SamDBL wrote:..we *all* agree that a baby a day before it is ejected from a pussy is exactly the same as a new born infant. Therefore, I assume we would all agree that an abortion the day before birth is kind of fucked.
So *somewhere* there is a line of when abortion is ok, and when it becomes not ok. I have been unable to determine where that line is.
And that's the rub, no?
"Life" is a concept that seems to change when different species are involved: Smash an endangered California condor's egg? You're gonna get rightly keelhauled, and no one prosecuting will question if that fertilized egg might or might not equal a baby condor. Literally headlines were written last time a
"precious egg" was found, no debate or differing opinions on its worth.
Smash a human fetus?
"Ahem, very complex issue that's, uh, well, we don't really know if -or when- that's a life or not, existentially speaking..."I doubt this is soley because there's lots of unvalued people and not a lot of valued large birds.
There's definitely shifting codes of when it's okay to take a life. (I enjoyed David Grossman's book "On Killing" which explores the processes we as humans go through to make the unnatural act of killing more acceptable. (BTW: I don't recall the book discussing euthanasia, abortion, or such... It's mostly about combat.) One way he points out is the dehumanizing process. Call the enemy a degrading slang term, cartoon them, make them in every and any way less and different than one's fellow person, and it becomes easier to take their life. History showed that fewer people were able to kill their neighbors down the street in the U.S. Civil war, because they were folks that looked and talked just like you. But enemies in WWII on any side of the quarrels? They were made into characters: Gaijin, Krauts, Japs, etc. that had funny skin or different names, strange diets, and such. Makes it easier to kill someone when they aren't known to you.)
Similarly, very few unprimed people will kill a baby, or stomp a condor egg flat. But a ball of cells? Something they've been taught isn't like them, just a confusingly-named sequence of genes and debatable trimestered dates and stuff? Makes it easier to get over.
SamDBL wrote: I don’t know that the protests would be violent riots like many of the blm things were. For the simple reason that the blm riots had a lot of males present. I assume whatever protests would happen for roe v wade would be more populated by females and Uber betas, for the most part. A much less violent demographic.
Spot on. You've got a different demographic there.
There's also different levels of violence that comes from people that have more (or less) to lose in their 'real life' / day job, families, finances, etc.
Example:
• As a political statement, a protestor smokes weed on the D.C. Capitol steps to protest drug laws, and gets arrested.
No problem for them: that arrest record won't stop them from continued use of drugs that were illegal in the first place.
• As a political statement, a protestor carries a firearm across the D.C. bridge from a free state to protest gun laws, and gets arrested.
Problem: that arrest could cost them their rights to continue to legally own them in the future back in their home state.
That analogy would probably have some crossover in the BLM vs. potential abortion protest comparisons. From what I saw in Portland, and my earlier experiences of spending some time at the WTO riots waybackwhen in Seattle (similar crowd, IMHO)... I frankly wouldn't characterize many of the folks I saw tossing bricks through windows to be too worried about arrests complicating their going back to a stable day job and house payments. Whereas abortion rights folks are more spread through all levels of society, with many having say, houses and jobs that don't jibe well with being detained and arraigned.
Shrug. It's always easier to burn down a city if you didn't pay the taxes to build it.
"When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose." - Bob Dylan