I suspect that also if what happens comes to pass, the leftists will claim that they did not lose. They will say, we supported these things before abortion pills were a thing, and we were fighting against the connectionist religious right. Back then there were no artificial wombs, so it was really bodily autonomy. In a similar way, Palestinian nationalism is a losing cause. But I suspect the leftist retrospective might be just that they were upset about the Gazan civilian deaths, and they will conveniently omit the part where they said they wanted to destroy Israel or say, not totally without justification, it was mostly just a few noisy radicals. They will say, Biden supported Israel and wanting to bring the Saudis into the Abraham Accords. I know some leftists who talk about protesting the Korean War and they say it was because of the draft and civilian casualties. I'm sure some supported Kim il-Sung. But those are kind of just memory holed. Trans rights is another one, they will just say that it was about being nice and not misgendering adults and letting them transition, an they will say the puberty blocker stuff was just a few noisy radicals and minimize it. Forced sterilization (also known as "20th century eugenics") and pedophilia are two cases where it is more awkward. They will say forced sterilization was a really long time ago, and pedophilia was only a fringe minority. And they will memory hole it. I expect that the reaction in all of these cases will be a combination of memory holing and making excuses.
Great point about pederasty being a leftist position they actually lost on. I don’t think that eugenics is “progressive” in the same way though as say something like called “same sex marriage.” Early progressivism in a way still had nationalist elements and acknowledged HBD and would have never advocated for mass migration for example. However as the logic of atheism unfolds it necessarily leads to postmodern nonsense and undermines the superiority of race/clan/tribe into individualist consumers which makes people turn to wokeism for meaning. So originally progressivism was solving all the problems with science (think the white mans burden) but it eventually loses that North Star and devolves into gay race communism
I totally agree with you! I have talked about the abortion pill thing for a while now. I think there are big differences between the pill and the surgical procedure. You mentioned some of them, but I think another is that the pill is essentially like the evictionist position if I understand correctly. It removes the bodily support of the mother without actively butchering the embryo. I think ethically there's a big difference there.
Also the artificial womb thing is something I've been interested in too. It has so many applications for both wanted and unwanted embryos/fetuses. I still think there will be a debate over embryo selection and gene therapy trials. I strongly support those but the hardliner pro-lifers may not. Technophobia in this regard is a losing position for them in the long run imo, as it leaves their kids with massive disadvantages.
What is your take on the evictionism vs. departurism debate? If you’re right, then it sounds like evictionism may very well become a majority position very soon.
I think debates such as that one are extremely niche arguments that don't affect how the vast majority of people feel about an issue. I don't think that the mother should be allowed to put the fetus in an artificial womb for capricious reasons.
I suspect that also if what happens comes to pass, the leftists will claim that they did not lose. They will say, we supported these things before abortion pills were a thing, and we were fighting against the connectionist religious right. Back then there were no artificial wombs, so it was really bodily autonomy. In a similar way, Palestinian nationalism is a losing cause. But I suspect the leftist retrospective might be just that they were upset about the Gazan civilian deaths, and they will conveniently omit the part where they said they wanted to destroy Israel or say, not totally without justification, it was mostly just a few noisy radicals. They will say, Biden supported Israel and wanting to bring the Saudis into the Abraham Accords. I know some leftists who talk about protesting the Korean War and they say it was because of the draft and civilian casualties. I'm sure some supported Kim il-Sung. But those are kind of just memory holed. Trans rights is another one, they will just say that it was about being nice and not misgendering adults and letting them transition, an they will say the puberty blocker stuff was just a few noisy radicals and minimize it. Forced sterilization (also known as "20th century eugenics") and pedophilia are two cases where it is more awkward. They will say forced sterilization was a really long time ago, and pedophilia was only a fringe minority. And they will memory hole it. I expect that the reaction in all of these cases will be a combination of memory holing and making excuses.
Great point about pederasty being a leftist position they actually lost on. I don’t think that eugenics is “progressive” in the same way though as say something like called “same sex marriage.” Early progressivism in a way still had nationalist elements and acknowledged HBD and would have never advocated for mass migration for example. However as the logic of atheism unfolds it necessarily leads to postmodern nonsense and undermines the superiority of race/clan/tribe into individualist consumers which makes people turn to wokeism for meaning. So originally progressivism was solving all the problems with science (think the white mans burden) but it eventually loses that North Star and devolves into gay race communism
I totally agree with you! I have talked about the abortion pill thing for a while now. I think there are big differences between the pill and the surgical procedure. You mentioned some of them, but I think another is that the pill is essentially like the evictionist position if I understand correctly. It removes the bodily support of the mother without actively butchering the embryo. I think ethically there's a big difference there.
Also the artificial womb thing is something I've been interested in too. It has so many applications for both wanted and unwanted embryos/fetuses. I still think there will be a debate over embryo selection and gene therapy trials. I strongly support those but the hardliner pro-lifers may not. Technophobia in this regard is a losing position for them in the long run imo, as it leaves their kids with massive disadvantages.
What is your take on the evictionism vs. departurism debate? If you’re right, then it sounds like evictionism may very well become a majority position very soon.
I think debates such as that one are extremely niche arguments that don't affect how the vast majority of people feel about an issue. I don't think that the mother should be allowed to put the fetus in an artificial womb for capricious reasons.
As a libertarian though, wouldn’t you have to be in favor of allowing that given the principle of self-ownership?
No. Parents have obligations to their children.
You can choose not to become a parent, but you can’t choose to murder your kids once you already have them.
Should the father be forced to pay child support?
Also, if the child is kept in an artificial womb he won’t die, that’s the whole point
Yes, and he should be required to spend time with the child as well.
There was a fun Bruce Sterling short story in the early 90s about smuggling abortion pills.