The issue of abortion has interested me for some time because of its aspects, which touch upon so many fundamental issues. It is in other words partly an "intellectual exercise," but it is surely not only that. This is the case because fundamental issues tend to affect people personally as well. For instance, I do not have children, but those close to me do. Thus, the matter is far from abstract. The loved one of a homosexual might not be gay, but anti-homosexual activity hits close to home. Putting aside closely related issues -- like the general right to choose whom to date, form a relationship with and marry -- that are but a few inches away and overlap, the matter is personal for them. And, it suggests why the issue does not only touch the few percentage of people who are homosexual/bi-sexual.
Such is it for me and millions others on this issue. This is a rather mundane thing to say, but it bears mentioning, since certain people [see this thread] consider their own experiences somehow unique ... they "know" something we do not, since they "get it" in a personal way. Of course, millions others who have children (or even lost them) take different lessons from their life experiences. Just as some who have similar experiences as me have different beliefs. But, abortion is not totally a rationale issue -- it is deeply personal. So, some degree of blindness is understandable.
Still, it is a bit annoying, which is why the discussing the subject with others tends to get somewhat tiring. Such is the perils of moral questions as well as political ones. Still, I really do want to understand, as best I can, the mind-set of others. For instance, are they serious when they claim that newborns and six month fetuses are morally the same? Do they really think the pro-choice community as a whole (to the degree simple judgments can be made for such a diverse group) do not respect in some way the moral importance of a six month fetus, thinking it simply a "bundle of fluff?" On the other hand, do people who try (in a heavy-handed fashion) to make it all about "GOVERNMENT" vs. personal rights really think it is THAT simple?
I wish not to dwell to deeply on my private experience and so forth, partly because I respect my privacy. They also only are somewhat relevant in issues like these, since they can equally warrant respect and suspicion. It strikes me when people on message boards and so forth forthrightly speak about their private experiences ... it really opens them up to some hardship, since message boards are not always the most humane of areas. Also, you somewhat raise risks of concerns of bias. We all are biased, of course, so this might just make things more honest and upfront. Still, again, spelling out my personal experiences will also raise that problem.
But, on some level, we again reach the conclusion that we are all interconnected in major ways. For instance, a relative is a very religious sort, but is not totally stereotypical -- she's divorced, doesn't think pre-marital sex will damn you to hell, is generally a nice person, and so forth. Yes, she did vote for Bush, but she's sorry about it now. Repentance is important in the Christian faith. Anyway, this doesn't make me that special, does it? Who is not in some way close to people with different religious or moral views? It is why we can and must respect them. And, it helps the average American to have nuanced views on most important issues of the day. Message boards tend to bring out knee jerks, but even there, you sort of see this shine thru.
So, one still can be optimistic, even with all the b.s. out there. Going back to that Adams vs. Jefferson book, one thing that struck people about Jefferson was his optimism in the people.* The Jeffersonian ideal was his ultimate legacy, the idea the people will rule, not hated elites. It was striking when the book provided some campaign literature, which at some point summarized the Republican position as compared to the Federalist ... things like religious freedom vs. mixing church and state ... since it sounded like a denunciation of the current Republican Party. We need another standard bearer, an imperfect sort who can voice the ideals of this nation. Make us believe in ourselves again. John Edwards wants to be that person, but whomever it is, the people are desperate to find him or her. No, not her.
---
* Jefferson is surely an imperfect sort ... he also, somewhat despite himself, was a great politician. TJ had the ability to voice basic ideals, seeing things in black and white, while not being comfortable with shades of gray. He hated conflict, so avoided such difficulties, including in his later letters to Adams. This also led to hypocrisy. One other thing. It is ironic that Madison perhaps was the first "party leader" in Congress, he of the anti-party sentiments. But, really, they are fighting a special menace. Yeah, we buy that Jimmy.