–Edward
Forget all the usual arguments against the consistency of "Culture of Life" positions, such as, those who monomaniacally vote "pro-life" are also most likely the same people who support the death penalty and pre-emptive wars…are generally the same people who eschew efforts at universal health care and other measures aimed at actually preserving and/or prolonging life…are often the same people more interested in ensuring the system’s designed to enrich them as much as possible than they are in providing any sort of social safety net. We’ve hashed out most of that for ages.
The reason I think the "Culture of Life" is a sham was clarified by something David Brooks wrote today:
Liberals lost touch with working-class Americans because they never had to have a conversation about values with those voters; they could just rely on the courts to impose their views.
He’s talking specifically about Roe v. Wade, but note the subtext of this statement: based on how he phrased this, one must assume that the only values working-class Americans care about are ones concerning abortion (AND, he implies, working-class Americans oppose it).
Now someone new to this country reading this would be forgiven for assuming then that working-class Americans do not value a decent minimum wage, or tuition assistance for their children, or protecting the environment, or making sure they have health care, or safety in the workplace, or equal opportunities for minorities, or fiscal responsibility, or international diplomacy, etc. etc. etc, because if these working-class Americans did value any of those things, then Brooks’ statement would be a outright lie. (And it is. Liberals have had a conversation about the values driving those concerns with working-class voters and continue to.)
Moreover, liberals have a very clear ongoing conversation with all voters regarding the values involved with reproductive rights. And, although conditionally, overall the majority supports them:
Generally, 57 percent in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 54 percent favor the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling that made it so.
But listen to a "Culture of Lifer" and you’d get the distinct impression that somehow a minority group of elitists is imposing their views on a hapless majority. Brooks uses his wobbly logic to then argue that the country will never have domestic tranquility until Roe v. Wade is overturned and the states legislate the issue individually.
This contrived tunnel-vision, this assertion that all that ails us boils down to Roe v. Wade, is the core of why I believe "Culture of Life" folks are either bamboozlers or bamboozled. This is why I’m convinced, as much as some folks sincerely oppose abortion, in the hand of politicians and hacks, this issue is merely a diversionary tactic in their quest for power. If it weren’t, they would offer a more honest rational for overturning Roe v. Wade—one that acknowledges the truth of the situation and wasn’t built on lies, spin and slander. The fact that they don’t convinces me they’re playing a game here.
The fact that they don’t convinces me they’re playing a game here.
truth.
examples of other similar games abound, but they’re all basically ways to enflame The Base during times of political necessity.
during times of political necessity ?
i hate when fragments of other sentences get left over…
end the above at “… The Base.”
I dunno. I think that some politicians are clearly using these issues for political gain, but I also think that lots of them, and lots of other people, sincerely believe it, for reasons that I don’t think amount to being ‘bamboozled’. To me, the mystery, and the locus of potential bamboozlement, has always been not pro-life stands themselves, but the failure to generalize the principles that presumably underlie being pro-life to other areas of life.
I also think (mind-reading foul against large chunks of the electorate coming up) that there is some general sense of something being under threat, something tremendously important on the verge of being lost, that attaches itself to a lot of these issues and helps to drive them.
hilzoy, overall I agree with you, but I think there can be a useful distinction between those who sincerely oppose abortion and those who divisively tout the rhetoric of the sham called the “culture of life.”
Clearly there are folks for whom abortion is a nightmare (I’m not that far outside that group myself), but when their arguments rely on patent falsehoods, I begin to smell a power-grabbing rat.
Steve Malynn has another take (worth reading) on the Brooks column on Tacitus in which a commenter coins a phrase I hope gets traction:
“in the hand of politicians and hacks, this issue is merely a diversionary tactic in their quest for power”
just this issue? 🙂
Abortion statistics like the ones you cite are notoriously question-specific. In general (and I’ll try to be as fair as I can):
There is a medium-sized plurality who wouldn’t allow abortion except in the cases of rape or incest. A small minority wouldn’t allow it at all. A large majority wouldn’t allow it in the third trimester except in extreme cases where the mother’s health is seriously compromised by continuing the pregnancy. A large number wouldn’t allow abortion in the second trimester except in cases of rape or incest or in serious health exceptions. A large majority thinks that the health exceptions are for life threatening complications only, misinformation that I’m sure NARAL doesn’t ever want corrected.
Summing all that up as broadly agreeing with the liberal point of view is not accurate. One of the reasons abortion is still so controversial is that the Supreme Court has crystallized the abortion debate in a form that does not closely reflect the US public understanding of the issue (to say nothing of closely reflecting the Constitution).
I also think (mind-reading foul against large chunks of the electorate coming up) that there is some general sense of something being under threat, something tremendously important on the verge of being lost, that attaches itself to a lot of these issues and helps to drive them.
I don’t think you’re far off the mark there. Given the historical trends towards liberalization, globalization, and scientific rationalism, people whose belief systems are threatened by these things are going to feel increasingly like dinosaurs staring down an oncoming asteroid. They feel threatened, I imagine, because they believe in the absolute revealed truth and morality of their beliefs, and that it’s their duty to deliver those beliefs to others. Seeing the way America and the rest of the world have been liberalizing, realizing that they can’t stop it… the march of progress must sound like the beating of war drums to them.
It’s sad, in a way. If they weren’t so actively engaged in trying to repress and destroy people and things I hold dear, if their policies didn’t have such a malignant effect on the world, I’d almost feel sorry for them, because I don’t want to destroy them or stop them from believing whatever they want to. I just want them to stop behaving as if they have a God-given right to impose those beliefs on everyone else.
“the country will never have domestic tranquility until Roe v. Wade is overturned and the states legislate the issue individually.”
Do people still believe this line? The instant Roe v. Wade is overturned the House of Representatives will introduce a bill to ban abortion on a federal level. The republicans’ commitment to alleged federalist principles has been a bit tenuous of late and they idea that they would allow this to become a state issue is laugable.
Michael Berube has a great response to Brooks. It begins:
The thing is, I think that Berube’s parody is closer to the truth than Brooks’ column.
Summing all that up as broadly agreeing with the liberal point of view is not accurate.
It is accurate. Here’s the hard statistics regarding that:
These stats seem to confirm that the liberal point of view is very much in line with the majority view (or at least the majority practice).
Oh good, so we can ban all the other ones in line with majority opinion right? Somehow I don’t think you’re going to sign up with that.
Interesting. At the same website, a 2005 poll shows the following: 55% sometimes legal; 23% always legal; 20% always illegal.
And a different poll states: 37% stricter limits; 35% general availability; 25% no abortion access.
So, of the sometimes legal group, about 1/4 feels that the law is fine the way it is and about 3/4 thinks that stricter limits are necessary. I don’t see any analysis of what the stricter limits should be (parental notification, 3rd semester bans, etc.)
Cites for your post, please, SH.
Oh good, so we can ban all the other ones in line with majority opinion right? Somehow I don’t think you’re going to sign up with that.
I supported the so-called “partial birth abortion” ban and would increasingly support pushing back the cut-off date as technology advances (without getting into the gruesome arena of harvesting fetuses and gestating them in fishtanks). I think there are very important questions about supporting unwanted children we still need to address, but I do feel viability is a good benchmark in general.
What makes me suspicious is things like the partial birth ban.
Durbin’s version would’ve:
1) outlawed all post viability abortions
2) been upheld by the federal courts
Santorum’s did neither. If the courts are going to strike down the law, it’s not going to do any good. It doesn’t matter if you want them to strike it down. It doesn’t matter if they’re wrong to strike it down (IMO the lower courts, constrained by the Supreme Court as they are, were not wrong).
It’s things like this, to say nothing of the 60% of Reagan and Bush Supreme Court appointments who vote to uphold Roe, that make me suspect the Catholic Church and some members of the evangelical right are getting completely and cynically played by the Republican party.
There is a medium-sized plurality who wouldn’t allow abortion except in the cases of rape or incest.
This I’m very surprised by, unless I’m misunderstanding ‘plurality’. The group of people who favor a total abortion ban other than in the case of rape or incest is larger than the number of people who hold any other view on abortion? Where is this from?
(I do think Roe was a tragic mistake.
I also think that if abortion opponents had acted more wisely, compassionately, and reasonably, it would have probably been overturned by now or be well on its way. And certainly the number of abortions would be much, much, much less.
You can argue that “Harry Blackmun started it” but it’s not real mature. I wish we could move beyond whatabouttery but it seems impossible.
I have seen pro-choicers make sincere efforts to outlaw post-viability abortions. I have not seen many pro-lifers make sincere efforts to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Sebastian, Mr. Police Your Own, you are in complete denial over the extremism about the birth control pill and the morning after pill and the harm that it does.)
This I’m very surprised by, unless I’m misunderstanding ‘plurality’.
Given that Sebastian didn’t cite his source, you’re free to interpret that in any way that suits your argument LB.
<;-p
One of my co-workers voted for Bush because she, in her words, “votes for life”. She is anti-abortion. It is the only issue she cares about. Hilzoy was wondering why people don’t have a broader sense or application of the idea of culture of life, which is a good question. In my coworker’s case a lot of it has to do with Hilzoy’s post about internal narratives. She likes to see herself as the Christian Crusader full of rectitude and striving for perfection in this evil world. Ambiguity, moral dilemnas, shades of gray all blur her vision of her self as the One Who Seeks the One Truth. I appreciate her desire to be good but she has mistaken goodness for adherence to a doctrine. I don’t know how many people have her narrative, but clearly some do. Another aspect is simply the the time and energy factor. Lots of people don’t have the time and energy to think carefully about politics so they vote based on the word of someone they trust. If that person dumbs down the culture of life to anti-abortion, then the voter does too. I also think the culture of life thing got presented to the voters in an oversimplied way deliberately by the current Republican leadership because, of course, they can’t afford to have their other activities (like the bankruptcy law) structinized. The Democrats need to be vocal leaders on redefining the culture of life as a broader principle. Lastly, many people are concrete operations thinkers, not abstract thinkers. Abortion and the emotions attached are very concrete. It is much more abstract to think about changes in laws that will affect someone else some day.
“This is why I’m convinced, as much as some folks sincerely oppose abortion, in the hand of politicians and hacks, this issue is merely a diversionary tactic in their quest for power.”
That cuts both ways… and I think that is a point that is missed in your post.
Roe’s Birth, and Death
That may be true, but at least the decision would be made by elected representatives and elected Governors, and that would be a LOT better than unelected judges making the decision.
Lily and Catsy,
U so smart… everyone else so dumb.
“I also think that if abortion opponents had acted more wisely, compassionately, and reasonably, it would have probably been overturned by now or be well on its way.”
By whom?
“Sebastian, Mr. Police Your Own, you are in complete denial over the extremism about the birth control pill and the morning after pill and the harm that it does.)”
Good heavens. A) On this board I am typically the one who trys to police his own. The number of police your own pieces I see on the left is quite small.
B) It isn’t obvious what this extremism is alleged to have done. You think it caused liberal judges to make up Constitutional rules? Did NARAL and NOW support Durbin’s proposal? I think not. Furthermore, the language in question “certifies in writing that, in the physician’s medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before the physician, the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother’s life or risk grievous injury to her physical health;” is the exact same loophole that has caused problem for years at the state level because all pregnancy at all times has some risk for grievous injury to physical health. Not a large a risk. But a risk.
And that is because of your extremists, Ms. Don’t-Police-Your-Own.
The number of police your own pieces I see on the left is quite small.
hey, I was doing them back when our side was making mistakes…now that we’ve reached perfection, however, there’s been no need.
;-p
Quite.
Making abortion illegal would be a mistake. It would not cut down on the number of abortions in the long run, but it would make them much more dangerous. See the Romanian experience.
However, there are steps that could be taken to reduce the abortion rate. Increase the availability of birth control of all types. Real sex ed that teaches abstinence as only one of a number of choices–one with advantages and disadvantages like everything else. Increase public spending on schools, daycares, welfare, etc so that women feel more able to support their children and therefore less desperate to not have any. Allow longer maternity leave, with pay. Increase spending on prevention of birth defects and pregnancy complications. Set up a universal health care system so that all pregnant women get healthcare during their pregnancy and therefore have a lower risk of problems. I know none of these suggestions is as sexy as illegalizing abortion and they don’t punish women for getting pregnant the way some think they ought to, but they’re much more likely to cut down on the abortion rate than a simple ban would.
sh –
some of us are still out here waiting for a source on that staggering “plurality in favor of only rape/incest” assertion, especially since the abc poll Edward cited shows, to take only one contrary example, that 88% think it should be legal to protect the health of the mother. So, let me guess…media bias? Activist liberal judges making up Constitutional rules? Which tired, shopworn excuse gets rid of this unfortunate result?
“I also think that if abortion opponents had acted more wisely, compassionately, and reasonably, it would have probably been overturned by now or be well on its way.
By whom?”
Pick two of three of Justices Kennedy, O’Connor, and Souter. Probably Kennedy and Souter since O’Connor’s so damn results driven & seems to feel it’s a feminist issue.
If given the choice between giving up the entire Warren Court legacy including Roe, and keeping the entire Warren Court legacy including Roe, most judges are going to keep Roe. If the only choices are Brennan & Blackmun & Stevens and Scalia & Thomas & Bork, most judges are going to go with Brennan & Blackmun & Stevens. The reason people keep waving “the bloody shirt of Brown” at Scalia is that his theory says that Brown was wrong. I mean this mainly as a matter of legal theory, but Brennan being a mensch & conciliator and Scalia’s contempt for his colleagues don’t hurt either.
For a sample poll see this ABC poll .
Highlights which don’t fit the liberal paradigm:
Abortion should be legal to terminate an unwanted pregnancy 42%. Should be illegal to terminate an unwanted pregnancy 57%.
Pregnancy is 6+ months. legal- 11%, illegal- 86%.
Physically impaired baby only 54% think should be legal (I thought it would be much higher).
General summary:
Most Americans eschew the extreme positions, but the extreme NARAL position is what dominates the law at this time.
I don’t know whether NARAL and NOW supported Durbin’s version but a majority of Democrats in Congress did and Clinton would have signed it.
Conservatives are desperate, in this whatabouttery game, to talk about anyone but the actual politicians who have immediate control over these decisions–the actual legislation.
The Democrats were prepared to take what steps the courts would allow when it came to late term abortions. The Republicans are trying to deny everyone access to emergency contraception, including rape victims. And forget about Harry Reid’s bill ever coming to a vote.
The fact that your side will be attacking contraception as soon as legal abortion falls–yes, they WILL, pay attention to the ACTUAL ACTIONS of the ACTUAL POLITICIANS instead of the interest groups–is no excuse for us not to work towards a sane abortion policy. Unfortunately, in the current makeup of Congress, it WILL make our attempts to do so impossible.
You are willing to call out powerless commenters on a discussion board, but vote against any Republican ever? Nope.
P.S. I see from Ladies Against Women that “neither NARAL nor Planned Parenthood objected to the “Durbin Substitute.”
This of course cited as a reason why it’s a total fraud. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
The rest of the press release is a bunch of lies. Durbin’s amendment required two doctors to certify that it would risk the mother’s life or grievous physical injury, and there were penalties for doing so fraudulently. The first offense was a fine & possible loss of your license; the second offense was a definite loss of your license.
Pregnancy is 6+ months. legal- 11%, illegal- 86%.
How does that not “fit the liberal paradigm”?
0.01% of abortions happen in the third trimester…deal with reality, not perception.
What makes me think that people who claim to believe in a “culture of life” (and I’d like to interject how utterly annoying it is to keep dealing with these contrived political soundbites as though they have a definition) are inconsistent is that I don’t hear very much about taking care of children.
I hear a lot about abortion. I don’t hear about day care for children so that women can continue to work. I don’t hear about pre-natal care being provided to all women regardless of income, geographic circumstance or race for example. I don’t hear about good nutrition programs in schools. I find it disingenuous at best to claim that you care about “life” but only until it is born and never care about the woman carrying that “life” or the circumstances in her life.
The only direction that people who claim a “culture of life” seem to go is back…from birth to conception. They have ideas about what sorts of control should be exerted by those who are not pregnant on those who are or could become so. So contraception, emergency contraception, abortion…they have ideas about those. (Well, idea…since its basically “no.”) What to do to take care of women and babies…not too many ideas that I hear about in that realm.
I have no problem with people being “anti-abortion”…heck, I’m anti-abortion because I think it must be one of the worst things a woman can have to decide about and have done. I think its awful that anyone ever has to consider it as an option. I also think that if we had effective sex education that taught people about how to use condoms things would be a bit better from the standpoint of unwanted pregnancies. If we made birth control pills more widely avaialbe and less expensive, that would help reduce unwanted pregnancies. For much more on this line of thought see this page on the Planned Parenthood site. Reducing Teen Pregnancy
If we made good medical care the standard for pregnant women and made it possible for women to continue to work once they had a child that might reduce the numbers of people who feel forced to choose an abortion.
There are about 1.2 million abortions a year right now in America. I don’t have time at the moment to research what the breakdown is demographically on that but it seems like preventing unwanted pregnancies would be a good way to reduce the numbers of abortions. When someone who claims the “culture of life” will get on board with taking care of people, I’ll listen more. Until then, I’ll keep working on it myself.
And Durbin’s amendment didn’t ban second trimester partial birth abortions, but it did ban ALL post viability abortions rather than focusing on the procedure.
I would think this would be preferable, especially as it’s the only way to get through the courts. But some people are more interested in being able to paint Democratic politicians as murderers than in reducing the numbers of legal abortions, illegal abortions, late term abortions, deaths in childbirth & unwanted pregnancies.
“If given the choice between giving up the entire Warren Court legacy including Roe, and keeping the entire Warren Court legacy including Roe, most judges are going to keep Roe.”
I don’t understand what this has to do with your argument. O’Connor and Kennedy are both willing to play the “make up complicated and previously unknown tests to avoid the appearance of overruling precedent” game so why in the world would the only choices available to them be all-of-Warren or non-of-Warren. Scalia and Thomas could write an opinon and the could join in the decision but write their own concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion. You are grasping at straws here. And you say I’m the one in denial. Cute.
“Conservatives are desperate, in this whatabouttery game, to talk about anyone but the actual politicians who have immediate control over these decisions–the actual legislation. ”
The Durbin amendment didn’t close the medical execption loophole that is a gaping hole for all possible abortions to jump through. It was a sham. That is why Democrats could support it and that was why Republicans could not. As usual you see everything through the “my team idealistically beautiful–your team playing politics” lens. Your team was playing politics by proposing a bill that pretends to limit late-term abortions, but in fact doesn’t. You can be fooled by Democrats’ crass political gamesmanship with that amendment if you like, but trying to beat me up with it is just silly. Republicans have been concerned with the wording of the health exception for a reason. The reason is that it has turned into an exception which swallows all other rules. Durbin’s proposal did not change that.
And please don’t pretend that Durbin’s proposal is really popular among Democratic congressman. That is complete crap. If Democrats wanted that kind of bill to pass, they had decades of control of Congress to do it. They are willing to make tactical votes like that when they don’t matter, but not when a bill might actually pass. I’m pretty sure you are aware of the tactic.
“And Durbin’s amendment didn’t ban second trimester partial birth abortions, but it did ban ALL post viability abortions rather than focusing on the procedure.”
No it didn’t. It purported to ban them, but provided a health exception that could easily swallow the rule. You are either being fooled by the Democrats’ game or you are continuing the fraud. An exception which provides for ‘a risk’ is not an exception when there is ALWAYS risk.
“0.01% of abortions happen in the third trimester…deal with reality, not perception.”
How many murderers are subjected to the death penalty? Would I ever be so crass as to suggest that no one should worry about it because it is less than 100 per year?
I don’t understand something the ABC poll – the results seem to be inconsistent: 57% approve of “legality of abortion in all or most cases”. 57% oppose legality of aborting to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. But isn’t it true and also common knowledge that the vast majority of abortions are performed “to terminate an unwanted pregnancy”?
The only way to reconcile this is to say that “in most cases” was understood to mean “in most scenarios”, not “in the largest number of cases”. Which would indicate that Sebastian is exactly right in his assessment of where the public broadly stands on this.
Your entire argument against the Democrats today depends on what they did in the 1980s. When it comes to the behavior of ELECTED OFFICIALS in office TODAY, you have nothing substantive to say and never have. Who cares why they would have voted for it? They would have voted for it. It was defeated by the GOP. If the “grievous physical health” thing was a loophole, that’s a matter of statutory drafting that could have been fixed by adding in “more likely than not”. Santorum was utterly, utterly, utterly uninterested in doing this. He was too busy calling Durbin and fraud and a mass murderer & getting the entire religious right to go along with it.
Edward, this post is for the most part absolutely right, except that some people are quite sincere but are letting themselves get exploited out of bitterness towards liberals or self deception. The moderate left is going to have to do it ourselves. Fortunately, the two Senate Democratic leaders get it on this issue, as does Senator Clinton, as I think does Senator Obama. There is also increasing doubt about Roe among liberal academic at law schools if not liberal judges. The trick is not throw out the entire Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment along with Roe. This is quite possible to do, though.
It purported to ban them, but provided a health exception that could easily swallow the rule.
I’m wondering here — is there a specific level of health risk to the woman that you would consider justifying abortion, or do you consider health risk an illegitimate consideration? And if the former, how differently would you like a law prividing for such an exception phrased?
Assume I do know how to spell ‘providing’, if you would.
On the Durbin Amendment:
There are six Senators who voted against both the Durbin subsitute and Santorum’s partial birth ban:
Maria Cantwell, John Corzine, Mark Dayton, Jim Jeffords, Patty Murray, and Charles Schumer. I would guess they opposed any Congressional restriction, but I can’t say for sure.
There are eleven Senators who voted for both the Durbin substitute and Santorum’s partial birth ban:
Byrd, Carper, Daschle, Edwards, Johnson, Landrieu, Leahy, Lincoln, Pryor, Reid, Spector. All Democrats except Specter.
If I were concerned solely with reducing the number of abortions, I would say that the last group did the best job on this bill, followed by the majority of the Democratic caucus who voted for the Durbin substitute & against final passage, followed by the overwhelming majority of the Republican caucus who rejected the Durbin substitute & voted for final passage, followed by the six Senators who opposed both forms of the restriction.
some people are quite sincere but are letting themselves get exploited out of bitterness towards liberals or self deception
Yup.
I also think Lily put it quite well: …the culture of life thing got presented to the voters in an oversimplied way deliberately by the current Republican leadership because, of course, they can’t afford to have their other activities (like the bankruptcy law) structinized.
The politicians and their lapdogs exploiting passions here (rather than looking for realworld compromises), driving yet another wedge between Americans who by all statistical measures widely agree that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare, deserve the scorn of all of us.
Abortion is a horrible choice. I don’t know why some corrupt MALE politician in Washington is supposed to make that choice for the mother, specially when said politician refuses to provide her with health care.
Men know nothing, nothing about getting pregnant or having babies.
“When it comes to the behavior of ELECTED OFFICIALS in office TODAY, you have nothing substantive to say and never have. Who cares why they would have voted for it? They would have voted for it.”
In recent history, Democrats controlled the Senate from 1987 till December 1994. Democrats controlled the House from 1955-1995. Clinton, a Democrat, was president for two terms beginning in 1992. Was abortion a controversial topic in 1992, 1993, or 1994? Yes. Were Democrats offering such proposals in 1992, 1993, or 1994 when they controlled both Houses and the Presidency? No. Why not? The same reason why Republicans don’t pass balanced-budget rules now. When the votes actually mattered, their true colors are revealed. Majority parties don’t like to restrict their own spending, and Democrat Congressman don’t vote for abortion restrictions when the vote counts. You hang your judgment of me on show-votes by Democrats.
“If the “grievous physical health” thing was a loophole, that’s a matter of statutory drafting that could have been fixed by adding in “more likely than not”. Santorum was utterly, utterly, utterly uninterested in doing this.”
Durbin was well aware of the decades-long Republican concern about the physical health exception and the problem of allowing ‘risk’ to be interpreted as ‘any risk’. As usual you fail to even consider the idea that Democrats could be playing a political game while simultaneously trumpeting a certainty that Republicans are. Your constant dogmatic attacks in that vein make criticism of a certain recently elected pope rather humorous.
Here is the Senate debate. The link will break soon, so–pages 3456-3482 of the 108th Congressional Record. You can also see the Republican caucus unanimously shooting down amendments on rape victims’ access to emergency contraception & on prenatal care for mothers through Medicaid.
If you think Sebastian and I don’t like each other on this issue–it is clear from the debate that Durbin and Santorum despise each other, though they do their best to conceal it.
I would ask people to remember the Schiavo case & the erotoxins fiasco in evaluating whether to trust Reid & Durbin’s opinions on what medical experts think, or Santorum & Brownback’s & Lott’s. There’s some nice diagnosis-from-the-Senate-floor moments from the GOP that should bring back fond memories.
It is possible that Durbin’s amendment had a loophole in it. There was no attempt to do anything to close the loophole or do anything other than portray Durbin as a baby killer. There was no attempt to write a bill the courts would uphold. None.
I won’t deny that I trust Durbin and distrust Santorum and that affects my view of it. Relentless demagoguery on judges & the Schiavo case & gay bashing make me trust people less. Being close to the strongest voice in the Senate against torture, for AIDS prevention in Africa, for civil liberties, for stopping the genocide in Darfur, etc. etc. makes me trust people more.
Here is what one pro life person had to say:
It goes beyond that: the partial birth ban will not do anything if it is struck down the courts as unconsitutional.
I am sure that some Democrats were politically motivated in voting for the Durbin amendment. I don’t believe that Durbin himself was playing a game. I don’t really think that Santorum and Brownback were either–I think Brownback is very sincere and very credulous, and Santorum is too much of a Latin-for-[body part] to ever allow himself to believe anything that’s politically disadvantageous.
“Real sex ed that teaches abstinence as only one of a number of choices–one with advantages and disadvantages like everything else.”
But why is this the state’s job? My kids’ public schools didn’t teach it, but the material was well-covered at home. I’m on the side of these are things the kids need to know to be responsible adults (or even responsible teenagers), but question whether the state really has a compelling interest in including it as part of public schooling.
(also see page S3560-S3608).
But why is this the state’s job?
Whether sex ed at all is the state’s job is a good question, but PC sex education or any variation thereof that doesn’t give kids a realistic sense of the advantages/disadvatages of the entire spectrum of options is irresponsible. Teaching abstinence only is worse than teaching nothing.
You know, the whole abstinence issue is simply a substitute for teaching adolescents how things work. I had this discussion with my wife just last week, and even though she hews much more closely to religious doctrine than I do, she agreed with me. Here’s my position: people who don’t want their kids to get sex ed in the schools are kidding themselves. Sex ed in public schools shouldn’t be how their kids find out about sex; if they were doing their jobs as parents, sex ed should be all review. It’s like having a will: by accident or on purpose, you have a will*. Which do you prefer? If you want to teach your kids abstinence, fine. Just don’t do it instead of telling them about how sex works. That way is just a freaking cop-out.
*The by-accident kind is whatever probate says your will is.
That’s what I come to this blog for — the sheer unadulterated pleasure of seeing someone on the other side of the aisle say something on a contentious issue that I unreservedly agree with.
What Slarti said.
SH: you’re largely arguing against a strawman. No one here, even Katherine (thought foul!) thinks that the Dems are the party of pure sweetness and light while the Rs are satan’s forces made real.
But in the last 20 years, the pressure to change abortion laws has come solely from the right. why should the dems move right on an issue that’s been a winner until just recently? And in recent years, like during GBush I and especially GBush II, the republican legislature has preferred to put forward bills that are unconstitutional.
I hereby pose a standing challenge to any, including SH, who want to take it up: In the entire state and federal judicial system, please identify ALL cases where an appellate/supreme court struck down an abortion law, on health-of-the-mother grounds, which you believe was wrongly decided.
As Redstate loves pointing out, the democratic party is in disarray, beaten back across the country. So, let’s see those activist judiciaries striking down state laws that have overly narrow health-of-the-mother exceptions.
If the Rs don’t want to be reasonable on finding ways to prevent abortions of viable fetuses, I see no reason why the Dems should be.
“But why is this the state’s job?”
Because not all parents teach it and all adolescents need to know it.
wise words Slarti.
“If the Rs don’t want to be reasonable on finding ways to prevent abortions of viable fetuses, I see no reason why the Dems should be.”
I disagree completely here. The right thing to do is the right thing to do. I don’t expect us to get anywhere but it can’t hurt to try. It may also have political benefits. If politicians do well by doing good I say–well, that’s how democracy is supposed to work. Frankly I think the people who vote on this issue have their minds unalterably closed to the Democrats. Why would you not work with Harry Reid & Dick Durbin because you’re mad about Tip O’Neill & George Mitchell & Harry Blackmun? It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face. Durbin used to be pro life, and Reid still is.
“Men know nothing, nothing about getting pregnant or having babies.”
I know! Especially those male obstetricians. When we had our first baby my wife had to deliver it herself, as our obstetrician and I were alternately scratching our heads and fainting. We had no idea what was going on! And I just slept through all of the Bradley classes, and read the Cliff’s Notes version of the Sears books. What chance do I have to understand any of it? The penis bisects my brain.
I know! Especially those male obstetricians.
Heh. I was cranky.
Seriously, theoretical knowledge is one thing, going through the experience is another. Sorry. Maybe in your next life.
And I think the Democratic Congressional delegation is much better than the GOP delegation, which is not the same thing as we’re angels and your devils. I’m saying that they’re better and worse, and abortion is not as clear cut an exception as you think it is.
Frankly I think you caricature my view because you can’t actually defend today’s Congressional delegation on the merits, because they’re for the most part quite embarrassing. But let me tell you–as manichean as I can get when describing Democrats and Republicans in Congress, you are ten times that when it comes to Supreme Court Justices.
Btw, reminds me, why do men get to vote at all on abortion anyway? It should be put to an all-women referendum or something.
one last thing Sebastian: I have truly engaged with and changed my thinking about Constitutional Law and abortion based on our discussions here.
I really don’t think you’ve ever done the same. In the case of the torture stuff, you budged based on a sheer accumulation of data & government documents, not based on any argument. You have the same contempt for Amnety International and the press as you always did. It doesn’t seem quite the same to me. So to paint me as being an inflexible ideologue–I don’t have much patience for it. I’ve changed the way I thought about these things. You haven’t even a tiny bit.
Because not all parents teach it and all adolescents need to know it.
And not teaching children about how things work is criminally negligent. It is impossible to take seriously someone who claims to want to reduce abortions and teen pregnancy on one hand, but who opposes sex education or access to birth control on the other.
As to why it’s the state’s job to teach it, I counter: why is it the state’s job to mandate /any/ education? The answer is that we have decided, as a society, that a certain basic level of education is an irreplaceable good that in most the government is better equipped to provide than individual parents. And sex education is an essential part of the education necessary to make responsible, mature decisions about one of the most important aspects of one’s body.
To add to the confusing poll data, this study “Fifty-one percent (51%) support abortion only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman, or not at all.”
So far as I can tell, the center which did this survey was pro-choice–in the introduction they seemed somewhat alarmed by the findings.
Katherine:
Two things on this. First, I have changed based on all sorts of conversations here and elsewhere. Second, as a conservative who has always attended liberal schools and been in liberal circles, I have engaged and changed my mind (or not) based on the arguments you offered years before they came around to me.
You haven’t seen my change from hard-core death penalty defender to tepid-wouldn’t waste much of my time on it and has worries about procedural safeguards-psuedo supporter because that happened 15 years ago. You haven’t seen my change from active standing outside the clinics pro-lifer to the position I have now because that took place 10 years ago.
I don’t know how to phrase this, because I’m not trying to be insulting–this is a point about what I’ve been exposed to by environment, but many of your arguments I’ve heard and hashed out a decade ago. With those that I didn’t, I’ve softened my view on certain decisions as an ’emergency’ basis (such as some on race) but perhaps you have forgotten that. I wasn’t here when Moe was here, but it seems as if you haven’t had many conservatives who were really willing to engage you before–especially when you get rather hateful. I’ve been engaging with liberals for quite some time. It shouldn’t be shocking that I did much of the changing that I’m going to do in response to the first ten years of that rather than now. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe my picture of you in a relatively liberal (though initially Catholic) environment is incorrect. If so, I apologize for my presumption.
Also I really don’t see the change in your views, but that isn’t because I don’t think it happened. I haven’t seen it because in our initial conversations on jurisprudence I had no idea what you thought on a non-superficial level. I suspect what you see as changes appear to an outsider as mere clarifying explanations. Perhaps the same is happening with your reading of me.
As usual on this issue, there’s a lot more heat than light.
The most important thing to understand is that in some regions of the country, the vast majority of the population is opposed to abortion and in other regions, it’s at least tolerant of abortions and sometimes very strongly supportive.
Those who have strong opinions mostly live in places where the bulk of the population supports their position. As a result, it’s quite easy for both left and right to convince themselves that the bulk of the population supports their position.
If you live in Texas, it’s easy to believe this country is predominantly opposed to abortion. If you live in New York, you’ll think everyone supports it.
Attempts at national opinion polls vary according to how you phrase the question. My own take on it is that there is a strong majority which dislikes abortion and wants to see it restricted or abolished, and a strong majority which thinks it is necessary and wants to preserve some degree of access to it.
Because these opinions overlap, there is a large middle segment of people who think some degree of access to abortion is necessary, but also want to restrict that access in various ways. Depending on how you phrase your questions, these people may say they support or oppose abortion, depending on the context.
This is complicated by the fact that there has been a tendency to interpret restrictions on abortion in such a way as to effectively negate the restrictions, thus inducing more paranoia and hard-lining on the part of foes of abortion. At the same time, any effort to restrict abortion tends to cause the strongest supporters of it to become more paranoid and view even relatively mild restrictions as attempts to destroy abortion rights.
The result of all of this is that you can’t really make a clear, unequivocable statement that ‘a majority of Americans back the right to an abortion’ or ‘a majority of Americans oppose abortion’. But it’s quite possible for both sides to easily convince themselves that is the case, as most of us operate in an environment congenial to our own views on the issue, and depending on which poll we look at, we can draw our own view of it.
Btw, reminds me, why do men get to vote at all on abortion anyway? It should be put to an all-women referendum or something.
Um, you know, I’m pro-choice, but I don’t think this is a road we want to travel down.
“So to paint me as being an inflexible ideologue–”
I don’t think it’s Sebastian that’s painting that picture. I’m pretty sure it’s a self-portrait.
“So to paint me as being an inflexible ideologue–”
I don’t think it’s Sebastian that’s painting that picture. I’m pretty sure it’s a self-portrait.
Right. That’s why Katherine freely states that she thinks Roe is a bad legal decision even though it produced her desired outcome. That Katherine, what a results-driven legal mind she has.
Next ignorant statement, please.
I’d like to clarify, because I think the vocabulary actually matters. I am not “pro-abortion” and I don’t support abortions as such. I support the ability of people to choose their own course in their lives and to make decisions about their own bodies. Thus, pro-choice. I think I’m smart but I don’t think I’m smart enough to make decisions for everyone all the time.
It’s not totally true that Roe produces my desired outcome, actually, because it is such a political disaster & leads people to support horrible judges they otherwise wouldn’t go near. What was very hard to swallow is feeling that Furman & Roper (or whatever the juvenile death penalty case is) were probably wrongly decided.
Speaking of the “culture of life” the House is once again trying to gut political asylum, which they seem to do every time you take your eye off them for twenty seconds….they stuck these provisions into the emergency spending bill for Iraq & tsunami relief. So we’re at the tender mercies of the conference committee. There’s apparently a bipartisan group of Senators opposing it. I’m trying to find the details; my guess would be it’s the same little caucus of liberals, moderates and conservatives who’ve been working together on Darfur & actually a fair number of other human rights issues. It’s a good little group, one of the more hopeful coalitions in Congress right now–Ted Kennedy & Sam Brownback are stalwart members, & Joe Lieberman is with them more often than not.
ah, here they are, in alphabetical order–actually not exactly the same as the Darfur group:
Lamar Alexander, Sam Brownback, Dick Durbin (continuing his efforts as my middle aged midwestern Senate alter ego), Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Hagel, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Joe Lieberman (credit where due: Joementum is rock solid on immigration issues), Dick Lugar, John McCain, Ken Salazar, John Sununu.
Let’s hope one of them makes it onto the conference committee.
Forget all the usual arguments against the consistency of “Culture of Life” positions, such as, those who monomaniacally vote “pro-life” are also most likely the same people who support the death penalty and pre-emptive wars…are generally the same people who eschew efforts at universal health care and other measures aimed at actually preserving and/or prolonging life…are often the same people more interested in ensuring the system’s designed to enrich them as much as possible than they are in providing any sort of social safety net.
Yes, do forget that argument, as it’s quite a crude and inaccurate stereotype. (Not to mention completely illogical: it’s obviously an ad hominem fallacy.)
Now someone new to this country reading this would be forgiven for assuming then that working-class Americans do not value a decent minimum wage, or tuition assistance for their children, or protecting the environment, or making sure they have health care, or safety in the workplace, or equal opportunities for minorities, or fiscal responsibility, or international diplomacy, etc. etc. etc,
Here’s the key difference: On every one of those issues, liberals actually allowed people to have a vote. Democracy, you know. Liberals haven’t spent the past 30 years depending on and defending to the death an extremist Supreme Court decision that mandated a minimum wage of $50 per hour for every worker. Even civil rights, where the only real progress was made once Congress got involved in the 1960s.
But not on abortion, no sirree. Abortion is so popular that it simply must never be put to a vote. Right.
Forget the usual argument against protecting endangered species, such as, the people who pretend to be concerned about every insignificant species of animal at the same time want the Constitution to protect the act of puncturing a human baby’s skull and suctioning out the brains.
Is that a good argument against protecting endangered species? No. The fact that some liberals are terribly inconsistent and/or irrational does not mean that endangered species are fair game.
Abortion is so popular that it simply must never be put to a vote. Right.
Talk about ad hominem fallacies. The meme that abortions are “popular” is not only libelous, it demonstrates a stupefying lack of imagination. Is that the only reason you can imagine people in a free society would fight to preserve the right to make decisions about their own body (however that right came about)? Because having an abortion is a popular activity? That’s too gruesome to give any credit.
Forget the usual argument against protecting endangered species, such as, the people who pretend to be concerned about every insignificant species of animal at the same time want the Constitution to protect the act of puncturing a human baby’s skull and suctioning out the brains.
I can see you’re passionate about this, but you’re close to crossing the line and risk violating the posting rules (which will get you banned) with such rhetoric. Bring it down a notch if you’re really interested in having a dialog. There are plenty of very thoughtful people here who believe ending abortions is something to work toward, but not by outlawing it. Others would rather outlaw it. None of the people here fit the cartoonish portrait you’re trying to paint, though.
If you want to quibble over wording, I’ll happily modify my sentence:
The right to have abortion is so popular that it must never, never, never be put to a vote.
Anything substantive to say about that? As I pointed out, that attitude is not only, well, a bit contradictory, but very much opposed to liberals’ approach towards all the other issues where they have allowed and participated in democratic resolution. Liberals haven’t asked the courts to step in and set a minimum wage, or write an environmental code, or conduct foreign policy, etc., etc.
And as for the latter portion you quote: I thought I was making it clear that I was offering an example of a BAD argument. BAD. That means the argument isn’t good. It is fallacious. It is wrong. It is incorrect. It is an invalid argument. What can I do to make that more clear?
The only reason I brought it up was to make an analogy to your initial argument, which was invalid, inflammatory, and inaccurate as well.
Um, you know, I’m pro-choice, but I don’t think this is a road we want to travel down.
Just as a thought experiment, why would it be bad to let women decide?
Well, just as a thought experiment, how do you like the idea of banning abortion? That might happen (at least in some states) if only women voted on the issue. See the poll that Sebastian linked above, which found (much to the sponsoring organization’s dismay) that 51% of women support banning abortion except for rape/incest/life.
Votermom,
When women can self-procreate then I say let them decide. As long as men contribute to the survival of the species men should have a voice.
It would be bad because it would be unfair to have no voice in the situation.
Since, Republicans control all three houses (House, Senate and Whitehouse). Why don’t the Democrats just keep quiet and let them be in charge?
What you think the Democrats should have a voice?
Men do contribute to procreation, but it’s hardly a 50-50 effort biologically. Men only need, biologically, to commit to as little as 10 minutes of pleasure. If the man is healthy and the woman has no communicable diseases, there is practically no health risk to the man in this commitment.
Where as a woman will commit to 40 weeks gestation, involving significant health risks in itself, terminating in what can frequently be a fatal event. Even a healthy, uncomplicated pregnancy and birth is said to take anything from 2 to 7 years off a woman’s life expectancy.
So why is it fair that men would get an equal vote in this?
You’ve got it backwards though, Functional. Liberals (meaning all liberals) did not ask the courts to rule on Roe v. Wade, a relatively small group of Americans were involved in that. Once the decision was made, however, you can’t expect those who agreed with the decision to willingly forfeit a right they felt should be theirs all along, though. Arguing that Liberals haven’t asked the courts to step in with minimum wage or other issues is ludicrous…it’s not like we have monthly meetings and elect someone to take a case to court.
And let’s be honest, the reason you want it to be put to a vote is you’re hoping that the abortion laws would change, no? All this noise about activist judges could be directed at other cases, like, oh, I don’t know, Bush v. Gore, or Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow or some other case where the outcome was fine by you so you don’t care if the issue is (re)decided in the voting booth.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe legislating change is the best overall approach, but (and I’m not talking Roe v. Wade here, just generally addressing why not all change can be legislated) there are times when clearly what’s right will not come about that way. Take for example Lawrence v. Texas…when would that have EVER been decided in the voting booth? It was the right decision, but it would have never made it through the legislature of Texas.
I’m not a lawyer…you’ll get much better informed opinions on law from lawyers who post here.
My point in this post was that “Culture of Lifers” need to address the reality of the situation if they want to be taken seriously. So far, you haven’t contributed much toward that tend.
or “toward that end” even.
I’m hoping that Roe is overturned because I’m hoping that abortion laws will change? Absolutely. So what?
But if you (or other liberals, such as quite a few Senators) are so sure that the abortion right is mainstream/popular/appealing, why be so vehement that the people must never be allowed a vote? The obvious answer is that liberals know full well that a lot of abortion restrictions would emerge if people were granted the right to vote here.
Anyway, your reference to liberals’ litigating strategy is completely irrelevant. The thing is, if you went up to the average liberal and asked, “Is there a constitutional right to earn $11 an hour,” or “is there a constitutional right to block the Alaska pipeline,” most liberals would say, “Huh?” Whereas if you ask “is there a constitutional right to abortion,” most liberals respond, “Yes, and there better always be a right to abortion, which is why we are blocking certain judges,” etc., etc. On that issue, liberals do NOT want democracy. THAT is the difference between abortion (which Brooks was addressing) and the long list of issues that you presented.
“When women can self-procreate then I say let them decide.”
It could happen. Actually, if all men disappeared off the planet tomorrow, there are enough sperm banks around that the species would survive using frozen sperm as a source of babies, no trouble at all. (Assuming that whatever got the men was a one time event and the male babies will be able to grow up, have kids, and resupply the sperm banks, just in case the event recurred.) If men and all y-chromosome bearing sperm disappeared, there’s always oocyte fusion. It works in other mammals, and doesn’t seem to have the nasty epi-genetic problems that plague cloning. With a crash research program it could be made to work in humans, most likely.
Having said that, I do think that men should have a voice in the abortion debate, but not in the decision of whether any particular woman is going to have an abortion. A woman who is contemplating abortion might reasonably discuss it with her husband, partner, boyfriend, close male friend, doctor, family member, etc, but in the end it’s her body that is at risk and her decision.
And that’s why it is misleading to say, as you did, “Liberals have had a conversation about the values driving those concerns with working-class voters and continue to.”
Yes, liberals have had a conversation about those values. But for the issue of abortion, the conversation is entirely one-way. The liberal message is, “You agree with me? Great, I like your values. You disagree with me? Too bad, I win, because a few judges on the Supreme Court made up the right to abortion. Go home, you ‘forces of intolerance.’”
On that issue, liberals do NOT want democracy. THAT is the difference between abortion (which Brooks was addressing) and the long list of issues that you presented.
You don’t want “Democracy” either Funcational. You want a ban on abortions.
Put to a vote in the south whether African-Americans should be equal under the law. Put to vote in Utah whether polygamy should be legal. Put to a vote in Virginia or Texas whether gays should be allowed to have sex. If you have a point it’s drowned out by reality.
I’m not at all sure the majority would vote to ban abortions, but when it comes to individual rights, the system was designed to protect minorities from the sort of thing you’re insisting Liberals are against, and you’re right. I am against the tyranny of the majority.
Wrong. I want a democracy to vote, and I hope that it would vote to ban abortions. But if they don’t vote the way that I want, too bad for me. I lose. That’s life.
But if they don’t vote the way that I want, too bad for me. I lose. That’s life.
I don’t believe you.
Wrong. I want a democracy to vote, and I hope that it would vote to ban abortions. But if they don’t vote the way that I want, too bad for me. I lose. That’s life.
I still don’t believe you and I’ll tell you why. If the vote didn’t go my way, I’d be upset, I woldn’t say “That’s life.” I’d keep working to change it. As passionately as you’re making your case here, I suspect you’d do the same. So, in the end, it’s not about “Democracy” …that’s just an argument against how we got to this point…it’s about banning abortions.
This is ridiculous. How on earth would you know what my inner beliefs are, other than what I say? And who cares anyway?
Oh ok, you’re just saying that I wouldn’t quit the abortion debate forever if I lost a single vote. Well, of course not. Who would? The thing is, UNLIKE most liberals, I’m not looking for the Supreme Court to invent a spurious “right” to be free from abortion (i.e., such that all 50 states have to agree with me no matter how they vote).
This is ridiculous. How on earth would you know what my inner beliefs are, other than what I say?
Here’s what you’ve said:
I’m hoping that Roe is overturned
Put to a vote in the south whether African-Americans should be equal under the law. Put to vote in Utah whether polygamy should be legal. Put to a vote in Virginia or Texas whether gays should be allowed to have sex.
Your first example: There’s this part of the Constitution known as the 14th Amendment. It was passed in the wake of the Civil War. It says that all states have to give all citizens the “equal protection” of the laws. It is genuinely part of the Constitution; it wasn’t invented by free-wheeling judges.
Your second example: Doesn’t fit here. There is no constitutional ban on polygamy. CONGRESS imposed a ban as a condition for letting Utah in the Union. If Congress VOTED to let Utah vote on polygamy, there would nothing in the Constitution to stop that.
Your third example: I’m with Justice Thomas here. The laws were “uncommonly silly,” in his words, but that doesn’t mean that the Constitution bans them. Anyway, the laws were barely ever enforced, and were 99% out the door before the Supreme Court gave a slight nudge and then slammed the door.
Functional,
again, I agree that legislative paths are best, but I can’t get past the suspicion that if you didn’t desire a very clear outcome for that path, you wouldn’t be arguing so strongly for it. There are other issues you could argue it for. My ENTIRE point in this post is that the “Culture of Life” rhetoric is not consistent enough to convince many liberals it’s about anything more than power (including the power to control other peoples’ bodies). If it were really about preventing abortions, it would argue that soundly.
I’ve never met most liberals. You must get around.
“but in the end it’s her body that is at risk and her decision.”
I sort of agree in the end it’s the babies body that is at risk from abortion and both parents should have equal say.
the laws were barely ever enforced, and were 99% out the door .
Ah, but it was still the law.
Personally, I think that a limbo like that is the best approach for abortion too. Work to make abortion rare, but keep it legal. That’s the best balance to respecting everyone’s concerns.
I was taught that abortion is murder.
How can you defend murder?
Functional,
Should wars be fought by referendum?
now wait a moment, we’re missing a key point here, made in votermom’s comment.
10 MINUTES! and i thought 90 seconds was plenty!
Functional, whenever most constitutional rights are put to the vote, the right loses. Sedition laws, gun control laws, search and seizure laws etc. The point of the BoR is that it protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
Personally, I think that a limbo like that is the best approach for abortion too. Work to make abortion rare, but keep it legal. That’s the best balance to respecting everyone’s concerns.
Just to clarify, I don’t think a limbo like that was good for Lawrence v. Texas. Clarity was needed there. But leaving abortion “legal” while making concerted efforts to ensure it’s never needed seems the best approach to me.
10 MINUTES! and i thought 90 seconds was plenty!
Yeah, I want my 8 and a half minutes!
I agree that legislative paths are best, but I can’t get past the suspicion that if you didn’t desire a very clear outcome for that path, you wouldn’t be arguing so strongly for it.
Again, so what? What’s new about the observation that conservatives who want Roe overturned actually (gracious me!) have an opinion about how they would vote if they had the chance? What’s your point?
My ENTIRE point in this post is that the “Culture of Life” rhetoric is not consistent enough to convince many liberals it’s about anything more than power (including the power to control other peoples’ bodies).
So the “Culture of Life” idea is not “consistent” enough? I thought you began your whole post by saying “forget” the supposed inconsistencies. Anyway, all you’re saying here is that conservatives talk about preventing abortion while liberals use terms like “power to control other peoples’ bodies.” That is a completely obvious and banal observation.
* I say “supposed inconsistencies” because there is nothing inconsistent about believing that (1) wars are sometimes necessary evils; (2) brutal murderers can be executed after a fair trial; (3) people in general should pay their own way in society; but (4) innocent babies shouldn’t be offed. As it happens, I don’t necessarily agree with 2 or 3, but even if I agreed with 2 or 3, that wouldn’t contradict my desire to protect innocent life from being deliberately killed.
I thought you began your whole post by saying “forget” the supposed inconsistencies.
Which is why I said to forget them.
Well, yeah, so why are you now (at 11:36 am) saying that the whole problem is that the “Culture of Life” isn’t “consistent enough”? You’re contradicting yourself.
OK, that wasn’t clear…too much multitasking
I did mean “forget” those other “inconsistencies” (clearly people who oppose abortion fall on both sides of those other issues) and note the big glaring one: liberals ARE engaged in a dialog about this and the majority do NOT want abortion banned.
“Francis” — Functional, whenever most constitutional rights are put to the vote, the right loses. Sedition laws, gun control laws, search and seizure laws etc. The point of the BoR is that it protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
Fine, for rights that are, you know, actually in the Constitution (or plausibly deduced from the Constitution). It is simply not plausible to deduce that because the 3d Amendment says “no quartering soldiers in private homes” and the 4th Amendment says “no unreasonable police searches” and the 9th Amendment says, “maybe unwritten rights somewhere,” THEREFORE there is a “CONSTITUTIONAL” right to abortion. Non sequitur in the extreme. There is a “constitutional” right to abortion ONLY because the Supreme Court said so, by fiat. If Roe v. Wade had come out the other way, there would be no plausible or non-laughable argument by which one could demonstrate that the Court had decided wrongly.
I sort of agree in the end it’s the babies body that is at risk from abortion and both parents should have equal say.
Barring an amnio, only the woman knows who the real father is. 🙂
The thing here, it’s insulting to women to imply that they are not — morally sound? intelligent? self-sacrificing? enough to make the decision all on their own in their wee little heads, poor dears.
If we really want to make an end to abortions, provide the environment that will make pregnancy and childbirth and raising children a positive choice. Once you ban abortion, it makes it easy to neglect child health care, maternal health care, contraception, education.
What’s the need? Any bitca stupid enough to get pregnant and stupid enough to get an abortion goes into jail. All’s good. [/cynical]
No, liberals are not engaged in a “dialogue” about abortion. Not true. They pretend to be interested in dialogue (as Kerry when answering the pro-life voter at a debate), but then immediately turn around and say that not only must abortion be protected, it should be federally funded (as Kerry did in that very same debate answer). And when they are amongst themselves, there is no end to their demonization of pro-life views. (See the Kerry speech to NARAL that I linked above).
Liberals don’t want dialogue about abortion, any more than the NRA is interested in dialogue about banning all guns. They want to force their views on the entire country by any means possible.
No, most liberals are not engaged in a “dialogue” about abortion. Maybe some are, but most pretend to be interested in dialogue (as Kerry when answering the pro-life voter at a debate), and then immediately turn around and say that not only must abortion be protected, it should be federally funded (as Kerry did in that very same debate answer). And when they are amongst themselves, there is no end to their demonization of pro-life views. (See the Kerry speech to NARAL that I linked above).
Most liberals don’t want dialogue about abortion, any more than the NRA is interested in dialogue about banning all guns. They want to force their views on the entire country by any means possible. And if they were so sure that the “majority do NOT want abortion banned,” they wouldn’t be so panicked about Roe being overturned.
Maybe we have differing definitions of the word “dialog” Functional, but discussing aspects of the current law of the land, such as whether it should be federally funded or how one feels about it personally, fall in the category of “having a dialog” in my book.
Perhaps what you mean is that Liberals are not interested in putting it to a vote. If that’s the case (and it’s not the same thing), I’d say that’s the right approach.
Again, why not concentrate your efforts on ways to make abortion rare?
All liberals? Most liberals? Which liberals are you talking about, here? Edward seems open to dialogue, and unless my political compass has a big chunk of ferromagnetic material next to it, Edward’s a liberal.
To clarify, I consider this entire thread “dialogue”. If you disagree, we’re speaking different languages.
“The thing here, it’s insulting to women to imply that they are not — morally sound? intelligent? self-sacrificing? enough to make the decision all on their own in their wee little heads, poor dears.”
What’s truly insulting is to assume that men don’t love and value an unborn child even if a mother doesn’t.
I personally don’t know that I would end all abortions. I can think of some instances that abortion might be acceptable. But, this arugment that it’s a women’s right to privacy is just a farce.
and unless my political compass has a big chunk of ferromagnetic material next to it, Edward’s a liberal
no need to adjust your compass ;-).
But, this arugment that it’s a women’s right to privacy is just a farce.
Jumping in here. My opinion falls somewhere between this and votermom’s.
I do feel men should preface nearly every opinion they have on abortion with the acknowledgement that they cannot know what it really means to bear a child.
On the other hand, I believe men should have some say in the fate of their potential progeny. BUT ONLY THEIRS. Not anyone elses.
OK, I’ll modify what I said. Most liberals are not interested in dialogue over abortion, UNLESS they are GUARANTEED that no matter what, they always win in the end, because the Supreme Court is on their side. In other words, they want dialogue only where it can’t make any difference. If Roe were overturned, and true dialogue leading to compromise were actually possible, well, that’s precisely what most liberals don’t want.
But, this arugment that it’s a women’s right to privacy is just a farce.
Hardly. If all an abortion involves is terminating the growth of a piece of flesh with no capacity for thought or feeling which cannot survive outside of the mother’s body, then yes, it is most certainly a medical procedure subject to the patient’s right to privacy.
If, on the other hand, we’re talking about the termination of a human baby, then that baby’s right to live enters into the equation.
The fundamental disagreement between those who support abortion rights and those who do not is where to draw the line past which that parasitic growth becomes a human baby. Pretending that this line is clear and objectively definable, or that a patient’s right to medical privacy is a “farce”, is simply dishonest posturing.
Functional,
To help divorce you from your misperceptions about liberals, most liberals, or any generalizing variation thereof, let me repeat what I noted above:
Despite your constant assertions to the contrary, liberals are very willing to have a dialog about abortion. It simply should not begin with the repeal of the Roe v. Wade decision, because, as we’ve hashed out, that goal is about power and not about abortion, per se.
“If we really want to make an end to abortions, provide the environment that will make pregnancy and childbirth and raising children a positive choice.”
I hope you will clarify this statement as it sounds like you’re saying that it is currently a negative choice.
“The thing here, it’s insulting to women to imply that they are not — morally sound? intelligent? self-sacrificing? enough to make the decision all on their own in their wee little heads, poor dears…
I agree that it is insulting, but does the following (and the first quote for that matter) not have a similar implication?
“I don’t know why some corrupt MALE politician in Washington is supposed to make that choice for the mother, specially when said politician refuses to provide her with health care.”
I want a democracy to vote, and I hope that it would vote to ban abortions. But if they don’t vote the way that I want, too bad for me.
I’m a big believer in the concept of revealed preferences, and given the number of abortions that occur every year, I’d say people pretty much have voted, with their uteruses.
There was a heartbreaking cover story a few weeks ago in the WaPo Sunday magazine about a couple in Maryland who discovered during an ultrasound that their baby was afflicted with a form of hydrocephaly which pretty much guaranteed that, if it lived very long, it would never live a normal life, would only have a very small brain which would never divide into hemispheres, and could have serious birth defects including randomly-placed, malformed facial features; and that giving birth at all could represent a dire risk to the mother.
Throughout the ensuing several weeks, the husband pressured the wife to have an abortion; the wife did not want to. It almost destroyed their marriage, until the husband finally agreed to abide by whatever decision she made. She had the baby, a couple of weeks early, and it lived for about an hour, never achieving a heartbeat over 80 and barely able to draw breath.
It was important for this man to have input over whether he and his wife should take on the burden of raising a deformed, critically handicapped child, and whether the inflict that painful life on another being. But it was important for his wife to have the final say on whether she would or would not carry the child. This is how it should be, within each individual set of parents’ life.
On a societal basis, all of society has a stake in this, and all of society should be heard, not just the female half. To suggest otherwise is to imagine that we segment up democracy such that only those who stand to be harmed by or benefit from a policy get their voices heard. Do we really want a society in which only the Fortune 500 C-level execs get to be heard on SEC policy?
I personally don’t know that I would end all abortions.
What I think you mean is all legal abortions. As someone who was in high school when Roe v. Wade was decided, I clearly remember female classmates taking unexplained “vacations”. Thankfully, all of them returned safely from their vacations – many others weren’t so fortunate. Simply removing “legal” from “safe, legal, and rare” has a big impact on “safe” and a much smaller impact on “rare”.
It simply should not begin with the repeal of the Roe v. Wade decision, because, as we’ve hashed out, that goal is about power and not about abortion, per se.
You’re just playing semantic games. For pro-lifers, overturning Roe is PRECISELY about abortion. What else would it be about? You want to slap it with the label of “power” — ok, sure, pro-lifers want the “power” to have a vote (as was allowed for the first 200 years of our Constitution), the “power” to protect innocent life, etc.
Catsy, I completely agree with your statement regarding the fundamental disagreement. However, when discussing the issue with those who view life as beginning at conception, using language such as “a piece of flesh with no capacity for thought or feeling” or “parasitic growth”, is not going to advance the discussion.
I hope you will clarify this statement as it sounds like you’re saying that it is currently a negative choice.
For women who do end up choosing to have an abortion, it (having the baby) is a negative choice.
For some women, what makes it negative is simply poverty — they already have x number of children and cannot handle the physical and financial strain of another pregnancy. For others health. For others, violence. I contend that if the government invests more money in sex education, contraception, universal health care, child-care, maternity and paternity leave, then the number of abortions will decrease dramatically.
“Despite your constant assertions to the contrary, liberals are very willing to have a dialog about abortion. It simply should not begin with the repeal of the Roe v. Wade decision, because, as we’ve hashed out, that goal is about power and not about abortion, per se.”
That is rather ridiculous because without a change in Roe and the court decisions surrounding it, we can’t make the compromises you are talking about. Which is precisely the whole point from my point of view. Roe illegitimately short-circuited the whole process of hashing it all out by pretending that the Constution spoke on the issue–effectively closing off the democratic debate.
Functional, what “compromises” are you willing to make? Do you want all abortions in all circumstances to be completely illegal? Some abortions in some circumstances? Which ones? What are you willing to do to ensure that women and men have access to safe, reliable contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place? What are you willing to do to ensure a functional, efficient and safe adoption and foster care program in the event women don’t keep their children? What are you willing to do to ensure that pregnant women get the care they need to give birth to healthy children and don’t have to raise them in squalor?
That’s what Edward’s getting at: That a “culture of life” that really valued life would show how they value it, and have answers to those questions. Instead, the most visible US leaders of the so-called “culture of life” limit their support for life to, “Ban abortion, keep kids away from gays, and eff ’em after they’re born! Their parents shoulda had the good sense not to be poor!” They engage in this continous dog-and-pony show over Roe v. Wade but do little to show that they value the actual lives of actual people, and in many cases actively oppose things that would make people’s lives demonstrably better. And abortion foes whose concerns might indeed be bigger let themselves be led down the garden path again and again by these fools.
That is rather ridiculous because without a change in Roe and the court decisions surrounding it, we can’t make the compromises you are talking about.
Why not? Why can’t changes to the existing law be legislated such that abortions remain legal, but the need for them decreases?
OR…what Phil said.
However, when discussing the issue with those who view life as beginning at conception, using language such as “a piece of flesh with no capacity for thought or feeling” or “parasitic growth”, is not going to advance the discussion.
I disagree. It’s crucial to drive home to these people that we do not share their assumptions–because no matter how many times I see the issue explained, it seems like they /just don’t get it/.
There is a point where life begins. There is a point where this thing becomes a baby. But before that it is exactly what I described: a parasitic growth. It has the potential to become something wonderful /eventually/–but until then it is an unthinking mass of cells that is siphoning nutrients from the host to further its own growth.
Understanding this distinction is crucial to understanding the pro-choice position–because until anti-choicers get this through their heads, they are going to continue to spout banal calumnies like privacy rights being a “farce”, or liberals being baby killers. For the most part, we simply do not recognize your assumption that what is being aborted is a baby. Absent that assumption, all of the justifications for banning abortion at any given juncture fall apart utterly.
Good post from Phil.
“Functional, what “compromises” are you willing to make? Do you want all abortions in all circumstances to be completely illegal? Some abortions in some circumstances? Which ones? What are you willing to do to ensure that women and men have access to safe, reliable contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place? What are you willing to do to ensure a functional, efficient and safe adoption and foster care program in the event women don’t keep their children? What are you willing to do to ensure that pregnant women get the care they need to give birth to healthy children and don’t have to raise them in squalor?”
Right. I’m for providing contraception. I’m for sex education that includes both condom instruction and counseling temporarily putting off sexual activity in the early teenage years. I’ve been involved in the child protection services which help with foster care and adoptions. And what compromises are you willing to make regarding Roe? So far nothing.
“There is a point where life begins. There is a point where this thing becomes a baby. But before that it is exactly what I described: a parasitic growth. It has the potential to become something wonderful /eventually/–but until then it is an unthinking mass of cells that is siphoning nutrients from the host to further its own growth.”
It’s too bad we allow elective abortions after the point where life begins and the fetus has become a baby. It’s too bad the ‘health of the mother’ exceptions get interpreted as allowing elective abortions for any risk. It’s too bad that the court system has run so amok that we can’t deal with any of these fine grade issues because a couple of judges want to write their ideas into the Constitution.
And what compromises are you willing to make regarding Roe? So far nothing.
What are you talking about? how clear can a person be?
1) partial birth abortion…gone
2) as technology improves and viability begins earlier, change the laws to reflect that too
If these are not the kinds of compromises you’re talking about, perhaps you could be more clear.
SH: Roe allowed for the state to impose 3rd trimester restrictions. You are ONCE AGAIN invited to point out all the cases in which a state or federal court struck down an attempt by a state to limit (not ban) 3rd trimester abortions.
Dammit, Holsclaw, you had better get out of the ****** habit of quoting a large block of text from me, then responding by attributing to me a position I do not hold, to wit: “And what compromises are you willing to make regarding Roe? So far nothing.” And I mean you better get out of it MUY PRONTO. You know NOTHING of my opinion on Roe, as I have not expressed one on this thread or anywhere else on ObWi, ever. And you certainly do not know what compromises I am willing to make on the general matter of abortion.
You want to know? Ask me a question. But DO. NOT. PUT. WORDS. IN. MY. MOUTH. EVER. If you think you’re addressing some general “you,” then DO NOT quote me as if I was asking you those questions and you were responding to me. I am NOT whoever you think you’re arguing with about Roe, and I won’t stand for having a position attributed to me that I have not asserted and do not hold.
*** Edited for violating the No Profanity rule****
Catsy,
It seems that you need to study a bit more what actually happens at the moment of conception.
You can argue alot of points, but you can’t argue that what is is the mother. Go with viability. It’s a much better arugment.
The tissue you speak of is genetically unique from the mother.
Phil…dude…let’s bring the volume down please. Your comment is unquestionably disruptive, whereas (if your assessment of Sebastian’s intent is correct) it was at most mindreading…a foul, to be sure, but not a foul so unheard of that it warrants such a loud response.
“For the most part, we simply do not recognize your assumption that what is being aborted is a baby.”
First, it’s not my assumption and I apologize for not making that clear. I’m speaking from the perspective of an agnostic who lives in the south. As such, when discussing the issue with friends who do not view the through a purely scientific lense, I’ve had to recognize that science does not yet (and possibly may never) address the more philosophical questions of human existence (such as whether or not we have a soul or some other ethereal quality) and that I can express my view without using language that they view as dehumanizing and offensive.
I’ll respond to Phil:
Functional, what “compromises” are you willing to make? Do you want all abortions in all circumstances to be completely illegal?
Ideally, pretty much (exception for life of the mother). But I know full well that I won’t get my ideal. I’d happily settle for any compromise that was more restrictive than what we have now.
What are you willing to do to ensure that women and men have access to safe, reliable contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place?
Well, I’d probably ask drugstores and gas stations to sell condoms. Err, wait, they already do that. Next question:
What are you willing to do to ensure a functional, efficient and safe adoption and foster care program in the event women don’t keep their children?
I don’t know — what needs to be done that isn’t being done right now? Tell me.
What are you willing to do to ensure that pregnant women get the care they need to give birth to healthy children and don’t have to raise them in squalor?
What care? Pre-natal vitamins? Monthly doctors’ appointments? As for raising kids “in squalor,” I’m not enamored with wealth. I come from a long line of people who grew up in what you might call “squalor,” and they were decent and honorable people. Personally, I’d be asking, “What are you willing to do to make sure that kids aren’t brought up as spoiled rotten brats?” In my opinion, that’s an infinitely greater worry in modern America.
I’ll respond to Phil:
Functional, what “compromises” are you willing to make? Do you want all abortions in all circumstances to be completely illegal?
Ideally, pretty much (exception for life of the mother). But I know full well that I won’t get my ideal. I’d happily settle for any compromise that was more restrictive than what we have now.
What are you willing to do to ensure that women and men have access to safe, reliable contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place?
Well, I’d probably ask drugstores and gas stations to sell condoms. Err, wait, they already do that. Next question:
What are you willing to do to ensure a functional, efficient and safe adoption and foster care program in the event women don’t keep their children?
I don’t know — what needs to be done that isn’t being done right now? Tell me.
What are you willing to do to ensure that pregnant women get the care they need to give birth to healthy children and don’t have to raise them in squalor?
What care? Pre-natal vitamins? Monthly doctors’ appointments? As for raising kids “in squalor,” I’m not enamored with wealth. I come from a long line of people who grew up in what you might call “squalor,” and they were decent and honorable people. Personally, I’d be asking, “What are you willing to do to make sure that kids aren’t brought up as spoiled rotten brats?” In my opinion, that’s an infinitely greater worry in modern America.
123: It seems that you need to study a bit more what actually happens at the moment of conception. [rant about genetic uniqueness and viability snipped]
That’s great, thanks for the biology refresher. It would be more germane if I’d asserted any of the positions you were arguing against, though. I suggest going back and reading what I wrote.
err: express my view without using language that they view as dehumanizing and offensive.
Fair enough, but I think you’re making my point without realizing it. The dehumanization is the whole point of this use of language, because anti-choice advocates are routinely ascribing humanity to something which lacks it–or where said humanity is at the very least in question. They do this in an appeal to emotion, because if they can push a person’s emotional “baby” buttons, it short-circuits the rational evaluation of whether or not there’s really a human life there to abort.
In other words, I understand what you’re saying, but I disagree.
Speaking of the “culture of life,” constant reader wilfred directed me to this gem.
It’s not only reasonably priced…it’s also available in a “brown” model, although the jpg file says “black_soldier” so I’m not sure if Miss Poppy is mixing her races or what, but I’d assume the “brown” model is more or less who the white model is supposed to grow up and kill, no? Maybe you collect a set of each and pit them against each other in the ultimate battle of good zygote vs. evil zygote. ;^(
You don’t want to make Phil angry. You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry.
“a healthy, uncomplicated pregnancy and birth is said to take anything from 2 to 7 years off a woman’s life expectancy.”
Holy crap! My grandmother had 10 children. That’d make her life expectancy. . . wait. .
Functional,
“Well, I’d probably ask drugstores and gas stations to sell condoms. Err, wait, they already do that.”
So nothing then. You’d leave kids on their own and ignorant to make stupid mistakes and have them and their children stuck with the consequences for ever. Fantastics.
“what needs to be done that isn’t being done right now? Tell me.”
I think the point is that if you cared, you’d already know. I am more or less pro-life and anti- the current state of abortion, but I’m with Edward on his general theme. For most opponents of abortion, the ‘sanctity of life’ ends at birth.
So how come the brown model comes with a helmet but not the white model? (insert conspiracy theory here)
The whole site is very icky funny.
The whole site is very icky funny.
yeah, they’re going to hell alright
“Speaking of the “culture of life,” constant reader wilfred directed me to this gem.”
That’s almost as funny as this.
Every day on the way to work I pass a place called the Holy Saviour Club. I originally thought it was a triumph of ecumenicalism, a place which not merely believes there is a multitude of holy saviours, but that they are friendly enough to form a club!
I then learned that it’s the parish hall for the local Catholic church.
“what needs to be done that isn’t being done right now? Tell me.”
I think the point is that if you cared, you’d already know.
No, really: What needs to be done to encourage more women to give up children for adoption? Adoption tax credits? We already have that on both federal and state levels. Reward expectant mothers who give up their babies? I wouldn’t mind that, but lots of people would predictably demonize it as “baby-selling.” (Never mind all the people who already make a living from selling babies — adoption attorneys and agencies, for example.)
The main problems with adoption in this country is that not enough Americans want to give up babies for adoption in the first place, and that not enough Americans are willing to adopt older children. This is precisely why so many American couples are adopting from places like China these days, even though it is expensive and incredibly time-consuming to do a foreign adoption. In any event, there’s nothing that I can do about those factors, which is why I’m asking whether Phil had anything partiular in mind here.
I don’t think so. These are for people who are adopting children, not for those who are giving them up.
I know. Sorry, sloppy writing there. First time. It won’t happen again.
First time.
heh…
Catsy,
I didn’t mean you personally, I only meant you in the sense of the arguments to be made that you were talking about.
Speaking strictly for myself, I adopted from China (twice) because (in no particular order):
– The probability of custody issues was very, very low
– The involvement of the state CFS was practically zip.
– The cost (including travel) was comparable.
– The wait was, in general, much less
– The probability of any waffling on the part of the birth mother was exactly zero
– The probability of future parental involvement is nearly zero.
– We basically got a free trip to a foreign country out of the deal.
– It’s much easier to get a baby (<12 months old)
That's about it.
Phil: What are you willing to do to ensure that women and men have access to safe, reliable contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place?
Me: “Well, I’d probably ask drugstores and gas stations to sell condoms. Err, wait, they already do that.”
Sidereal: So nothing then. You’d leave kids on their own and ignorant to make stupid mistakes and have them and their children stuck with the consequences for ever. Fantastics.
Umm, you aren’t reading the question. Phil asked about ACCESS to birth control, which for some reason is a common trope among pro-choicers, as if birth control were some sort of rare item kept solely in a vault in northern Canada. In this country, access to birth control is the furthest thing from a genuine problem. Anyone can buy condoms, at any time, in just about any general drugstore, grocery store, gas station, etc.
As for Sidereal’s change of subject (the fact that kids are ignorant and stupid), again, sorry: Birth control isn’t rocket science. You take the condom, and slip it on. Anyone can figure out how to do that. Heck, packages of condoms even come with instructions.
I agree under most circumstances adults don’t have trouble getting birth control and some dforms are readily available to teens as well. However there are people on the right who do mwant to make it harder. For example, there are the initiatives intended to empower pharmacists to refuse to honor birth control perspcriotions. Also Sen. Santorum, in an article in Time, stated that his long term goal and the goal of his political/religious allies, was to overturn the Griswold decision, and action that would have the effect of allowing state legislatures to outlaw birthcontrol.
Sorry, Edward, but this is not the first time Sebastian has done this to me: Quoted something that I said, then responded to me by attributing to me a position I don’t hold, then trying to defeat that position. If Sebastian is interested in fighting with imaginary friends, I absolutely insist that he not put my words in their mouths nor theirs in mine, and if it happens again, I’ll simply stop reading ObWi.
Functional: Regarding adoption and foster care programs, the latter are a mess. The larger states are so inundated with kids needing foster care that they simply cannot place them all. The ones they do place are often abused, neglected and killed. The kids are shifted from home to home constantly, resulting in disruption and physical and mental problems. Hell, Florida was losing track of children for years at a time.
So what are they doing? Well, let’s see . . . Texas is further reducing the pool of prospective foster parents by protecting them from catching the gay, while Florida is privatizing all its child welfare services, which even as a free-marketer I have to say is an abominable idea, particularly since the services will get paid on the basis of how many kids get shuffled through.
These things are the inevitable result of more unprepared mothers carrying to term children that they might otherwise have aborted very early in their pregnancies. If you’re OK with that, OK, but adding more children to the mix will only make it worse.
Your last paragraph indicates to me that you geniunely don’t take any sort of “culture of life” seriously. I’m talking about, yes, good nine-month prenatal care, easily available parenting advice, WIC programs, making sure kids get at least one decent meal a day at school, making sure they aren’t growing up constantly imbibing or inhaling lead, mercury and other toxic heavy metals, making available programs that people can take advantage of to get their kids started on cognitive development (e.g., Head Start), decent amounts of work leave and sick time for mothers and fathers, all those kinds of things.
You’ve said nothing that would lead me to believe that you aren’t part of the “eff ’em once they’re born” crowd.
This seems suspiciously familiar.
“…good nine-month prenatal care, easily available parenting advice, WIC programs, making sure kids get at least one decent meal a day at school, making sure they aren’t growing up constantly imbibing or inhaling lead, mercury and other toxic heavy metals, making available programs that people can take advantage of to get their kids started on cognitive development (e.g., Head Start), decent amounts of work leave and sick time for mothers and fathers, all those kinds of things.”
this sounds good in the abstract, but how would we pull this off?
Your last paragraph indicates to me that you geniunely don’t take any sort of “culture of life” seriously. I’m talking about, yes, good nine-month prenatal care, easily available parenting advice, WIC programs, making sure kids get at least one decent meal a day at school, making sure they aren’t growing up constantly imbibing or inhaling lead, mercury and other toxic heavy metals, making available programs that people can take advantage of to get their kids started on cognitive development (e.g., Head Start), decent amounts of work leave and sick time for mothers and fathers, all those kinds of things.
Good. Now you’re actually being specific. I pretty much support all of the above, although don’t kid yourself about Head Start — there’s no evidence that it has any lasting cognitive effects.
You’ve said nothing that would lead me to believe that you aren’t part of the “eff ’em once they’re born” crowd.
Oh, that’s nice. Typical non sequitur. “Unless you sign on to a massive list of government programs, you don’t have any right to protest if babies are killed.” It’s a very common pro-choice argument, but it doesn’t work. Try it in other contexts: “Who are you to be against torturing Muslim immigrants unless you also agree to pay higher taxes so that the government can give jobs to all Muslim immigrants?” Doesn’t follow at all; you don’t have to be in favor of jobs programs to be against torture. And you don’t have to support Head Start to be against abortion.
The real test of whether or not a person gives an eff about life after birth is whether or not they are willing to pay for the services and supports needed by children, disabled, senors, and others who cannot support themselves. In general liberals are willing to pay for a wide spectrum of services. The voices rationaizing that programs are wasteful , that programs are part of a nanny government, or simply that taxes (especially for the rich) should be cut come from the right.
And you don’t have to support Head Start to be against abortion.
Perhaps not, but you absolutely have to do more than be against abortion to claim to be part of a “culture of life.” Which was Edward’s entire point, and which he has in my opinion amply demonstrated.
Typical non sequitur. “Unless you sign on to a massive list of government programs, you don’t have any right to protest if babies are killed.”
Again with the article of faith–bordering on blood libel–that aborted fetuses are babies being killed. You will get absolutely nowhere with such points as you have to make as long as you remain incapable of comprehending or acknowledging that we do not share the fundamental, unscientific assumption upon which your entire argument rests.
It’s a very common pro-choice argument, but it doesn’t work.
You’re right–an argument which nobody actually makes sure doesn’t work. What does work is pointing out that claiming to value life rings hollow when your passion for policies that preserve it ends when the baby is born.
we do not share the fundamental, unscientific assumption upon which your entire argument rests.
The single thing I’m angriest about in Roe v. Wade — and there’s a lot not to like there — is that the Supreme Court didn’t use the opportunity to point out that the fundamental problem is that we have neither a lexical, legal nor really even a mental category with which to describe the state of personhood of an embryo/fetus/gestating child, and to create at least a legal category with which to talk about this issue. As it is, you have the diehard right who talk about the E/F/GC as equivalent to a post-natal baby — which it isn’t — and the diehard left who talk about the E/F/GC as a random clump of cells — which it also isn’t — as an effort to cram this thing into a category that wasn’t made for it.* Had the SCOTUS done that, I suspect that the abortion debate would be as passionate but much less intense and much less hateful; and that can only be a good thing for the country.
* I think there’s a nifty chicken-or-egg question here of which came first, the miscategorization or the belief that the E/F/GC really does fall into one of the two inapplicable categories.
What does work is pointing out that claiming to value life rings hollow when your passion for policies that preserve it ends when the baby is born.
You must be talking to someone else. Not to me.
Again with the article of faith–bordering on blood libel–that aborted fetuses are babies being killed.
Fetus = Latin for “baby.” Abortion = the act of killing the fetus [baby].
It is just a simple fact that before an abortion, there is a live baby with a heartbeat, a circulatory system, a nervous system, its own gender, its own immune system, etc., etc., and after an abortion, that baby is dead; indeed, the whole point of the abortion is to kill the fetus [baby]. There is nothing faith-based whatsoever about that.
Now, if you want to talk about personhood, souls, competing rights, etc., that would be faith-based. But that would also be a different question. It would be a question about the morality of abortion, rather than about the simple, descriptive fact of what happens in an abortion. Indeed, honest pro-choicers (e.g, Naomi Wolf, Judith Thomson) will say, “Yes, it’s a human life that’s being killed, but here’s why it’s still justifiable.” Or consider what this abortion doctor says:
Right or wrong on the moral question, at least those prochoicers are capable of admitting reality.
Fetus = Latin for “baby.” Abortion = the act of killing the fetus [baby].
Yes, it’s very nice that you know Latin, but that’s not what the word “fetus” means in English. I would hope you’d know that, but given the astounding ignorance of biology you thereafted demonstrated, I’m not so sure.
When a sperm fertilizes an egg, is the resulting combination of cells a baby? Rational people with even a rudimentary understanding of science would answer “no”. We generally call that an “embryo”.
When a fetus emerges from the birth canal, is that a baby? Rational people with a shred of humanity would say “yes”.
Those are points A and B. Somewhere in the span between those two points, abortion occurs. The question is whether or not, at any given time between those two points, the thing being aborted is a separate human life with its own right to existence, and that is a question for which we have no certain answers–and the further away from either point we get, the more uncertainty there is. When you spout nonsense like this as if it were absolute fact–
It is just a simple fact that before an abortion, there is a live baby with a heartbeat, a circulatory system, a nervous system, its own gender, its own immune system, etc., etc., and after an abortion, that baby is dead; indeed, the whole point of the abortion is to kill the fetus [baby]. There is nothing faith-based whatsoever about that.
–you betray your utter ignorance of the biological processes involved and indeed, the degree to which you lack the knowledge necessary to have an informed opinion about the issues surrounding abortion. All embryos are female by default–they begin to develop gender around the eighth week, generally after which the embryo is considered to have become a fetus. It doesn’t even have a heart until around that time, either, much less a proper circulatory system–and what system it develops is entirely dependent on nutrients from the mother until birth.
Did you honestly not learn things like this in high school? Given the state of our education system, it wouldn’t surprise me, and if so, I’m sorry. But if you knew all these things, then you are lying when you advance arguments like the one I quoted.
An awfully arrogant attitude to take for someone who gets the most basic facts wrong. You claim, for example, that It doesn’t even have a heart until around [eight weeks], either, much less a proper circulatory system.”
Hmmm. No heart until 8 weeks? That’s weird. I wonder how doctors are able to detect the fetal heartbeat by ultrasound at 6 weeks? In point of fact, if doctors can’t detect a heartbeat by 8 weeks, they know that something is seriously wrong.
As for your notion that fetuses “begin to develop gender around the eighth week,” what you mean is, “fetuses begin to develop external sexual organs.” But their gender exists long before that. Indeed, tests of maternal serum levels of human chorionic gonadotropin can detect the fetus’s gender as early as 3 weeks.
So get your own facts straight before presuming to lecture others, let alone accuse them of “lying.”
Are we quite finished condescending to each other, now? Can we have a civil discussion?
I don’t care who started it; just don’t make me pull this car over.
Can we have a civil discussion?
About abortion? Surely you jest.
“Sorry, Edward, but this is not the first time Sebastian has done this to me: Quoted something that I said, then responded to me by attributing to me a position I don’t hold, then trying to defeat that position. If Sebastian is interested in fighting with imaginary friends, I absolutely insist that he not put my words in their mouths nor theirs in mine, and if it happens again, I’ll simply stop reading ObWi.”
I absolutely insist that you learn to read. The sentences which apparently sent you into a tizzy were: “And what compromises are you willing to make regarding Roe? So far nothing.”
Which is, despite your high-pitched whining completely true.
Thanks for reading I guess.
As for Sidereal’s change of subject (the fact that kids are ignorant and stupid), again, sorry: Birth control isn’t rocket science. You take the condom, and slip it on. Anyone can figure out how to do that. Heck, packages of condoms even come with instructions.
Coming from a country where sex education used to be good and is slipping currently I can assure you that in real life it is not figured out. Even condoms are more difficult than most people think, since no one reads the manual, so they do not realize for instance that you are supposed to leave some room on the top (cause of many broken condoms, not doing that) or hold the condom when you withdraw to prevent it from slipping. Same for birthcontrol; many women don’t realize the bad impact of vomiting, bad guts or certain kind of antibiotics on protection from their anticonception pills.
Are you going to actually bother to come down off your throne and ask me about Roe, Sebastian? Or are you going to sit there smugly sure that you already know the answer so you can continue patting yourself on the back for being right? Because, you know, from where I sit, you’re actually getting stupider with each passing second by assuming as correct something which is, in fact, untrue.
“As it is, you have the diehard right who talk about the E/F/GC as equivalent to a post-natal baby — which it isn’t — and the diehard left who talk about the E/F/GC as a random clump of cells — which it also isn’t”
Heh. Why is it that no one in this debate ever seems to understand basic developmental biology? A morula (about two weeks post-conception) is more or less a random clump of cells, a nine month fetus is more or less a newborn, but an 8 week old embryo or a four month old fetus is neither.
At eight weeks, the time before which the majority of abortions occur according to the CDC, the embryo does not have working neurons yet. It has a primative ciruclatory system and a beating heart, as functional points out, but so does a brain dead person. It isn’t cardiac function, but neural function that defines human life in the current society.
At fifteen weeks, the point by which the vast majority (>95%) of abortions occur, the fetus has a very primative brain with about as much cotex as a mouse, without the characteristic folds of a newborn’s cortex. Furthermore, the developing neurons have not yet developed into full blown active neurons until the third trimester, so it is highly doubtful that there is any cortical activity in a fetus prior to the third trimester.
My source for the above is off line (a developmental biology text), but if anyone would like, I could try to find online references as well.
“Indeed, tests of maternal serum levels of human chorionic gonadotropin can detect the fetus’s gender as early as 3 weeks.”
Gender is (usually) encoded in the genetics. You can detemine the blastulocyte’s gender at as early as three minutes if you don’t mind destroying it in the process. If you want a non-destructive determination, wait until it’s divided a couple of times and karyotype one cell. Whatever that has to do with anything.
“The real test of whether or not a person gives an eff about life after birth is whether or not they are willing to pay for the services and supports needed by children, disabled, senors, and others who cannot support themselves.”
God, I hope that’s not what you really believe. For me atleast the real test whether someone gives an eff about life after birth is to actually be present as a father or a mother… to help your parents in their old age.
If we could just keep our eye on the ball and exercise some personal responsibility there would be so few issues left the gov’t could actually create programs that were effective when all else has failed.
“Perhaps not, but you absolutely have to do more than be against abortion to claim to be part of a “culture of life.” Which was Edward’s entire point, and which he has in my opinion amply demonstrated.”
Maybe, I missed this somewhere, but if that was really his point then this is a big waste of time.
Was that really the big point you wanted to make, Edward?
If one is going to say that I can’t refer to “Culture of Life” and only be referring to abortion what does that say about people who call themselves “Pro-Choice”. We all know they aren’t really Pro-Choice. No one is completely. They are just pro-abortion. If they want to refer to themselves in a way that isn’t really accurate then so be it.
The Milwaukee Brewers aren’t actually brewers. The New York Yankees aren’t all Yankees. Just in case some of you couldn’t figure that out on your own. And the Girl Scouts aren’t actually scouts.
Yes I really do believe that people who give an eff about life will care about children other than their own and protect teens, disabled people or the elderly other than their own relatives. I have two elderly parents I care for right now–I have a very strong since of personal responisiblity. What is not responsible is the attitude you expressed–the “I’ll take care of mine and the rest of you are not my problem” attitude. There is such a thing as the common good. It is a notion fundamental to civil society. It is so ironic that people who oppose abortion on moral grounds often articlulate (under the guise of personal responisbility) opposition to the the very idea of civil society and the common good. In fact their “personal responsibility” is nothing but a rationalization for narrowing their commitments down to include only themselves and their own family. So yes, those who give an eff about life are willing to pay for the supports needed by other members of their society and are, therefore, in a better position to claim membership in a culture of life than those who behave as if taking care of themselves absolves them of any repsonisbility for the common good.
We all know they aren’t really Pro-Choice. No one is completely. They are just pro-abortion.
Gee, that’s weird . . . I’m pro-choice, but I’m not pro-abortion. So I guess you don’t really know what you’re talking about, as pithy as you think you might be,
Phil,
“So I guess you don’t really know what you’re talking about”
You think you are pro-Choice. How absurd?
Are you pro-Choice when it comes to murder?
Robbery? Child Molestation? Drunk Driving? Terrorism?
Get real!
You think you are pro-Choice. How absurd?
absurd? methinks you need to look that word up…your following argument may just be found in the dictionary illustrating its meaning.
If one is going to say that I can’t refer to “Culture of Life” and only be referring to abortion what does that say about people who call themselves “Pro-Choice”. We all know they aren’t really Pro-Choice. No one is completely. They are just pro-abortion. If they want to refer to themselves in a way that isn’t really accurate then so be it.
Personally, I prefer pro-reproductive-choice, but I guess it doesn’t fit as neatly on a button.
Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion any more than pro-free-speech equals pro-pornography or pro-freedom-of-assembly means pro-KKK-rallies. Freedom to choose for yourself is very much the point, whereas “pro-life”/”anti-abortion”, and, presumably, “pro-abortion” take the choice out of the hands of the mother.
And being for reproductive choice extends far beyond the abortion question. It is about giving men and women as much control over their own fertility as is possible, with the ultimate goal of reducing the incidence of unwanted pregnancy so that abortions are as rare as possible and so that when the occur, they occur as early as possible. One of the reasons those who favor reproductive choice are frequently so intransigent on abortion is that some on the pro-life side have made it clear that they consider hormonal contraceptives generally, and emergency contraception in particular, to be an abortifacient, and will likely pursue bans on these medications if Roe is overturned (I’m not familiar enough with Griswold v. Connecticut or Eisenstadt v. Baird to know if those cases addressed the abortifacient question at all). This would be a terrible turn of events for anyone who is truly concerned about reducing the number of actual abortions.
Lily,
“”I’ll take care of mine and the rest of you are not my problem” attitude. ”
Umm… I guess you can put words into my mouth if you want.
For some reason, I thought you expressed that the real test was if they are willing to give money to have programs to help people.
Lily says:
“The real test of whether or not a person gives an eff about life after birth is whether or not they are willing to pay for the services and supports needed by children, disabled, senors, and others who cannot support themselves. In general liberals are willing to pay for a wide spectrum of services.”
I expressed the most important thing is to take care of your family… and then I left room for taking care of others.
123 said:
I guess you missed that…
Gromit and Edward,
The Pro-Choice name was just good marketing by people who supported a woman’s right to an abortion.
Make it more complex if you want, but that’s where the name originated.
The Pro-Choice name was just good marketing by people who supported a woman’s right to an abortion.
Notice the different formulation between this and your earlier remarks?
TO ALL THE ANTI_ABORTION FOLK!!!
THIS IS NOT SARCASTIC!!!!
When your sons begin to masturbate, do you teach them that they are killing senior citizens and/or parents? You know, when they are dispensing sperm? Are they killing babies?
If we could just keep our eye on the ball and exercise some personal responsibility there would be so few issues left the gov’t could actually create programs that were effective when all else has failed.
Well, let’s talk about personal responsibility for a few moments, here, shall we? If a woman is pregnant, doesn’t want to be, and wishes to give up her child, she’s being “responsible,” correct? Whereas, if a woman is pregnant, doesn’t want to be, and refrains from using state or personal resources to bring that child into the world, she’s being “irresponsible?” I’m not sure I understand that.
It seems to me that, if you want to ban abortion, which is covered under the Fourteenth Amendment as a right of a person to determine how to deal with her own body, then you should be willing to deal with the consequences: teaching of viable forms of birth control, higher taxes to pay for the larger numbers of children, and all the attendent programs necessary: maternal health care, health care for the children, day care, increased education funding, etc.
There’s a belief that, if you save a man’s life, he forever becomes your responsibility. If you refuse to take responsibility for the lives you save, then it’s not about life, it’s about power. Wouldn’t it be better to develop better methods of birth control, teach about them and the options, and fire the pharmacists and doctors who refuse birth control on “moral grounds” rather than foster an atmosphere of ignorance that allows for many unwanted pregnancies? It seems to me that there’d be more intelligence in education and R&D than in running around, screaming “murderer” and “baby-killer”, like a chicken with it’s head cut off. If you truly want to foster a “Culture of Life”, then cultivate it, don’t just complain about abortion being legal. Work towards making it unnecessary.
“Are you going to actually bother to come down off your throne and ask me about Roe, Sebastian? Or are you going to sit there smugly sure that you already know the answer so you can continue patting yourself on the back for being right?”
So far you have still not indicated what compromises you are willing to make. So far all you have done is complain that I am making assumptions. So far your conversation has been a long list of things that pro-life people need to compromise on without listing what you think pro-choice people ought to compromise on. So far you reveal that you have trouble with the phrase “so far”. I haven’t projected anything on to you at all, except your inability to understand the phrase “so far” which has been demonstrated quite well. It is a fact that so far you have talked about what pro-life people should do to compromise and have not revealed what you think pro-choice people ought to do. It is a fact that so far rather than reveal this deep secret you have subjected me to abuse for pointing that out. I can’t force you to talk about anything. I can only point out certain gaps. Only you can clarify those gaps. Pointing out that you talk about ‘compromise’ while only outlining what pro-life people should do is not an attack nor does it put words in your mouth. It is accurate so far as this post goes (I have no idea what you say outside of this forum).
You have subjected me to an attack. I have merely noted that so far you have only revealed what you want pro-lifers to do in compromise. It is entirely within your power to make that ‘so far’ inapplicable in the future. But it is correct as to the past and current state of this thread.
This is sarcasm:
Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
You think you are pro-Choice. How absurd?
Are you pro-Choice when it comes to murder?
Robbery? Child Molestation? Drunk Driving? Terrorism?
Get real!
So the only things one can be pro-choice about are criminal acts? What a stupid way of thinking. Seriously. I mean, it’s worse than stupid. It’s not, as the old saying goes, “even wrong.”
I’m pro-choice concerning abortion. And drug use. And religion, or lack thereof. And sexual orientation. And marriage. And a million other things.
Really, get back to me when you can formulate an argument that isn’t a strawman.
Sebastian, I’m finished with you. You used words that I was using to help illustrate Edward’s point about why a culture of life needs to be more than just against abortion, and used them to try to drag me into your ongoing argument with Katherine and others about Roe, Democrats, Republicans and everything else. So no soup for you. I mean, the post of mine from which you quoted was actually the first on-topic post of mine in the thread, so your “so far” was a real deep insight, I guess, if that makes you feel better. Good work! You really dug deep for that one!
When you’re prepared to actually solicit my opinions about abortion, Roe, and rights, I’ll answer you. But if you just want to sit around and tell me what I think and what my opinions are, you can go jump in the lake. Or the bay, or whatever the hell you live near.
So far, you have posted multiple times and so far we still don’t have any idea what you expect the pro-choice side of your proposed ‘compromise’ to look like. So far my statement remains entirely correct. So far I have not tried to tell you what your opinions are. So far you have engaged in what I hope is a very satisfying rant–because so far you haven’t added much more than that.
Jj: If you truly want to foster a “Culture of Life”, then cultivate it, don’t just complain about abortion being legal. Work towards making it unnecessary.
The fact is, the so-called “Culture of Life” isn’t anything to do with being, well, pro-life – as witness the fact that so many people who would claim to be part of it are also pro-death penalty, pro-war, anti-universal health care: not just anti all the useful things that would make it less likely a woman or a girl would need to have an abortion.
What the “Culture of Life” is all to do with is the belief women shouldn’t have a right to choose. Pharmacists refuse to supply contraception to women – women shouldn’t able to take the pill. Schools decline to teach girls or boys the basic necessities of how to have sex – “abstinence education” has long since been proved to be an unworkable crock. It’s about controlling women: it’s not about saving lives. There are plenty of ways to ensure fewer abortions, and none of them get overwhelming support from the “Culture of Life” the way making abortions illegal does.
Concrete, you said that if we all took repsonsibiblity for ourselves there would be less need for government programs and there would be the possibility of making programs that actually worked. I understood that to mean you didn’t want to provide financial support for the programs which would not be needed if people were responisble or that exist now. If I misunderstood, I apologize.
Boy this thread just keeps on going! There is a debate upthread aways about whether or not the act of abortion is the killing of a baby. This is a debate that always seems a little off the point to me because everyone (or nearly everyone) thinks it’s ok to kill babies under some circumstances. Unless a person is totally apposed to abortion under all circumstances and opposed to the killing of civilians in war under all circumstances, the person does, in fact, think it is ok to kill babies if the circumstances are right. So the debate isn’t one of moral absolutes at all. It is a discussion about circumstances. For example, many people are opposed to abortion if the baby is conceived by carelessness but approve of the option if the baby is conceived by rape. Or they oppose abortion but accept the loss of babies as collateral damage in a war.
In the interests of comity: Phil, what are your opinions on Roe, abortion and all that controversial goodness?
Yeah, what about all the babies being killed as collateral damage.
I would image our taxes financed a war that has killed many women carrying embryos and fetuses within them…that is one depraved “culture of life” you anti-abortion fanatics have there?
Thank you for actually asking, Anarch.
What I don’t want is for Roe to be overturned and a Federal-level abortion ban introduced by a group of Representatives representing a large minority of the Amerrican population. That’s no better than what we have now, particularly since similarly large state-by-state minorities could pressure otherwise pro-choice Reps into supporting such a ban. And also because, whatever Congress’s enumerated powers are, “banning abortion” isn’t one of them.
I would have no problem with Roe being overturned in a way that returned the abortion decision process to the states. It would be consistent with the Federalism that I value, and I have little doubt that it would eventually shake it in a sane and reasonable way in all 50 states. Just as I hope gay marriage will, although I should add here that I find myself in line with Katherine’s thinking on the 9th and 14th Amendments.
As for abortion itself, as far as I’m concerned, I have no problem with first-trimester abortions for any reason the mother chooses. From where I sit, anything that doesn’t have a brain, a nervous system, or working neurons is not a rights-bearing entity. In the third trimester, I’m uncomfortable with making the limitations too burdensome, but I feel there should be limitations, particularly in the last several weeks. By that point, a partial-birth abortion would be little different from actually just delivering the baby, so any health risks that would accrue by giving birth would be barely mitigated by an abortion. So there have to be limits.
In between that, I don’t know. I go back and forth, but tend to come down more on the pro-choice side. For that reason, it’s important to me that first-trimester abortions be fairly easy to obtain, that women have access to good prenatal care that would inform them of potential problems very early on, and that all forms of birth control should be easy to use and obtain so that women aren’t faced with that decision nearly as often. (That includes morning-after pills.)
Personally, had my wife and I ever been faced with a pregnancy we did not expect and were not ready for, I would not have wanted her to abort. But we were smart and never had to worry about it.
Phil: But we were smart
…and you were lucky. 😉 Truly, even smart, well-prepared people do end up falling pregnant.
Well, I say “smart” because we generally used both condoms and either oral contraception or Depro-Provera, up until the time I could get a urologist to give me a vasectomy. But you’re absolutely right — there’s little accounting for chance.
Sometimes there’s no accounting for chance.
. . . or taste.