Abortion with a racist twist

[fast]

If abortion is morally acceptable yet fully prohibited by law, then everyone under the law is being treated wrong but fairly. Wrong because their reproductive rights are taken away. Fairly because everyone is being treated equally.

If a law is passed such that whites are not allowed to have an abortion, then whites would not be treated fairly, but blacks would no longer be treated wrong by the law. There is a sense in which it's better for some people to be treated right than none at all, and there is a sense in which it's not better to treat people unfairly.

How should we regard a law where it's unfairly applied to whites yet brings no wrongs unto blacks? Easy, we should view it negatively, but which is the lesser of the two evils? Would you be in favor of unequal treatment on the abortion ban issue if the outcome greatly benefits such a large number of people? I suppose the instinct is to say no, but if the alternative is that the reproductive rights of all blacks are spared, then at least there is some good among the wrong.

I'm curious about how different segments of races view this issue. Would liberal whites be aghastly against it? Would conservative whites be gleefully in favor? Would wealthy blacks find it appalling? Would the poorer black gracefully consider it a blessing? Or is every view going to reflect the collectives views of our small group?

 

[Rhea]

If the law were applied as a remedy to NO ONE having abortions, then this would be a small, uneven, imperfect step forward. I'd probably support it and use it as a wedge to get the right available to all at the next push.

If the law were applied to reduce a previously universal right to abortion, then it would be very bad and I would oppose it vociferously.

This isn't a perfect stance, and I'm open to changing my mind if someone presents a compelling argument otherwise.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

While the notion that something is better then nothing is a valid one, I don't think it applies here. The idea that it is valid to have different sets of laws for different groups of people is one that society is thankfully moving away from. This would be a regressive step backwards.

 

[Rhea]

While the notion that something is better then nothing is a valid one, I don't think it applies here. The idea that it is valid to have different sets of laws for different groups of people is one that society is thankfully moving away from. This would be a regressive step backwards.

Functionally, we currently have the opposite law in place now in many states.

 

[repoman]

The two /pol/ websites would approve that and I think have suggested that legal abortion help to keep whites from being a minority. They love that blacks abort more often.

Thanks, fast!

 

[fast]

If the law were applied as a remedy to NO ONE having abortions, then this would be a small, uneven, imperfect step forward.

The idea that it is valid to have different sets of laws for different groups of people is one that society is thankfully moving away from. This would be a regressive step backwards.

This needs to be reconciled, but first, I'm not entirely sure Tom has considered this as the hypothetical it is. Rhea makes it clear that she is considering the hypothetical and not our current state of affairs. It may very well be that Tom is, and if so, then what would an analysis include to yield a conclusion that the negatives outweigh the positives?

Rhea sees the positive, and she recognizes the negative, and so too does Tom, but Tom sees the negative as greater than the positive and therefore characterizes this as a step backwards--yet like I said earlier, that's if he is considering the hypothetical and not the current state of affairs.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, I see it as a hypothetical, but I don't think that viewing it hypothetically means that it needs to be viewed in isolation from everything else. Separate laws for different races are bad.

If you jail black people for minor drug possessions and let white people off with a warning, you're not making a positive contribution even though your actions lead to less people jailed for minor drug crimes than if you arrested the white people too. It's the same in your example. Having the lives of white babies matter to you but not giving a shit if a bunch of the darkies' babies are murdered in the womb doesn't make you a good person because the lives of some babies matter to you. Feeling that black people have the moral agency to decide what to do with their own bodies but the dumb honkeys need the government to step in and protect themselves from their bad decisions just makes a person a racist, not a positive force in the world who's trying to implement some choice.

Targeting laws by race is a far worse negative then any potential good which could be seen in a particular implementation of it.

 

[zorq]

Fairness IS a moral right. Trading the moral right to abortion in for the moral right to fair treatment is not a step forward, regardless of the fractions/classes/races involved. The blacks in the hypothetical gain the right to abortion, but everyone loses the right to fair treatment.

Personally, I weigh the moral right of fairness as more valuable than the moral right to abortion.

Stick with the fair but wrong law until the right law can be passed.

 

[fast]

It's the same in your example.

It's not the same.

Zork said, "everyone loses the right to fair treatment," but the outcry with charges of racism from the group who has the unfair advantage would be substantially lighter than with your example that you're saying is the same. Form alone is insufficient to make that determination when content matters.

You said targeting laws by race is a far worst negative, and Zork weighs the right of fairness as more valuable. What do black people care more about, racism or unfairness? With your drug possession scenario, you have whites with the unfair advantage, but the more prominent outcry will be that of racism with unfairness as a backdrop. Blacks would be up in arms with anger of untold proportions. With my example, it's quite odd to characterize them as being treated unfairly when they're the ones being given the upper hand.

Yes, I realize that we cannot escape unfairness with racism, but which is the greater negative? By using an example that puts blacks as having the advantage, you're likely still right that targeting laws by race is negative, but you said it's a far worst negative, and it would be with your example.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If abortion is morally acceptable yet fully prohibited by law, then everyone under the law is being treated wrong but fairly. Wrong because their reproductive rights are taken away. Fairly because everyone is being treated equally.

If a law is passed such that whites are not allowed to have an abortion, then whites would not be treated fairly, but blacks would no longer be treated wrong by the law. There is a sense in which it's better for some people to be treated right than none at all, and there is a sense in which it's not better to treat people unfairly.

How should we regard a law where it's unfairly applied to whites yet brings no wrongs unto blacks? Easy, we should view it negatively, but which is the lesser of the two evils? Would you be in favor of unequal treatment on the abortion ban issue if the outcome greatly benefits such a large number of people? I suppose the instinct is to say no, but if the alternative is that the reproductive rights of all blacks are spared, then at least there is some good among the wrong.

I'm curious about how different segments of races view this issue. Would liberal whites be aghastly against it? Would conservative whites be gleefully in favor? Would wealthy blacks find it appalling? Would the poorer black gracefully consider it a blessing? Or is every view going to reflect the collectives views of our small group?

Looks like someone has been working hard to find an anti-Affirmative Action argument.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's the same in your example.

It's not the same.

Zork said, "everyone loses the right to fair treatment," but the outcry with charges of racism from the group who has the unfair advantage would be substantially lighter than with your example that you're saying is the same. Form alone is insufficient to make that determination when content matters.

You said targeting laws by race is a far worst negative, and Zork weighs the right of fairness as more valuable. What do black people care more about, racism or unfairness? With your drug possession scenario, you have whites with the unfair advantage, but the more prominent outcry will be that of racism with unfairness as a backdrop. Blacks would be up in arms with anger of untold proportions. With my example, it's quite odd to characterize them as being treated unfairly when they're the ones being given the upper hand.

Yes, I realize that we cannot escape unfairness with racism, but which is the greater negative? By using an example that puts blacks as having the advantage, you're likely still right that targeting laws by race is negative, but you said it's a far worst negative, and it would be with your example.

I'm not understanding you. You're characterizing it as bad because blacks would be up in arms in the drug possession scenario, but not characterizing it as bad because they wouldn't be up in arms in the abortion scenario. What about the white people who'd be up in arms due to their unfair treatment? Does their outrage matter as little as their choice?

I don't get why black outrage makes the prison scenario bad but white outrage wouldn't make the abortion scenario bad.

 

[fast]

I'm not understanding you. You're characterizing it as bad because blacks would be up in arms in the drug possession scenario,

Yes, blacks would be upset (very upset), and yes, I am characterizing it as bad, but the "because" has more to do with it being racist and unfair than simply because blacks would be upset.

but not characterizing it as bad because they wouldn't be up in arms in the abortion scenario.

We've established that the law would be racist and unfair and therefore bad, but if their race is selected as being the race granted the legal right to do that which was already morally permissible (yet not legally permissible), and if with this new racist and unfair law they will be treated as they ought to have been treated all along, then if they're going to nevertheless be upset, it won't be because of how their specific race is directly effected under the law. Keep in mind that if the law was again changed yet without the racist and unfair bit, their treatment will remain unchanged.

What about the white people who'd be up in arms due to their unfair treatment? Does their outrage matter as little as their choice?

Pressed for time

I don't get why black outrage makes the prison scenario bad but white outrage wouldn't make the abortion scenario bad.

Pressed for time

Will revisit thread later

 

[Tom Sawyer]

We've established that the law would be racist and unfair and therefore bad, but if their race is selected as being the race granted the legal right to do that which was already morally permissible (yet not legally permissible), and if with this new racist and unfair law they will be treated as they ought to have been treated all along, then if they're going to nevertheless be upset, it won't be because of how their specific race is directly effected under the law. Keep in mind that if the law was again changed yet without the racist and unfair bit, their treatment will remain unchanged.

Then I'm not understanding you at all. You said that not arresting white people for minor drug possession wasn't a positive thing because the racial unfairness would be the worst negative. Why is it the worst negative in that case and not in the abortion case? What are your criteria for determining that racial unfairness of laws is the worst thing for X but not for Y?

 

[fast]

We've established that the law would be racist and unfair and therefore bad, but if their race is selected as being the race granted the legal right to do that which was already morally permissible (yet not legally permissible), and if with this new racist and unfair law they will be treated as they ought to have been treated all along, then if they're going to nevertheless be upset, it won't be because of how their specific race is directly effected under the law. Keep in mind that if the law was again changed yet without the racist and unfair bit, their treatment will remain unchanged.

Then I'm not understanding you at all. You said that not arresting white people for minor drug possession wasn't a positive thing because the racial unfairness would be the worst negative. Why is it the worst negative in that case and not in the abortion case? What are your criteria for determining that racial unfairness of laws is the worst thing for X but not for Y?

You are not considering the content. Take punching a person, for instance. You may say it's no more wrong to hit one person than it is another (in all fairness), but what if one is a child and one is an adult? The child is considered innocent and vulnerable, so (and as expected), one will be considered worst (worse?) than the other, even if punching either is wrong.

There is no nationwide white lives matter campaign. There is no deeply resentful long standing history of racism against whites. A racist event or episode against a white person may be wrong, but racism against whites doesn't spark the kind of fury that comes with blatant acts of racism against blacks.

If you enact a law that is predudice against whites, portions of the black community may say, "welcome to the club," but enact a law directed specifically at targeting blacks and the aftermath might look like a reign of terror. Predudice, both real and perceived, is so incredibly invasive that the nation as a whole is on their toes on lookout. The fuse that will ignite anger is already lit and unexploded only because of the dampness of the fuse. Comparatively, racial predudice against whites is for all intents and purposes superficial. Wrong, yes, but it's like an accepted wrong in a society where the scales more than merely tip but plummet when compared. Heck, it's almost taboo to sometimes even suggest there is genuine racism against whites--so much so people will just call out the nature of unfairness. Racism is the backdrop. With blacks, if there is a hint of unfairness, calls of racism are highlighted and the ole standby of unfairness is the backdrop.

You'd have certain segments of society that will find your scenario just as bad as mine in terms of racism, but calling them the same as if they're just another side of an equivalent equation completely ignores the decibel level of the anger that would be expressed.

 

[Underseer]

If abortion is morally acceptable yet fully prohibited by law, then everyone under the law is being treated wrong but fairly. Wrong because their reproductive rights are taken away. Fairly because everyone is being treated equally.

If a law is passed such that whites are not allowed to have an abortion, then whites would not be treated fairly, but blacks would no longer be treated wrong by the law. There is a sense in which it's better for some people to be treated right than none at all, and there is a sense in which it's not better to treat people unfairly.

How should we regard a law where it's unfairly applied to whites yet brings no wrongs unto blacks? Easy, we should view it negatively, but which is the lesser of the two evils? Would you be in favor of unequal treatment on the abortion ban issue if the outcome greatly benefits such a large number of people? I suppose the instinct is to say no, but if the alternative is that the reproductive rights of all blacks are spared, then at least there is some good among the wrong.

I'm curious about how different segments of races view this issue. Would liberal whites be aghastly against it? Would conservative whites be gleefully in favor? Would wealthy blacks find it appalling? Would the poorer black gracefully consider it a blessing? Or is every view going to reflect the collectives views of our small group?

If abortion were illegal, that would be unfair, because it would mean that corpses have more rights than living women.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/8/14/1321787/-When-a-corpse-has-more-rights-than-a-woman

 

[fast]

If abortion is morally acceptable yet fully prohibited by law, then everyone under the law is being treated wrong but fairly. Wrong because their reproductive rights are taken away. Fairly because everyone is being treated equally.

If a law is passed such that whites are not allowed to have an abortion, then whites would not be treated fairly, but blacks would no longer be treated wrong by the law. There is a sense in which it's better for some people to be treated right than none at all, and there is a sense in which it's not better to treat people unfairly.

How should we regard a law where it's unfairly applied to whites yet brings no wrongs unto blacks? Easy, we should view it negatively, but which is the lesser of the two evils? Would you be in favor of unequal treatment on the abortion ban issue if the outcome greatly benefits such a large number of people? I suppose the instinct is to say no, but if the alternative is that the reproductive rights of all blacks are spared, then at least there is some good among the wrong.

I'm curious about how different segments of races view this issue. Would liberal whites be aghastly against it? Would conservative whites be gleefully in favor? Would wealthy blacks find it appalling? Would the poorer black gracefully consider it a blessing? Or is every view going to reflect the collectives views of our small group?

If abortion were illegal, that would be unfair, because it would mean that corpses have more rights than living women.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/8/14/1321787/-When-a-corpse-has-more-rights-than-a-woman

When you speak of more (more, you say) rights, then we're no longer talking merely about the specific rights in question. If you like, we can extend the nonpermissive right to abort to fetuses whereby not only are whites and blacks no longer granted the legal right, we can include those unborns as well. As we grant only blacks (and other non-whites) the right to abort, we could include black and non-white zygotes and fetuses as well. Seems silly to since those peep-to-be can't, but hey, let's be fair in an our unfair endeavor.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is the most ridiculous thought experiment. Create a law that is its design, solely based on race... and then try to justify it parallel to other real world conditions where the laws are not created racially, but are generally enforced on racial and economic grounds.