Secular Pro-Life has published an article of mine on their blog.
Some further thoughts on the topic:
I wrote in the article, “Ending Roe would be a Godsend, or whatever the atheistic equivalent of a Godsend is, for the psychological health and happiness, and structural cohesion, of the US of A. . . . So I am hopeful that the ‘let Roe go’ time may now have come.”
But in spite of the quick improvement that would then result in psychological health and happiness, there will still, naturally, be a moral rot at the core of the societies in the pro-choice states. If Roe is let go, I predict that that moral rot in the pro-choice states will result in growing decadence and flaccidity, while the fundamental health at the core of the societies in the pro-life states will result in greater and greater flourishing, and that eventually this will become obvious and the pro-life worldview will win. (I say this even though as a starting point, I personally find the pro-life states, more than the pro-choice states, to harbor some views, on issues other than abortion, that I would consider narrow-minded.)
Someone may say that this particular prediction of mine is a little subjective. But let’s see. At the very least, as the article mentions, letting Roe go would save quite a number of small Americans from a quite unnecessary deprivation of the long lives and unknowable possibilities on which they were just about to set out.
You may leave a reply, if you wish, without giving your name or email address. If you do give your email address, it will not be published. Back up your work as you type, in case of accidents.
Some future posts:
Life Panels
A Trade-Off of a Sensitive Nature
Unborn Child-Protection Legislation, the Moral Health of Society, and the Role of the American Democratic Party
The Motivations of Aborting Parents
Why Remorse Comes Too Late
The Kitchen-Ingredients Week-After Pill
Unwanted Babies and Overpopulation
The Woman as Slave?
Abortion and the Map of the World
As I see it, RvsW provided a means to deepen the discussion and broaden consciousness surrounding the topic. Before that or in more strict contexts, the whole idea of abortion is banned. That does not seem to be a form of progress, but rather suppression. The result of RvsW was that many wise people started to think deeply about such a difficult and controversial topic. The autoritive ban was lifted.
Just refusing to pay attention to something strikes me as a rather static form of dealing with it. Just allowing it is also not appropriate and that is not the status quo. What matters to me, is refinement. There needs to by some form of dynamism, a way to pay attention to both the needs of all, of the unborn and of the parents and of society. The Leitmotive should be not to dominate life, but to allow for happiness and freedom, but conscious.
I am sorry when my words seem a bit confused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Thanks for your observations.
“As I see it, RvsW provided a means to deepen the discussion and broaden consciousness surrounding the topic.”
I”m not very knowledgeable myself about the US public discourse at that period, but in an article other than the one I quoted, Megan McArdle described herself as “Pro-choice, but also pro having the healthy debate the Supreme Court short-circuited” – in other words, she saw the impact of Roe on the public discourse as just the opposite of what you do.
And I quoted Williams paraphrasing Ginsburg, who was certainly conversant with the public discourse at that time, reaching a conclusion that she as a pro-choicer must have been reluctant to reach (lending credibility to that conclusion): “the country might be better off if the Supreme Court had written a narrower decision and opened up a ‘dialogue’ . . .” In other words, Roe threw away an opportunity for dialogue.
It’s very late where I am, more later.