previous | | 1.8.6 (79) | contents


fig.64—is it really that hard to think two moves ahead?

—as such, are the two termini of the abortion ‘debate’ intractable? Ideological brands are positioned by shrill and simplistic arguments: the ‘name game’ (above) was won at a stroke: our fig.64 (“quotes”) reduce the polemical maneuvers to caricature. How—and why? To argue for regressing abortion rights to conform with a premodern clerical fiat, one need but dispose doctrinal axioms in a well­-trained memory to aim one’s ipso factos like pub darts. On this, the Protestant voice falls incoherent: despite asserting the “sanctity of life” by prohibition, it affirms the “justice” of the death penalty. The Catholic voice coheres—to a point: by denying Justice predicable of punitive caused death, it predicates Sanctity of all Life—yet by predicating Sanctity of All Possible Life, bans on contraception are open to hermeneutic critique, vis­-a-vis usurpation of ‘divine prerogative.’ Both positions hinge on purposive, teleological (LW: “nonsensical”) oppositions of active to passive and cause to effect: one descends choice from “Life”—the other ascends “choice” to... What? 

index | 1.8.7 (80) | | next


fig.65—the (non)necessity of ((de)onto))logical contingency

 To conserve abortion rights of statute, the party that cannot articulate its “onto­-theological” (Kant) “first principles” (Aristotle) cannot debate the party that does. To do so, the party at rhetorical disadvantage would have to “posit the presupposition” of Choice as its onto(theo)logical “Notion” (Hegel). To promote discourse, we shall proffer rationales for all posits and all parties. To wit, 1. ‘Free Will’ is theological endoxa; 2. ‘agency’ is a socio­-linguistic frame; 3. ‘choice’ is a folk­-psychological presupposition; 4. ‘life’ is not, alas, a physiological demarcation, but a range on an animistic gradient. As such, fig.65 asks of all parties: do we presume ‘Life’ persists as  Universal to which ‘choice’ is subalternate, or otherwise? In following chapters, we explore four key problematics framed by the debate: 1. the female body as instrumentalized commodity (property); 2. the situated emergence of embodied subjects (agency); 3. the ambivalence of the natural sciences regarding a priori (cause); 4. the (non­-)identity of (self-)differentiated life, choice, and will.

© 2008-2012 Ian C Thorne. all rights reserved. about credits privacy contact share