces liberals to decide what is more important: abortion or not discriminating.

No. I didn't realize women's rights were divided by color of one's skin, I thought instead it was the idea all women, are equal.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

Why did you not vote for the "I would abstain from voting" choice?
What would you do if you were a politician in those circumstances? You would have only three possible options: vote in favor, vote against, or not vote.

That is the whole point of this poll. Most pro-choicers are liberal, and nearly all of them are against discrimination. This question forces liberals to decide what is more important: abortion or not discriminating.

because it added "Not sure, I would abstain from voting" NOT SURE, your wording made it so no choice was nondiscriminatory

shoudl of been just yes,no, not sure


.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

THIS POLL IS FOR PROGRESSIVES/PRO-CHOICERS ONLY
(please do not vote if you are pro-life)

Could you bring yourself to support racially discriminatory legislation if it was the only way to expand access to abortion?

We all know that progressives want free healthcare and abortions. So let me pose a hypothetical situation to all the liberals. Suppose the government begins to cover part of the cost of healthcare, but refuses to pay for any abortions. And suppose your government currently only allows abortions within the first six weeks of the pregnancy. There are just too many pro-life conservative religious congressmen/MP's in the government who absolutely refuse to allow taxpayer money to be used to fund abortion. Suppose new legislation is proposed that would allow abortions later in pregnancy and provide free abortions to all, but it fails by only three votes. There seems to be absolutely no way that free abortions will ever be provided, but then suddenly a couple of racist politicians, who previously opposed the legislation, present their own alternative idea. Abortions would be allowed up to 22 weeks in the pregnancy and the government would pay for these abortions, but only for non-white women. The pro-choice politicians absolutely need these three more votes. It comes down to a difficult decission: expand abortion access to non-white women, or no abortions at all. Would you, as a progressive politician, be willing to compromise with the racists? Surely it would be better to expand abortion to some women rather than no women at all?

Since pro-choice progressives claim the foetus is not a human being until it is born, would not such a compromise actually be racism against white women, since there is absolutely nothing wrong with aborting a foetus? Even if the proposed idea was motivated by racist reasons, surely progressives can not make the argument that it would be moving in the wrong direction? To emphasise again, the choice is between NO abortions, and abortions for at least some women. Which is better?


Now you might say that this hypothetical scenario is completely unrealistic, but it actually may not be. In America, in several states, opinion on abortion is split about evenly. Abortions are very restricted, and the pro-choicers only need a few more votes to sway the state legislatures in their favor. There are quite a few people that would be willing to switch from pro-life to pro-choice if the abortions were only allowed on non-white women. Is the pro-choice crowd really going to wait around for many years, hoping the public will eventually change its mind, which could be never? Would the pro-choice crowd prefer that no women have access to abortion, rather than to allow a racially discriminatory compromise?

And then there is the moral argument. The majority of whites in America are pro-life, while the majority of non-whites in America are pro-choice. Is it fair for the white people to tell non-white mothers that they cannot have abortions? Is that not a form of racial oppression? Non-whites also have much higher fertility rates. Perhaps, from one perspective, non-white women could have more of a need for abortion, whereas white women may tend to seek abortions for more selfish reasons. This could also help narrow the income inequality between white women and minority women, because it is often children that hinder a mother's ability to persure a career.

Abortion can be a difficult ethical issue. There are good reasons both for and against abortion. While race may only be a relatively minor factor, for some people it might only take such a minor factor to be enough to tip the scale towards the other direction.

Racism is not a good base for anything. If woman in poor areas or who are disadvantaged socially require more access than give it to them - but this fact has far more to do with socio-economic factors than with racial identity. So no, I'm calling this thread out for the typical Hoveland racism it is.