"Social Conservatives Are Uncompromising Absolutists"... Or Maybe Not
By TomlinsonDouthat Posted in Archived — Comments (309) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Statements like the one in the title of this piece are common in today's political discourse. On the basis of such sentiments, it is often argued that the Republican party and the conservative movement, for the sake of the popularity of their respective causes, should distance themselves from the uncompromising, extreme, and hence unpopular faction of social conservatives, and that they should largely cease addressing the issues that social conservatives care about. And it is also argued that social conservatives should be happy to go along with such a plan, lest they be deprived of any political allies whatsoever. If we accept these premises, then this would amount to a profound change in strategy for the Republican party, the conservative movement as a whole, and social conservatives in particular. It is important, therefore, to consider whether statements like these are, in fact, true.
Abortion: In the immediate aftermath of the Roe v. Wade decision, the options of the pro-life movement were severely limited by the fact that both major parties were at that time devoted to supporting the decision—at least on the presidential level. (Nixon had appointed three of the seven Justices in the majority.) But with both parties having, at the time, significant contingents of pro-lifers in Congress, it was clear that the only way to fight against the ruling was via a constitutional amendment.
Some fairly absolutist versions of the Human Life Amendment were considered, explicitly granting the lives of the unborn constitutional protection. But these proposals went nowhere. These having failed, pro-lifers then considered compromise amendments, which would only have returned the matter to the states, which in turn would have been free to allow it or outlaw it as they wished. These compromise proposals fared little better.
But with the nomination and election of Ronald Reagan, the Republican party was no longer devoted to the support of Roe on the presidential level. (Some steps in this direction were also taken during the Ford administration.) This opened up a new possibility, though it involved further compromise. Pro-lifers would now concentrate their political efforts on supporting the appointment of Supreme Court Justices who seemed likely, in the long run, to overturn Roe. The HLA would now be relegated to mostly symbolic status as a long-term goal in the GOP platform.
However, the appointment of Justices that seemed inclined against the decision is all that could be gotten, since the customs of modern judicial appointments require maintaining the illusion that judges have the ability to look upon cases without preconceptions, at least if they are conservatives. No Justice could be appointed having promised to overturn Roe. And appearances, as often happens, proved deceptive—see O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. Yet despite these disappointments and/or betrayals, social conservatives have stuck with their strategy, in the spirit of compromise. And they have stuck with it realizing that the only directly foreseeable payoff of this strategy is the ability to debate this issue meaningfully in the legislatures of the several states, with all the compromises that this would necessarily entail.
The opponents of social conservatives are generally either explicitly supportive of Roe, or else opposed to any actions than might be taken to undo Roe. Since Roe set up a regime under which no legislative compromise is possible, it cannot be said that social conservatives are the ones standing in the way of compromise on the abortion issue.
Stem Cell Research: With the rise of stem cell research in the 1990s, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Dickey Amendment, which prohibited the appropriation of funds for
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero....
Social conservatives were supportive of this measure, one of their few points of agreement with President Clinton. And it should be noted that neither the Dickey Amendment nor future initiatives would interfere in the least with the funding of research utilizing adult stem cells, nor research building upon the more recent developments in induced pluripotent stem cells.
After the election of President Bush, further developments in stem cell technology gave rise to the possibility that embryonic stem cell research might lead to meaningful medical advances and possibly cures within the foreseeable future. Hence, great pressure was put on the Bush administration to loosen its interpretation of the Dickey Amendment so as to allow for funding of embryonic stem cell research, as the Clinton administration had considered doing in its waning days in office.
President Bush, apparently having no strong preconceptions on this quite new political issue (understandably enough), made a very public show of thinking his way through this request, consulting with a wide variety of experts on this matter and related issues. On August 9, 2001 he announced in a formal address on national television that he had decided upon a compromise position: Federal funding would be allowed for research on stem cell lines created before that date. However, funding would not be given to stem cell lines created after that date.
Social conservatives were generally supportive of this compromise. It answered their particular concern that there be no federally-funded incentive for the further destruction of human embryos. And it also answered their concern, shared with their opponents, that promising medical developments be pursued to the potential benefit of all.
However, their opponents were unsatisfied with this compromise. The debate has developed such that the proponents of embryo-destructive research now insist upon full federal funding for it, without meaningful condition and without the slightest consideration given to those who have ethical objections to it. Social conservatives still support the compromise, but their opponents insist on their own absolutist position, and they have not taken the time to offer any alternative compromise that might be acceptable to social conservatives or the Bush administration, even though such an offer might have gained them half a loaf through the subsequent seven-and-a-half years of the Bush administration.
Terri Schiavo: If you were to ask social conservatives to complain about one failing on the part of the Founding Fathers, I would imagine that most would answer that, in their otherwise elegant system of checks and balances, the Founders neglected to provide for an adequate check on the power of the judiciary. This oversight allowed seven unelected men to erase the right to self-government of the entire country with respect to the abortion issue, and the right to life of over 40 million unborn children at the same time. This unequal relationship between the branches also allowed the supreme courts of Massachusetts and California to create a right to gay marriage from documents written by people who clearly contemplated no such thing. In none of these situations (except, perhaps, in the California case) has any adequate check on this quasi-dictatorial power of the judiciary been discovered.
And so it was in the case of Terri Schiavo. Social conservatives caught wind of this case before most of the rest of the country. And they watched, outraged, as Judge George Greer ruled that Terri Schiavo should be made to die on the basis of virtually no evidence. In their outrage, and as Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube and hydration were being removed, social conservatives petitioned the Florida legislature to find some check on the judiciary's power in this instance. They proposed giving the governor the power to grant a stay in situations like this, so that other legal options could be explored in the meantime. The original proposal was to create a stay of six months, but since some in the Florida legislature balked at this, it was eventually negotiated down to a single stay of fifteen days, and provisions were added making "Terri's Law" highly unlikely to be applicable to any case but hers. Governor Jeb Bush signed the law and granted the stay, and social conservatives were generally happy with this compromise.
But others were not. And the Florida Supreme Court quickly ruled that Terri's Law infringed on the right of the judiciary to wield power without interference from mere lawmakers.
At this point, the issue moved to the federal level. Social conservatives, such as Tom Delay and Rick Santorum, made a great effort to find a solution to the problems raised in this case. And some social liberals, like Tom Harkin, joined them—in Harkin's case, as a result of his longstanding concern for the rights of the disabled. Outside of Washington, notable non-social conservatives like Jesse Jackson (motivated by his longstanding concern for civil rights) demonstrated in support of saving Ms. Schiavo's life. And all of these, to their credit, took this position despite the mainstream media being unusually biased—even to the point of vehemence—against their stance.
But such a broad and diverse coalition was not enough. The resultant federal legislation was called the Palm Sunday Compromise (do note the final word), and it was watered down to the point that it did not address the underlying issues of the case, nor the overall relationship between the judiciary and the other branches of government, but instead only granted her parents the opportunity to appeal their daughter's case once more to the judiciary.
But their appeal was denied, and the opponents of social conservatives received their wish: Terri Schiavo died. Yet despite their failure, despite the fact that a very ideologically diverse coalition joined with them in this cause, despite the fact that they were willing to trade off almost every one of their larger objections in order to obtain workable compromises on this particular matter—despite all of this, social conservatives are expected by many today to apologize for their overzealous and selfish partisanship with respect to the Terri Schiavo case.
Gay Marriage: This, in fact, is an issue on which social conservatives have not shown a particular inclination to compromise—at least on the level of policy. This can probably be explained by the fact that it is on this issue that public opinion is most strongly and most clearly on their side.
According to some of the most recent polls on the issue, found here, a clear majority of 56% of the American public believes that same-sex marriages should not be legally recognized as having the same rights as traditional marriages, with 40% disagreeing. The country is almost exactly split, 49%-48% on the question of the Federal Marriage Amendment, with the slight edge going to the supporters of the FMA. And when given the triple option of recognizing same-sex marriages, civil unions, or neither, only 30% opt for same-sex marriage. 26% prefer civil unions, and 38% prefer neither, combining into 64% of the public opposed to gay marriage, with 6% undecided.
And yet it is argued that social conservatives, for the good of the electoral prospects of their party, should either give up their stance or else agree to it being downplayed to the point of a whisper—this despite their position being either the majority or plurality position of the general public, depending on the exact question.
Elections: There are a lot of social conservatives in Texas, and they have generally been consistent supporters of Kay Bailey Hutchison, despite the fact that she is not only pro-choice, but also pro-Roe. But Texas social conservatives have determined that, for the present, she is good enough, because of her support of Republican judicial nominees and because of her support for Republican policy on other matters. They have decided that compromising upon Hutchison is adequate, for now.
Utah is the most pro-life state in the Union. And by virtue of this fact, we can presume (there being no comprehensive state-by-state polling on this question) that Utah must be one of the states most decidedly opposed to the federal funding of embryo-destructive research. Yet both of Utah's senators oppose the Bush compromise on this matter and insist upon unfettered funding despite the ethical objections of many of their strongest supporters. And they have not suffered a serious primary challenge because of it. Utah social conservatives have decided to compromise their beliefs and settle upon Senators Hatch and Bennett for the greater good.
And John McCain could not have won the Republican presidential nomination without the support of vast numbers of social conservatives. And those social conservatives that did not support him in the primaries seem, with very few exceptions, to be inclined to vote for him in the general election.
They do this despite the fact that he disagrees with them on the question of federal funding of embryo-destructive research. They do this despite the fact that he disagrees with them—as well as roughly half of swing voters, it seems—on the question of the Federal Marriage Amendment. They do this despite the fact that he has said that he regrets not stepping in and preventing the very modest federal efforts to save the life of Terri Schiavo. They do this despite the fact that he has been reticent, at best, in his opposition to abortion. And they do this despite the fact that, in his "Agents of Intolerance" speech, he all but explicitly called them bigots.
They do this because they are willing to compromise. They do this because they are not absolutists. And they do this, most importantly, because they care so deeply about their issues that they do not want to sacrifice upon the altar of ideological purity any forward progress that might be made upon these issues. And such imperfect candidates do present the prospect of significant forward progress.
__________________________________________________________________
I am not a social conservative. I happen to stand shoulder to shoulder with social conservatives on the so-called life issues. However, I am undecided on the question of gay marriage, except for my insistence that any decisions be made democratically. And I suspect that my position on drugs, prostitution, pornography, and other fun things—not least the fact that I am inclined to call these things fun—would alone be enough to deny me a social conservative card.
But I consider social conservatives to be my friends. And I get very annoyed when I hear, as I often do, so many people characterize my friends in such an unattractive way, and in contradiction to all available facts.
Social conservatives have given up a lot for the greater good—both with respect to the political issues they particularly care about and with respect to the political coalitions they participate in. They have pursued their goals with commendable pragmatism, sophistication, and patience. I think that it's high time that they get some credit for this, and that there be some concerted resistance to the notion that social conservatives are uncompromising absolutists.
I get what you're saying, but I don't think that the facts can support the idea that the socially conservative/fiscally liberal phenomenon is anything recent.
People nowadays tend to think of the Rockefeller Republicans as the prototypes of the modern fiscal conservatives/social liberals. And though there might have been a good number of them in that group, there were also a surprising (to modern eyes) number of social conservatives/fiscal liberals tagged with the Rockefeller Republican label when the term was current.
For instance, Richard Schweiker was tapped by Reagan to be his running-mate before the 1976 convention in an effort to reach out to the Rockefeller wing. He was a social conservative and a fiscal liberal, frequently taking the union line on economic issues in line with his blue-collar Pennsylvania district. This evidence of squishiness on Reagan's part ticked off Jesse Helms, who dropped his endorsement of Reagan and tried to set up an effort to draft Jim Buckley at the convention.
Another example of a social conservative/fiscal liberal Rockefellerite is Margaret Heckler, who was a GOP Congresswoman from Massachusetts. (Both Schweiker and Heckler served as HHS Secretaries under Reagan, interestingly.) And this type is still around, in Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey.
In fact, we might even include Nelson Rockefeller himself in this group, in a sense. He was in no way a fiscal conservative, after all. And while he was certainly a liberal on some social issues like abortion, the only thing really keeping him in the Republican party at all was his stance on law and order issues, which were considered social issues at the time. (The especially strict Rockefeller drug laws are still on the books in New York, I believe.)
So the social conservative/fiscal liberal thing is nothing new. The only difference today is that its most prominent proponents are Southerners rather than Northeasterners, which introduces some novel social dynamics, considering the low esteem in which many modern fiscal conservatives/social liberals seem to hold Southerners--not least their own quondam white knight, Jesse Helms.
Wow, that was wordy... sorry. :)
it is not socially conservative - fiscally liberal ie. Huckster
vs. socially liberal-fiscally conservative ie. Rockefeller
Many of us, and I think the majority of deep thinking Republican conservatives want a return to the roots that brought about the Reagan Revolution, that was Goldwater conservatism, AKA libertarian-conservatism.
It was not social conservatives that brought down the dominance of Rockefeller Republicans, it was Goldwater and his followers. I don't think anyone has a problem with the actions of old line social conservatives. These people believed in limited government, they wanted the government to not interfere in THEIR beliefs and practices.
The problem some of us see with NeoSocons, is they are not really conservatives at all, just people that want to use big government power to their own devices. Conservatism just does not work that way. Conservatism is this belief in liberty and freedom, not bannings and big government.
We as a party can not outspend the Demos. We can not out nanny state the Demos. The issue is not the issues, the issue is big government and villages vs. small government and idividuals.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
I think you say a lot of true things here, but I'd take issue with two points:
1.) To speak of social conservatives being or not being responsible for the Goldwaterite ascendancy is sort of anachronistic, since social conservatism as we know it today didn't exist. Abortion wasn't an issue yet, nor was gay marriage, stem cell research, or the like.
The things then considered "social issues" were things along the lines of
--civil rights, which the GOP had always been at the forefront of supporting until Goldwater made his unfortunate decision to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act, henceforth unfairly tarring opposition to civil rights as being the "conservative" position, although it was more a North-South issue than a left-right one;
--law and order, on which point just about all Republicans from Goldwater to Nixon to Rockefeller were on the same page;
--and welfare, on which the social conservative and the libertarian stances were almost indistinguishable (as they might be today, except that it's receded as an issue).
So when Goldwater ran, he was as much a social conservative as he was a libertarian, and the people who supported him did so as much for social conservative reasons as for libertarian ones. It was only later, when the nature of the social issues themselves changed, that Goldwater parted ways with many of his former social conservative followers.
2.) My point in the original comment was that what you call the NeoSocons are not neo at all. For good or ill, there's a long trail of precedents for Huckabeeism, probably stretching far beyond the Rockefellerites I mentioned.
Also, I think you're quite right that liberty and freedom is the essence of conservatism, but freedom and liberty are complicated things. For instance, which is more important, the freedom of a woman to abort her child or the freedom of the child to live his life, not having been aborted? That's not an issue that can be avoided, but it's the essence both of the general debate on abortion and of the particular debate about it within conservatism.
"1.) To speak of social conservatives being or not being responsible for the Goldwaterite ascendancy is sort of anachronistic, since social conservatism as we know it today didn't exist. Abortion wasn't an issue yet, nor was gay marriage, stem cell research, or the like."
Well I am not sure social conservative issues did not exist. But in taking your point at face value, Goldwater himself distanced himself from the Religious Right because they had little interest in states rights and individual choice. I don't think the man himself is who we follow, we just agree with his ideas of liberty and following the Constitution as the Framers intended.
"--civil rights, which the GOP had always been at the forefront of supporting until Goldwater made his unfortunate decision to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act"
pc or not, I do not agree with this analysis. Goldwater believed the act was unConstitutional so he voted against it. Very few Senators of either party in that day had as strong a civil rights and racial equality record as Goldwater.
"It was only later, when the nature of the social issues themselves changed, that Goldwater parted ways with many of his former social conservative followers."
The nature of many social conservatives changed too. Many self styled Evangelicals decided they no longer wanted to simply protect their rights, but they wanted to take away the rights of others, and I am not even referring to abortion.
"Also, I think you're quite right that liberty and freedom is the essence of conservatism, but freedom and liberty are complicated things. For instance, which is more important, the freedom of a woman to abort her child or the freedom of the child to live his life, not having been aborted?"
I agree that is the key distinction in this most contentious issue. I would say libertarian-conerservatives are split at best on this issue and the majority are pro life in their own way of thinking. What is sad is all sides think the government is best fit to decide.
Sometimes I think libertarian-conservatives believe stronger that God is the ultimate arbiter, than do certain Neosocons. JMO
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Doc. I'll respond to a few points.
Goldwater himself distanced himself from the Religious Right because they had little interest in states rights and individual choice. I don't think the man himself is who we follow, we just agree with his ideas of liberty and following the Constitution as the Framers intended.
Well, insofar as Goldwater was supportive of Roe, then he was the one taking the position against states' rights, not the socons, who wanted (and still want) the issue returned to the states. But I take your point that what is important is not the man but the principles he represents.
pc or not, I do not agree with this analysis. Goldwater believed the act was unConstitutional so he voted against it. Very few Senators of either party in that day had as strong a civil rights and racial equality record as Goldwater.
You're quite right. I think that Goldwater's motives were noble, and that's backed up by his strong record on civil rights both prior and subsequent to 1964. But I do think that his vote against the Act was based on an (honest) misjudgment of its constitutionality, and that its political consequences for the conservative movement and the GOP were unfortunate. This is all I meant.
Many self styled Evangelicals decided they no longer wanted to simply protect their rights, but they wanted to take away the rights of others, and I am not even referring to abortion.
What are you referring to? I can't think of a political issue current in this period that could be described this way, but I could be missing something.
I agree that is the key distinction in this most contentious issue. I would say libertarian-conerservatives are split at best on this issue and the majority are pro life in their own way of thinking. What is sad is all sides think the government is best fit to decide.
I don't think that it's possible to keep the government from deciding on the issue, in one way or another. If the government decides to take the pro-life position, then it is deciding that women can't have abortions. If it takes the pro-choice position, then it is deciding that unborn children, uniquely amongst its citizens, are unworthy of being protected in their lives, the most basic function of government.
But for the time being, I will try to give an example or two.
I said "Many self styled Evangelicals decided they no longer wanted to simply protect their rights, but they wanted to take away the rights of others, and I am not even referring to abortion."
You said "What are you referring to? I can't think of a political issue current in this period that could be described this way, but I could be missing something."
Well I am notorious for bashing Bill Frist (to me the epitome of a bad legislator/leader and socon) for his underhanded internet gambling ban. He was so determined to push this bill through, he attached it with little or no debate, to a homeland security bill. He did this because he polled Iowa socons and thought it would get him a leg up on the 2008 nomination. Heh. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR200609...
If that was not the perfect example of someone using his religious "moral view" to stop others from exercising their inalienable rights of freedom I really do not know what is. Some call it a "small matter", they say this because they do not get it, they are willing to give away other's freedoms as long as they are not personally infringed upon.
You can also look at Huckabombs idea of banning smoking in all public places. Here again, freedom of choice and free will is stomped on because some guy thinks others should not live their lives or run their businesses as they see fit.
There is also the dangerous subject of Schiavo. Unlike most, I did not follow the case closely. But I do know the law said the husband had the right of decision, and a large group of socons decided that was not good enough. The issue became so personal they were willing to change the law. And many, as we all know, went so far as character assassination on an American citizen because they did not like his choice. Again, to me it is about freedom to choose the unpopular thing.
One could also mention issues that are not directly socially conservative but where put in place by self proclaimed social conservatives. Look at the Bush Medicare prescription drug plan, steel tariffs, Dubai ports (the opposition), and No Child Left Behind.
I know we need social conservatives in our coalition. I just believe this party will be adrift until we go back to the Reagan/Goldwater party of freedom and limited government interference.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
I was thinking in terms of Goldwater-the-man and hence issues that were current in the 70s and 80s, so these slipped my mind.
The gambling ban certainly fits the bill. I don't recall a social conservative outcry for it beforehand, but then I don't really get the socon memos. But you've got to look at the law this way: If it prevented us from having to deal with a Bill Frist presidential campaign, then it wasn't all bad. ;)
As for the Huckabee and smoking thing, I always just assumed that that was him being an economic liberal rather than a social conservative, but I suppose that there could be a socon angle. Are the Baptists against tobacco?
And as for Schiavo, while I stand behind what I wrote in the original post, I readily concede that there were a lot on unconscionable (and unhelpful) things said about Michael Schiavo. Even if they were true (I'm not suggesting this is likely), these aren't the sort of things you say unless you can back it up.
It will be interesting to see how people react if the Lauren Richardson case comes to get the same publicity. (Of course we all hope that it resolves itself in the most favorable way before it comes to that.) It has a lot of the elements of the Schiavo case, but the contending parties are the mother and the father, and so it's likely to shed light more directly on the underlying life and legal issues rather than the personalities involved.
We very much agree that we need to get back to the Reagan/Goldwater tradition. I'm sure that we'll have plenty of arguments over what that should mean precisely, but that's as it should be. After all, Reagan and Goldwater themselves had their run-ins.
I'd make this distinction between banning internet gambling and banning smoking:
The first is definitely the nanny-state trying to protect us from ourselves. That's not the best use of the legal process.
The second is an attempt to protect other people from the smokers' smoke. One can argue that it has a valid place in public buildings. When it carries over to private homes, it is the fascisti at work.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
Many of us, and I think the majority of deep thinking Republican conservatives want a return to the roots that brought about the Reagan Revolution, that was Goldwater conservatism, AKA libertarian-conservatism.
Reagan spoke to all of us. I agree with you that the NeoCons are/were the problem and I for one feel the anger very deeply because SoCons now have to live down the foolishness of using government to accomplish conservative ends because we've been tarred with the philosophy even though we didn't all buy into it!
"A political party cannot be all things to all men."--Ronald Reagan
The embryonic stem cell policy works in favor of both. I don't believe either one should be funded. And I do not believe a true fiscal conservative could either (thus ruling out everyone in the Senate and almost everyone in the House as a fiscal conservative).
Many SoCons have been unfairly tarred with Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" which was a brainchild of Ariana Huffington before she made the final slide to the dark side.
Bush stained us with his policy of using larger government to achieve SoCon ends. It's unfortunate and will take us years to scrub off the stain!
"A political party cannot be all things to all men."--Ronald Reagan
"larger government to achieve SoCon ends"
Actually, I don't see how larger government achieves SoCon ends. As SoCons we want
1) A marriage amendment
2) A Pro-life amendment
3) A parental rights/adoption rights amendment
4) Protection for School Choice
None of these things require a larger government, just legislation that draws upon resources already in place. Two of these goals would actually reduce the size of government. In the realm of eduction choice, most of us SoCons think that Primary Ed, while remaining government funded (at least partially K-12) should be consumer/parent run (giving parents control over state indoctrination of their children). The Marriage amendment would take power from judges and give it to people, while also preventing unreasonable government benifits, special rights to yet another group of individuals.
So SoCons shouldn't be smeared, even WarCons are only part of the problem. The real issue is the PorkCons
If abortion was federally banned in this country, it would likely need an entire new federal department. You think local police in California are going to spend their time and money enforcing it? Trust me, any new major government law, always means larger government.
Also, you say what YOU want, but you do not speak for all Socons. Socons believed in NLCB. Heck, many socons now believe in sanctuary cities and global warming laws. This is the reality. We either have to get off the government teet or not. If not, we will always lose to the left because they do it even better.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
on abortions lucrative for the state and you'll see how much time California Cops have to spend on it. Let's say 1 years salary fine for the Mother and 100K for the Doctor. Illegalizing and fining abortion could likely lower property taxes and fund law enforcement if done right
I believe in 1)Life 2)Liberty 3)Property and 4)Pursuit of Happiness
IN THAT ORDER
Getting off the "government teat" does not trump doing what is morally correct and protecting the lives of unborn citizens.
You forget that abortion is segregated from legitimate medical services. The abortion businesses would close down for lack of money. The few hospitals that do them would have enough oversight. There are not very many abortionists in the country, and their numbers are dwindling.
Local pro-life groups could probably tell you every abortionist, and there would many volunteer watchdogs. Not much work for police. Even today, it takes pro-life groups to bring to light abortion centers and their disproportionate violation of regulations. No one dares enforce even the basic regulations that now exist on abortion centers, despite doing so for legitimate medical facilities.
But if too many people care too little about "spending time and money" enforcing it, then no law is likely to get passed anyway.
All of that and i still have no one to vote for
Well, if you're coming at this from a social conservative perspective, then you might not have anyone to vote for enthusiastically. But the pragmatic choice is clearly McCain, since it's quite possible that he will be in a position to appoint the fifth vote against Roe, and since, having gone on record as opposing the decision, it's quite probable that he would take the opportunity to do so.
For everything else that social conservatives are sacrificing by supporting McCain, they might be getting a reversal of Roe, which would be the best thing to happen to the social conservative movement in a very long time, perhaps ever. I think it's a fair tradeoff and a smart strategy.
We wonder how Pro-Life is McCain really?? Remember that O'Conner was supposed to be Socially conservative, but betrayed us and set pro-life back 40 years or so. McCain is still the pragmatic choice, but he could do a lot to calm SoCon fears by running with an outspoken Pro-Life VP. SoCons are nervous because we can't afford another O'Conner-fighting an enemy we know might be better than being back stabbed and hamstrung-which is our worry with McCain as he obviously doesn't have a high opinion of us.
So I'll support McCain for now....with a great deal of reserve....but will bolt at the first sign of O'Connerishness.
I'm optimistic, personally. But if he were to pick a pro-choice running-mate like Lieberman or Ridge, this would raise questions that would be fatal to him in the eyes of many social conservatives, since his pro-life stance is currently pretty much his only social conservative selling point. It could inspire a lot of people to do what they were threatening to do with respect to a Giuliani candidacy.
But the good news is that, having seen the fate of the Giuliani campaign, McCain probably knows this. He probably won't pick a Brownback or a Santorum (especially not a Santorum), but he sounds like he's going to pick somebody solid.
From Giuliani. Right now I think he has an opportunity to do a lot of good for the party. He could win us back congress with a good 4 years, progress in Iraq, and continued economic growth, but if he takes action that looks too socially liberal "pragmatic" so-cons might bolt.
I'll vote for someone who is on the wrong side of the marriage argument for the sake of someday overturning Roe VS Wade, so right now McCain is in the clear. But what's pragmatic about voting for someone who could turn the only chance pro-life has in this country into the "we're better for the economy, but otherwise the same" party. My "pragmatism" would instead lead me to whichever party is likely to help me get my student loans paid off faster. hmmmm...do I trust Republicans to lower taxes and improve economy enough for me to pay off loans quickly and build my own wealth, or do I stretch out my hand for some good old Entitlement Democrat Pork Candy.... mmmmm chewy.
Best option-Pick a SoCon successor. McCain couldthen get my pragmatic vote along with my emphatic scowl.
Pragmatism is the willingness to make compromises so long as they're in one's best interest overall. Unfortunately, a lot of people (I hope not McCain) make the mistake of thinking that social conservatives' willingness to compromise--as well as that of the GOP base in general--bespeaks a willingness to roll over even when they don't get anything meaningful out of the bargain. Those who make that mistake do so at their peril.
As I said in the original post, I doubt I even count as a social conservative at all. But I'm with you 100% on the life issues.
Eternal, I know how you feel. I originally got on the McCain bus not from anything he said or did, but because I read an article about how vehemently NARAL is going to oppose him in the fall.
I recently read his follow-up memoir "Worth the Fighting For" and that gave me some insight into his relationship with SoCons:
1. I think he felt overly judged about the circumstances of his divorce and subsequent remarriage. (Gary Hart was his groomsman, if that gives you any idea.)
2. In a large part he blames social conservatives for John Tower's failed nomination for SecDef twenty years ago. Based on McCain's account, this is a fair criticism.
I was hoping the book would increase my enthusiasm. It didn't, but I am still here anyway.
Wasn't it in the late eighties?
You'd think, after 18 to 20 years he'd get over it if that's his problem with SoCons!
I'm not sure what that says about his personality if he'd nurse a grudge that long!
"A political party cannot be all things to all men."--Ronald Reagan
More like he laid down in the street. He was Pro-Choice and Endorsed Ford over Regan. Why would a Social Conservative even consider voting for him?? Hopefully McCain isn't still nursing a grudge or identifying too much with Tower or he just might get thrown under a bus. SocialCons aren't convinced as it is...
Maybe he'll learn from his friend's mistake and recognize he needs to play ball with all three pillars of the conservative base.
I think this has become an excuse for a lot of liberals who really aren't conservative on much anything. It's also become a rallying cry for those who complain the war in Iraq.
I do sympathize with those who have seen so much spending and themselves can't get any compromise. Handouts are given to people who aren't in need and denied to others who are. Meanwhile, millions are spent on cookies for the Justice Administration. Even more goes to help colleges and universities that do little more than indoctrinate students into liberalism and/or atheism.
They have good reason to be upset, but it's not because social conservatism has overtaken them. Indeed NEITHER side will get any reasonable compromise with most of the people currently serving, whether at the state or federal levels. Instead, we get bans on light bulbs and flush toilets and whining about oil executives' salaries.
Unfortunately, I have seen these things rapidly decline in importance to voters since September 11 and even more with the war in Iraq, gas prices, and the economy. It doesn't help for people to be on our side if the issues are not important enough to get legislation and a vote. ANY time spent on it is a "waste."
Most Texans probably haven't got a clue what Hutchison's position on abortion (or much anything else) is. I'm even puzzled. She opposed Roe in 1999 and 2006 but favored it in 2000 and 2003. She ran unopposed in the last primary, but I can't understand why so many Texas Republicans and conservatives like her. She is certainly no fiscal conservative, and she's wrong on immigration. Meanwhile, they disproportionately dislike John Cornyn for some reason I can't quite seem to fathom.
Nonetheless, it really works against us that so few people have any interest in protecting life, a priority that continuously reduces by leaps and bounds despite no change in position. Even fewer care about marriage.
I think you're quite right that this is a rallying cry for many liberals, as well as many moderates and libertarians (but not all, and with the particular exception of birdmojo, per above). What's more, I think that this idea works together with a complex of stereotypes of conservatives in general and social conservatives in particular as being Southern, rural, uneducated, hyperreligious, bigoted, that they're a small and noisy minority that has forced their will on their party, and so on. And people spread this meme since it makes them feel better about themselves, relative to these horrible people.
But none of these stereotypes are true, and they can't be supported either by the facts or by common sense. And while a lot of people seem fond of spreading the belief that social conservatism (or conservatism in general) is passé and that people only care about the war or global warming or whatnot, polls contradict this and indicate that there is still substantial sympathy for social conservative positions, even amongst moderates and some liberals. (There are a lot more pro-life liberals than most people think.)
Most people don't pay very much attention to politics (as plausible an explanation for Hutchison as any), but they still have their opinions, and most go to the trouble to vote in rough accordance with those opinions. I think that there's much reason for optimism.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
You might add "what's wrong with this mem?" to the end of your title line.
"A political party cannot be all things to all men."--Ronald Reagan
"A political party cannot be all things to all men."--Ronald Reagan
And do feel free to call me Tom or TD or something easier. My login has way too many letters. I really should've thought that through more carefully. :)
I think you have made some important points and there is no way I can, or should, respond to all of it. So let me offer a couple of points.
Abortion. Social conservatives have a principled position in this matter - I think they are horribly vile (a small but vocal minority) to anyone that does not agree with them. Their strident support of their position wins them no friends and certainly no supporters.
I have many problems with social conservatives in general AND I support overturning Roe. I would support a state having the control over the issue - by popular vote, not state legislation.
I think social conservatives with abortion as their main issue, fail to understand that they are dealing with a political issue. By definition, political results are compromises. If you can not compromise on a political matter, then there is no result, the status quo holds.
Member, American Conservative Party
and when challenged on the aspirational "rights" under the Declaration of Independence, you switch back to an argument based on politics--a lower form of analysis than law.
Admit it, your test for abortion rights has substantial flaws.
Test #1 - ability to articulate rights. Flawed due to other persons unable to articulate their rights, such as anyone who happens to be sleeping at the time.
Test #2 - being a viable fetus. Flawed due to the fact that viability is subject to change as technology improves.
Test #3 - err, forget about rights ----- social conservatives ignore the politics of it.
No offense, but this is pretty funny.
What happened to citing the Declaration of Independence?
What happened to sovereignty of the individual?
What happened to Mills?
You are now arguing like a political consultant. So I guess those unalienable rights are subject to the advice from Dick Morris?
You keep changing the ground on which you argue.
So your political philosophy is summarized as follows:
Its all about rights, unless its social conservatives talking about abortion, then its about understanding about politics.
So, lets take your argument and use it against your position on same sex marriage:
People in favor of same sex marriage don't understand the politics of it.
How does that sit with you?
Different argument, different result.
I am not trying to argue that being pro or anti abortion is right or wrong, I am trying to say that in the political realm, their position isn't working.
If I were stridently anti-abortion I would say the same thing, the political position isn't working and millions are dying because we can't get SOME movement on the problem.
If I were stridently pro-abortion I would say, keep doing what you are doing, stand up for your principles, don't compromise...because we then don't have to even bother offering a compromise.
They can continue to hold true to their principles and politically, the status quo will continue.
Member, American Conservative Party
rights.
Not legal rights, but rights that aren't enumerated anywhere.
When it comes to an issue you don't care about strongly, then the different positions should work things out in the political realm.
You don't feel at all hypocritical on this?
Same sex marriage could be decided the same way, but, I forgot, you care about that issue a lot, so it comes down to rights.
Sorry, I forgot about the Tracy test for rights--things you are passionate about are rights, and everyone else needs to compromise.
Got it. Understood.
The Declaration of Independence says that we are all created equal. Are human beings created when they are conceived or when they are born?
I have been accused by you of not arguing in good faith. Well, I have tried to be polite. Now, you are not doing so and I can only take it that I have pissed you off some way and it is personal.
My position on gay marriage is that there is no basis for the opposition to it OTHER than prejudice. Morality, tradition, not a real right are all small attempts to justify the prejudice. I am personally very willing, perfectly content, with civil unions. I have stated that REPEATEDLY. So, there is a compromise.
My position on abortion is that when you have an individual, you have someone with rights. Your disingenuous effort to summarize my position as some kind of pro-euthanasia position is pathetic. However, I believe that viability - yes, an arbitrary and moving target - indicates that you have two individuals. A compromise on birth/born position.
You don't have to like or agree with my positions, but if you are going to attempt to toss them in my face, make sure you actually know what they are.
This is a discussion on the politics of social conservative positions - not on whether they are right or wrong positions.
Member, American Conservative Party
"perfectly content, with civil unions. I have stated that REPEATEDLY. So, there is a compromise."
That's a compromise I can live with as well. It allows personal freedoms without normalizing a behavior many find objectionable. Similar to porn being allowed by privacy laws, but not being allowed in public, and certainly not allowing tax breaks for porn videos.
My position on gay marriage is that there is no basis for the opposition to it OTHER than prejudice. Morality, tradition, not a real right are all small attempts to justify the prejudice.
My position on protection for the unborn is that there is no basis for the opposition to it other than prejudice. Condition of dependency, "viability," not a "person" or "individual" are all attempts to justify that prejudice.
I am trying to avoid a discussion on the rightness or wrongness of the topics (abortion, gay marriage, stem cells) and trying to focus on the politics. A strong, uncompromising position against abortion is fine - politically it isn't working. A strong, uncompromising position against gay marriage has popular support (and I admit to editorial comment on principle/position here) but less principled support (IMO). On stem cells, the feds have all but gotten out of the business, but the states are taking up the actions - an appropriate states rights result.
Member, American Conservative Party
I'm hesitant to step into an argument that seems to have a lot of background I'm not familiar with, but I'd like to point you to a couple of links in reference to this:
My position on gay marriage is that there is no basis for the opposition to it OTHER than prejudice. Morality, tradition, not a real right are all small attempts to justify the prejudice.
First, towards the top of this page, which I linked to above, is a poll (Gallup May 8-11) that indicates that 89% of the American public oppose workplace discrimination against homosexuals. This is unlikely to be a response given by those prejudiced against homosexuals. If both this poll and those on gay marriage are close to being accurate reflections of public opinion, then the great majority of those who oppose gay marriage also oppose discrimination against gays. The most logical explanation for this is that most opposition to gay marriage is motivated by something other than prejudice—perhaps the very reasons the opponents claim.
Second, I recently wrote a more theoretical piece on these issues here. It's not exactly beach reading, but I hope I raised some points that might be worth considering in this regard.
The "political" result to slavery wasn't compromise. Maby that's because Slavery was a moral and ethical issue rather than a political one.
hmmmmm...abortion isn't at all a moral issue now, is it? I mean it's not like we exploit the lives of the unborn for our own financial, social, sexual, and personal convieniance now do we??
I appreciate you taking the time to respond even just to part of my post. There's certainly no obligation for anybody to address every point I make. (If there were, you can rest assured that I'd make fewer!) But I must take issue with two of the points you make here.
First, just about any group of human beings assembled will have a minority of members who act in unfortunate ways. And all of us, in our worst moments, are prone to join that minority, if only for a bit. I think it's best practice not to hold the actions of such minorities against the whole. Otherwise, you'll be holding something against everybody, and that's not a good place to be.
Second, I must take issue with your contentions that pro-lifers are unwilling to compromise on abortion and that they do not think of it as a political matter. To the contrary, pro-lifers have spent the last thirty-five years all but begging to be put in a position where they could compromise on the issue, and for it to be made a political matter. But presently, it is not a political matter, but a judicial one, and hence no compromises can be made, because there's no one to compromise with.
As a result of the present circumstance, there is only one point on which a pro-lifer cannot compromise—that Roe must be overturned. But the only reason they cannot compromise on this is because, absent this, there can be no other compromises. Every pro-lifer knows that, once Roe is overturned, political compromises will be necessary, at least for the short term. But that will still be immeasurably better than the present circumstance.
Pro-lifers might be stubborn in adhering to their principles in argument, but this does not mean that they are unwilling to compromise in practice, when they believe a compromise to be better than the alternative.
End goal unchanged. We want to overturn RVW and make abortion illegal. We'll make any compromise that gets us closer to this goal and save more babies-so yes we'll compromise-but in the short term and mostly on issues other than abortion. "compromises" like the partial birth ban are seen as advancing our cause--notice I say "advancing" not "accomplishing"--the fight is not over until our goal is reached, but many steps pave the road to victory. Once abortion is dealt with, we can move on to other issues.
So compromise is really subject to subject...but on the subject of abortion we will never stop, but will accept legislation that draws closer to the eventual goal.
majority of socons on this. They do not just wan't Roe overturned, hence, leaving each state to decide, they want all abortions in this country banned.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
What's your point? That no one should join our cause since we might want to take it farther than you are willing to let it go?
If we got abortion as an issue returned to the states, how much backing do you think we would have for a federal amendment? Don't worry about our desires. Worry about how far from ideal this country currently is on the issue and deal with the fact that we both want to push it in the same direction regardless of how far either of us wants to push it.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
but I will continue to "worry about" Federalism and an overreaching Leviathan for a bit longer. My point was very clear. Roe v. Wade was an encroachment by the federal government, rescinding it will return the power where it belongs based on the U.S. Constitution.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
if your friend... for now. I doubt they could ever muster the power to pose a real threat to federalism as you see it though.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
Well, if you have an opinion on the issue, I would expect that you would want the several states—and even other countries!—to make laws in accordance with your opinion. But this it true whatever your opinion is—pro-life, pro-choice, or something in between.
I have no desire to enforce my views on everyone in this country, and certainly not on everyone in the world. Do I want every person to agree with me on every issue? no I do not. And even if I did, I am not willing to use totalitarian power to make it look as if they do.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Nor do pro-lifers in general.
If you have an opinion on a political matter, presumably you do so for a reason. You, for instance, oppose the ban on internet gambling, as do I. You presumably do so because you think that this is an uncalled for infringement on the liberty of individuals to spend their leisure money as they please. (That's my rationale, at least—roughly speaking.)
If so, imagine that the federal ban were repealed, and then imagine that certain individual states tried to impose their own state bans, in whatever way. Even if these states are not your own, I presume that you would still hope that they would come around to your position on the issue, because the residents of these states have the same rights that you do, and their governments ought to respect them. This is not to say that these states don't have the legal right to come to their own decision on the matter through their own democratic processes, nor that everybody in these or any states has to believe one thing or another on the matter. But if some undecided voter from one of those states and asked you about the issue, I presume that you would argue your case for the liberty of the internet-gambler to the best of your ability, and that you would hope that it would have a positive effect.
That's all that pro-lifers are asking for—the right to make their cases to the legislatures of their home states that the state governments should respect the right to life of unborn children. And naturally they hope that other states will do the same, since the rights of a child who happens to have been conceived in Massachusetts are no less that the rights of a child who happens to have been conceived in Louisiana, or anywhere else in the country.
The proposed "Defending Traditional Marriage" Amendment (at least the versions that argue against civil unions as well) argue against it too.
While I agree that there is a significant chunk of the Pro-Life (or Pro-Traditional Marriage) movement that merely wants to be able to say "Hey, none of that here, thank you very much" for their own little corner, there is also a significant chunk of said movements that wants everyone else's corner to not have them as well.
Isn't the HLA still a plank in the Republican Platform?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The HLA is still part of the platform. I don't know if the FMA is, but I would imagine that support for it amongst Republicans is strong enough that it may as well be.
However, if either is ever passed, it will be done democratically, after the state-by-state process of convincing their fellow citizens of the superiority of their position has succeeded to the point that there is something approaching a national consensus on the respective issue. (Though by the time that happens, either amendment would be almost entirely unnecessary.)
But whether nationally or state-by-state, the process is the same. It's not "imposing" one's beliefs; it's changing people's beliefs, to the point that a workable majority is reached on the issue. Of course, whatever the issue is, there will be those in the minority who believe differently. But their job, once a majority of near-consensus has been reached in contradiction to their beliefs, is to change other people's beliefs back to a more congenial position—not to impose them. That's democracy. It's an eternal process.
since there have been many posts here, I will reiterate, that I was responding to this comment by Hancock, "We want to overturn RVW and make abortion illegal." At the time I read this quote and his post, I strongly believed he was referring to a Federal ban on abortion. I think he would admit he supports one if you asked.
My point was I believe most pro lifer's would support a federal ban regardless of the effects on our personal liberty and the result of an even further burgeoning federal leviathan and nanny state.
_________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Making anything illegal will make Leviathan at least a little bigger. Most pro-lifers think that that this trade-off would be worth it. Others, having different priorities, disagree. I think that this is a fair way to characterize the debate.
Basic "police power" resides with the states. Federal crimes should be limited to interstate or international activities. States already regulate medical doctors.
Before Roe v. Wade. all states had laws against abortion and there were NO federal laws on the subject. System seemed to work pretty well.
The thing is though if you had a state legalize murder, you'd have a national outcry for federal murder standards. As long as every state is behaving different degrees of rational, you don't need fed intervention.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
yet we all know they treat similar crimes differently, slightly de jure, and majorly de facto. And if we just want to throw everything into the pot, some, even on the right, such as Catholics, consider the death penalty to be murder. So in the view of many, some states "murder" adults while others do not. Anyway, I do agree with your premise in general.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
and I think this diary has distinguished itself because it really showed the true issues of the debate without anger, one liners, and extremes that lead us nowhere. You write quite well and have an excellent grasp of the issue at hand.
I have purposely not said a throw away line such as "I am pro-life by the way" because it would not add anything to the debate. I struggle not with the hope of ending abortion, but only with how to acheive it, how to enforce it, and at what price to liberty. And I am thinking of the liberty of the unborn as much as the born.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Both for your kind words and for contributing so much to this discussion. I've really enjoyed this, as well.
Than any other issue though. More akin to Apartheid, slavery, or dare I say it...the killing of Gypsies and Jews than the "gay issue" or "states rights".
As such, I am willing to "impose views" on others just like my ancestors in the North "imposed their views" on slave owners and my grandpa "imposed his views" on Germans.
This isn't about politics, but the death an suffering of untold millions--a voiceless class.
Abortion is indeed different—in terms of the stakes. And I think your analogies are spot on in this sense. My own grandfather and great-great-grandfather might have fought alongside yours in imposing their views on the bad guys, and they were just in their cause. (Let's not mention my g-g-grandfather(s?) who fought with the bad guys.)
However, the current atrocity will not be ended in a similar manner. It's just not the sort of thing that can be ended by war. It can only be ended through the democratic process—by convincing our fellow citizens of the rightness of our cause, so that 1.) they will support politicians who will take measures to this end and 2.) they will, in general, freely obey the resultant laws, thus allowing law enforcement officials to prosecute the exceptions (since it's impossible to enforce laws that are widely flouted).
In terms of the method, then, pro-lifers are not trying to impose their views on other people any more than the advocates for any other political cause. Views are imposed, technically, whenever a decision is made through the democratic process. But to speak of "imposing one's views" usually implies a more robust action than is or could conceivably be on the pro-life agenda.
In other words, you say, "This isn't about politics, but the death and suffering of untold millions--a voiceless class." But this class can only be given a voice through the political process.
Part of the problem is that we're dealing with a situation where we don't know whether someone could potentially be committing an atrocity against an individual without violating the rights of another individual.
You hear a rumor that the person next door may be considering an abortion after finding out that she's 3-4 weeks pregnant.
What do you honestly feel The State should have the power to do?
The answers I typically get to this question tend to be some variant of the following:
"only a troll would ask that question"
"do you not care about abortion?"
"child abuse is illegal too"
All of these strike me as leaving the question unanswered.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Limitations on enforcement doesn't make an action any less deserving of illegality (or legality). It just makes it harder to enforce. Some crimes can only be enforced when law enforcement learns of it without prying into the private lives of others.
The powers of the State to enforce and investigate are a seperate argument. The bare minimum that all pro-lifers would probably want is if someone admits without coercsion that they did something illegal with respect to abortion once abortion laws were in place, then they should be prosecuted. Really well hidden crimes, don't make the actions any less criminal.
Honest question: What do you think you should do when you suspect that someone is beating their kid? Whatever the reasonable response to that is, is probably what I would agree should be done in this case. I'm not one to jump all over a suspicion of my neighbor. I generally ask for some serious evidense.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
I would say that, in a child abuse case, the state might have the right to ask to see the child. If the parents say "No, you cannot see the child!", the state can then make life very, very unpleasant to the parents... to the point of getting the police involved and forcing the parents to present the child.
In the aforementioned 3-4 weeks pregnant case... do you feel that the state has the right to ask to see the child?
What if the mother says "Oh, I'm not pregnant"?
What does the state have the right to do then?
Let's say that it comes out that the mother is, in fact, pregnant. What does the state have the right to do then?
Let's say that it comes out that the mother is not, in fact, pregnant. Does this constitute evidence of a crime?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
to demand her medical records. How absurd would it be if a child abuse defendant said "I don't have kids". Wouldn't we grant the state the power to find out if it was true? If yes, then I say the state should have similar power. If you say that we wouldn't grant medical record searching in the child abuse case, then we might agree that we couldn't do it in the abortion case which would result in basically no way to find out. All I'm saying that all the power we grant them to investigate the murder of an infant is the exact same power we'd grant them to investigate the murder of an infant in the womb.
Whether the powers granted in a child abuse case are insufficient to investigate an abortion case, doesn't make the abortion case any less illegal. It simply makes it harder to investigate.
I'm not too interested in particulars on how to enforce the law. I just assume say "What are you comfortable with in infanticide investigations?" and go with that. I'm not seeking special rights for the unborn, just equal protection under the law.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
Let's say that she last saw the doctor 3 months before.
You think it would be an appropriate use of state power to request the medical records of this woman whom you overheard contemplating abortion because she's 3-4 weeks pregnant?
"I'm not too interested in particulars on how to enforce the law."
See? I am. Because, at this point in time, abortion is legal and you are trying to get me (and people like me) to say "abortion being illegal is better than the status quo".
And the particulars on how the law is enforced is *EXACTLY* what I want to hammer out.
If you want the state to have the right to force women to take a urine test or be forced to give up her medical records to the police so they can find if she might be pregnant...
Well, I've just got to say that that strikes me as much worse than the Status Quo.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
There are laws in various states that already make it illegal for any non-doctor to do an abortion. I menitoned earlier a woman in Massachusetts was prosecuted for the crime of inducing a miscarriage (though sentenced only to psychological counseling). In Texas, it is classified as murder for anyone to do an abortion but the woman herself and those licensed by the state to do so. How would you rate the enforcement of these laws?
Given that, doctors are the only ones left to deal with. Your problem is that your focus is on the woman. You've identified one reason most pro-life individuals do not seek to prosecute or investigate women. You are dreaming up unrealistic scenarios that you should know most people, including the largest and most reputable pro-life groups and lobbyists would not accept. The entire legal burden would be on the doctors.
This makes it easy since the abortionists are segregated from legitimate doctors. The abortion facilities, also segregated, would go out of business. Such segregation is a legal requirement in many states. So other than seeing the facilities close down, not much more is needed.
In any case, enforcement would and should be pretty much the same as it was before Roe in the states where abortion had been illegal. I don't think anyone is arguing for anything stronger.
The blanket statement "abortion is legal" is not technically true. Following 1973, states simply chose not to enforce the laws they have against it. I would consider it illegal because the federal judiciary actions were illegitimate, illegal, and should not be respected or acknowledged. Moreover, laws against it are enforced in some states when the abortion is done outside the state regulations (as in MA and TX).
Unlike contraception, it is an abortion-inducing drug taken with the sole purpose and intent of killing a living existing child, so I think that should be obvious. The pill also is dangerous for women.
So why is it no surprise that pill is made EXCLUSIVELY in China! As I've pointed out, we need a full and complete embargo with China with no trade allowed, especially when it comes to food and drugs!
because it seemed you were for regulating everyone associated with abortion - sanctions, fines, jail, licensing, but nothing to do with the mother. The pill, leaves it completely within the mother's control. And now that the formulation exists, the pill could be manufactured anywhere, not just China.
The point I was getting at earlier, is that at some point, regulation will fall upon the mother and the limit to that regulation will be what harms the child. Any action taken by the mother with the intention of aborting or harming, or the reasonable belief that the action will cause abortion or harm, would become regulated. Isn't that where that would go?
And, someone in the thread suggested the privacy of the mother from prying into medical records - privacy doesn't exist for criminal behavior - ifin I recall.
I am being asked to consider that the status quo be changed.
I am more than willing to consider that.
Is it your position that the laws that, say, Texas has on the books is insufficiently enforced? Are we all good with abortion being as heavily regulated as it is?
If not... well... what enforcement of which laws do you suggest would make things better? Is the suggestion that maybe we need more feel-good laws on the books that smart people know how to ignore?
If that's not your suggestion, can you see how someone might misinterpret your suggestion as that?
Can you see how they might come to the conclusion that that is not, in fact, better than the status quo?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The laws against non-doctors are sufficiently enforced. The laws against doctors in effect in 1973 need to be enforced now just as they were then as TomlinsonDouthat and I pointed out earlier. No more investigative power or force need be used. I would not call for a lesser burden of proof to get law enforcement involved than was needed then or is needed for crimes that are prosecuted today.
"The laws against doctors in effect in 1973 need to be enforced now just as they were then as TomlinsonDouthat and I pointed out earlier."
But those laws are no longer on the books. So we get to a series of questions.
Why do we need to change the laws?
How will the new laws be substatively different from the pre-1973 ones, if at all?
What will law enforcement, with its limited resources, pull resources from in order to investigate abortion crime? Or would we increase funding for the Police Departments?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
You're speaking as if we're going into uncharted waters here, but we're not. Late-term abortions are illegal in most countries of the world, including few if any totalitarian dictatorships (which of course have historically tended not to have any ideological objections to abortion, or any method of killing). Further, abortion was illegal in almost every state of the Union before 1973, to one extent or another.
In these polities, the same rules of evidence, procedure, etc., apply to abortion cases as they do to other crimes. A mere rumor that the girl down the street had an abortion will get no more response from the police that a rumor that the crazy lady down the street kills children who throw their balls into her yard. Even a rumor that there is a major abortion operation would be of no more consequence than a mere rumor that there is some major drug operation somewhere. The cops might be inspired to take a drive by the location of the alleged operation, but in order to give a warrant to do any useful investigation, there is a certain amount of actual evidence that a judge requires.
As I understand it, this is generally how abortionists were prosecuted in America in the period before Roe. The standard for evidence was so high that it could generally only be met with respect to large-scale operations along the lines of organized crime (and organized crime was sometimes involved), or else if an abortive mother ended up for whatever reason turning against the abortionist. Prosecutions were fairly rare, but they would happen often enough, and with sufficient news coverage, that everybody knew that these laws were meaningful and could result in punishment, thereby generally dissuading people from involving themselves in this crime and keeping abortion rates far below the level they would eventually reach.
It might also be interesting to note that, even when abortion was a crime and regularly prosecuted, abortionists advertised their services pretty openly. They did not do so quite explicitly, but rather in the manner that modern "escort" services advertise in the back of alternative weeklies. The abortion ads would go something like, "In Trouble, Ladies? Come See Dr...." Everybody knew what was going on, as they know what "escort" means today. But since these advertisers could say, "Oh, we were just talking about pimples" or "Oh, we were just talking about somebody who needs a dinner date to some sort of awards ceremony," the ads can't serve as useful evidence except in the context of a larger and better-grounded case. This was still America, and still a pretty free country, all things considered.
In short, pro-lifers are asking for abortion to be treated as a crime and for abortion to be treated no better and no worse than other criminals, with all the protections that our legal system offers to defendants.
And in that sense, if you really did mean to ask about a situation when a woman is considering an abortion, then it would be absurd for the state to get involved in such a particular case, just as it would be absurd for the state to involve itself in the case of somebody considering doing cocaine or somebody considering beating his wife. Unless there is some sort of conspiracy to bring about such crimes, then no crime has been committed and there is nothing for the state to do—except perhaps to issue some of those silly but hardly onerous public service announcements: "Don't do coke," "Don't beat your wife," "Don't have an abortion."
"if you really did mean to ask about a situation when a woman is considering an abortion, then it would be absurd for the state to get involved in such a particular case, just as it would be absurd for the state to involve itself in the case of somebody considering doing cocaine or somebody considering beating his wife"
You're the first person who gave me an answer to this effect.
Most of the answers take the form "I don't really care how the law is enforced."
Which, I'm sure you'll understand, is a sentence that drives me up the wall.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I do understand. I'm glad I was able to keep you on ground level, at least for the moment. ;)
But in defense of your other interlocutors, you do suggest a rather unusual scenario, and it may not have registered in the way you intended. I myself wasn't quite sure you meant to say what you did, or whether it was just a typing mistake of the sort we're all prone to.
Well, in the (many) times I've had this discussion, I've come out and said that my problem with the pro-life position is that I feel it gives way too much power to the state.
Indeed, read above and you will see people defending the state requesting medical records from women rumored to be pregnant.
This is not something I am making up.
It's right there.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
That's the thing. I'm getting the impression from the discussion just above that people are talking past each other a bit. You're talking about a crime that hasn't happened yet, and it seems to me that other people are talking about crimes that have already happened. Maybe things would be clearer if we started using the term "pre-abortion" for what I take you as talking about, the crime of intending to get an abortion (which I personally agree should not be a crime), and "post-abortion" for what I gather other people are talking about, abortions that have already taken place.
Using this terminology, I can easily see how the outlawing of "pre-abortion" would greatly increase the power of the state, and to a quite unfortunate level. But I don't see how outlawing "post-abortion"—which, as far as I'm concerned, is the only thing realistically on the table, though others can speak for themselves on this—would meaningfully increase the power of the state over and above what it is currently with respect to the laws against rape, murder, and other acts that are uncontroversially criminal. The same investigative/prosecutorial rules would be in place, and the same people would be doing the investigating and prosecuting. Do you disagree with respect to "post-abortions"?
You overhear that your next door neighbor thinks she is 3-4 weeks pregnant. What powers ought the state have?
Instead of "none", I get answers like "the right to request medical records".
If we're talking past each other, we're talking past each other with sentences that certainly appear to be well-formed answers to the question posed.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
In fairness, you also got answers like, "All I'm saying that all the power we grant them to investigate the murder of an infant is the exact same power we'd grant them to investigate the murder of an infant in the womb."
You were indeed clear, but I've found that people can find ways to talk past each other even under the best of circumstances. In any case, I'll leave it up to you and the actual participants in that discussion to figure out whether there has in fact been any misunderstanding.
When it comes to the murder of an infant in the womb:
In my aforementioned 3-4 weeks pregnant case... do you feel that the state has the right to ask to see the child?
What if the mother says "Oh, I'm not pregnant"?
What does the state have the right to do then?
Let's say that it comes out that the mother is, in fact, pregnant. What does the state have the right to do then?
Let's say that it comes out that the mother is not, in fact, pregnant. Does this constitute evidence of a crime?
Let's say a woman contracts a man to kill her newborn baby. What legal penalties should this woman face?
Let's say a woman contracts a man to perform an abortion on her 3-4 week old gestating fetus (perhaps it would be something as simple as receiving a pill in this case). Are the legal penalties this woman would receive the same as the woman in the last question?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
All medical professionals are required by law to report any and evry suspicion of child abuse to the state. Neighbors can make anonymous calls if they are concerned. Keeping an eye on abortion could be done in a similar fashion if it was made illegal.
I'm not making this position up.
It's out there.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Question for J. Hancock: What measures do you think should be taken by law enforcement officials in a situation where an abortion is being contemplated but has not taken place? My own position, for what it's worth, is that no more than three things should be done:
1.) an admonition that abortion is wrong;
2.) a warning that abortion is punishable by whatever abortion is punishable by, if anything; and
3.) references to social services that might be of assistance in the case of an unplanned pregnancy: adoption services, charity, etc.
These, of course, can be done without any certain knowledge that anyone is pregnant.
I hate to put anybody on the spot, but as you can see, this has been a topic of dispute between birdmojo and myself.
An anonymous call is made that a potential abortion is being contemplated. Some branch of the government shows up at the door and two people ask to enter to admonish, teach and refer to social services.
Of course there is no need for probable cause because the government is not planning on arresting anyone....just a talk.
Talk about chill....
Is it incipient fascism that there are public service announcements saying that drugs are bad and can get you into trouble? That there are fliers saying the same thing? That such fliers can be passed out by policemen or school nurses without so much as a warrant? Chilling.
And of course I'm only saying that this is the most that should be done without an actual crime having been committed.
these three suggestions are good ones, and would operate similar to child abuse cases. In cases where the fetus is thought to be especially at risk the state could demand medical testing and a home study similar to child abuse cases. We would also have to make sure all American women were aware of the law, probably starting in sex Ed in jr. high and also with public announcements
I am prone to react. My bad.
I personally abhor the people that think things like partial birth abortions should be allowed...to prevent a slippery slope. Their position is barbaric. The vitriolic abortion is murder shouters do nothing to help their position.
(I am in a lesbian relationship and I think gay pride parades are the worst thing this community can do - it damages their/our positions. )
I want Roe overturned. I want the issue to be returned to the states. I have never had an abortion. I will never have an abortion. I think abortion is wrong on a personal basis - but do not think that position should be the law.
Your response....I will be less reactive in the future.
Member, American Conservative Party
you think partial birth abortion is barbaric but think the "abortion is murder" shouters don't help the cause.
Is it the shouting the part you disagree with? Or is it the "abortion is murder" part? If the latter, then what do you think is so wrong about partial birth abortion?
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
I have used the phrase "the individual is sovereign" repeatedly. I think most people understand that concept - whether they agree or not. However, it is the last 4 words of a sentence written by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. Here is the whole sentence:
The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
Abortion is a right. Whether society or government should limit that right is the debate. It obviously can. The child is not an individual at conception. Without granting this moral equivalency: my finger lives, it has life. If I cut it off, it will die soon. The child, for a time between conception and viability, would die if removed from the mother. Ignore HOW that is done, even if it could be done in a way similar to a C-section, the end result would be the death of the child. The child is different obviously - at some point, the child is an individual. Removing the child after that point results in a living, breathing individual. I don't need to wait for birth for that event to occur. There is a world of difference between conception and birth. I consider partial birth abortion to be EXACTLY the same as removing a perfectly healthy (individual) child by C-Section at 8 months and then killing it because it is 4 weeks early.
It is barbaric.
My comment is not an or, it is an and.
The people that support partial-birth abortions (some of them, maybe a majority of them) hate the procedure too - but believe it is the price that has to be paid to protect the right. They believe - I think - that the few deaths by partial-birth are far fewer than their belief of what abortion will become if abortion were outlawed: women dying in back alley clinics. So, they swallow their bile, and stand for the barbarism. When some yell, carry signs and get on TV shouting abortion is murder, those marginal supporters of abortions worse fear is thrown in their face.
The shouting does nothing to allay the fears that abortion will be completely denied.
For those opposed to abortion in its entirety, the rights of the child to life are superior to the rights of the mother. It is clear from the words of many that are anti-abortion that the mother is held in contempt. Her rights are of no consequence because her pregnancy was her choice - now she has to live with those consequences.
Competing rights. You can't just dismiss the rights of the mother - but the anti-abortion absolutists (100% no abortion) do just that. She is a walking around, breathing individual with rights. Sometimes I think of a parent out on a hike with his two children. Walking near an edge they start to slip and dad grabs each child with one hand and ends up on his belly holding each child from the abyss. He can not save one, without letting one fall. Unwilling to choose, he is condemned to wait until he fails one or both.
So, things like partial-birth abortion is barbaric.
AND
The shouts of MURDERER by the anti-abortionists hurt their position.
I would rather abortion never happen. But the mother has rights and I am not willing to take my position and impose it on another...even when I think I am right, and I think they are wrong.
He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.
I do not expect ANYONE to agree with either my analysis or position. My position is not right for anyone but me. If others share it, then I hope they have come to that position by their own process. I will use my position to justify the political position I hold when my state eventually gets the chance to vote on the issue - which I hope happens soon enough for me to be alive.
As long as we have "abortion is murder" and "partial birth abortion is ok" sides, we will have millions of abortions that might have been averted/prevented, we will have the status quo.
Member, American Conservative Party
I think that you're misinterpreting Mill here (not that, even if you were construing him correctly, the words of a nineteenth-century British liberal philosopher should be taken as some sort of holy text to twenty-first-century American conservatives). The full paragraph of your selection is as follows, with my emphasis:
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
The first bolded section indicates that, when Mill speaks of the individual, he is merely speaking of the individual human being as opposed to society as a whole. He is not asserting here that a human being who happens to be connected to another human being, whether an unborn child or a Siamese twin, is or is not endowed with rights relative to the person he happens to be connected to. He is only speaking of the rights of the individual relative to society and of the rights of society relative to the individual.
Furthermore, in the second and third bolded passages, he refers to the ability of society to rightfully exercise power over the individual in cases where "harm" or "evil" might be done to "others" or "some one else." He does not use the term "individual" to indicate those beings whom society can rightfully exercise power to protect. Nor, if he had used the term individual, would this settle definitively the question of how we should conceive of the term "individual."
Of course, whether the unborn are beings whom society might rightfully exercise power to protect is the essence of the abortion debate. But Mill does not shed any light on the question here.
Of course, whether the unborn are beings whom society might rightfully exercise power to protect is the essence of the abortion debate. But Mill does not shed any light on the question here.
First, On Liberty is not a holy text any more than the Declaration of Independence is.
the words of a nineteenth-century British liberal philosopher should be taken as some sort of holy text to twenty-first-century American conservatives)
So, is it that he is British, liberal or a philosopher you object to? His point is practically lifted from Rousseau, who 'inspired' Jefferson and Paine.
Regardless. His words resonant with ME. They say what I think in a way that exceeds my ability. My interpretation is based upon my understanding of the concept of 'individual' and based on MY interpretation, the ENTIRE passage informs my position.
Your interpretation of 'individual' in this context will inform your position. Obviously Mill, nor I, nor you will change anyone's opinion on abortion. That doesn't mean that our thinking process is worthless as a basis for discussion.
Member, American Conservative Party
The problem is that they didn't know the unborn were distinct living human organisms until the early 1800's. "Individual" should be interpreted in light of current scientific understanding.
For the record, I am and always have been quite fond of the British, liberals, and philosophers, as well as the nineteenth century in general. And regarding philosophers in particular, I probably have more sympathy for both Mill and Rousseau than do most conservatives (though it's been a while since I've read them seriously). However, it should be noted that, while Rousseau did have some influence on both Jefferson and Paine, he also had considerable influence on Robespierre and Marx, and from there upon all the horrible people Marx influenced. Rousseau is an important thinker, and not as bad as he's often made out to be, but there is a very dark side to his legacy.
Mill, of course, represents a far brighter part of his legacy—and a more rigorous one, as well. Mill attempted to use both the universally-recognized rules of logic and the words of the English language in their generally understood senses, and to use these words in an internally consistent way, in order to convince others of the truth of his position. I was merely trying to encourage you to do the same thing that Mill was doing, so that either I could be convinced of the superiority of your position, or that I could convince you of the flaws in your own.
However, if you're more interested in expressing what resonates with you than engaging in reasoned, civil debate, that makes this rather difficult. However, please don't assume that anyone who happens to try to engage you in reasoned debate is trying to characterize your thinking process as "worthless." That was certainly not my intent.
You need to brush up on basic biology.
A finger is not a living organism. Attached or not, it is not alive and is not a member of a species. It is PART of a living organism. The unborn child is not PART of the woman because the child has his or her own unique DNA. No part of the woman has someone else's DNA. At fertilization, a human is a DISTINCT living organism by biological definition whether in the woman or in a lab.
The criteria for life do NOT include the condition of dependency OR the need to breathe (though they must exchange gases). While there are other distinct, individual living organisms in everyone's bodies (like bacteria and microbes) rather than PART of them, they are not of the human species.
That may not change your opinion on abortion, but it is a basic biological fact that cannot be denied any more than the fact that the sun is a star. Everyone who completed high school
needs to know it.
You oppose partial birth abortion? Why not other second trimester abortions? All are considered pre-viability, and the alternatives to partial birth are far MORE barbaric. Do you know how they are done? They stab, yank off limbs, crush, and dismember the baby alive over the course of up to an HOUR before the child finally bleeds to death. This is done intentionally and with great force. Sometimes, but usually only in the third trimester or to get around the partial birth abortion ban, they'll just stab the child's heart with poision. There is evidence the child may feel pain sometime in the second trimester. The woman of course hasn't got a clue. She gets what most other people hear, a generic "remove the fetus." And a lot of liberals and Democrats (who are being nothing short of sadistic) refuse to acknowledge or address that since it would make the unborn child seem more "human." By the way, the reason most of these abortions are done so late is because women didn't realize they were pregnant.
So, while I hate to prove Ruth Bader Ginsburg right, one really can't be opposed to partial birth abortions without opposing the alternatives.
Do realize people do not oppose abortion on the grounds of belief or on those of what they think are in the woman's best interest. They do so on the grounds of the value they place on human life. That they are distinct living humans is not debatable; that their life is valuable unfortunately is. Of course it does have to be balanced by the rights of the woman. Almost no one would dispute that.
Finally, compromise is not relevant right now since the states are choosing to obey the judiciary. However, a Pew poll last year showed only about 30 percent unwilling to compromise their position (contrast to probably 90 percent of officials in any of the three branches of government). Don't infer that just because people explain their ideals and reasoning behind them does not mean they refuse to accept a compromise.
My partner is always telling me I ain't got no good english. She corrects my grammar, my enunciation, my tone. Most of the time, I ignore her because without fail, she understands what I intended.
I didn't intend on giving a biology lesson, nor did I intend to get into the details of how abortions are performed. I intended to state the process by which I came to my position. Some might argue that if I understood the reality of abortions, or saw how barbaric the process is, I would change my opinion on abortions. No, I wouldn't. I have never had an abortion, I will never have an abortion. I think abortion is wrong. I also think that it is wrong for me to impose what I think is right on others.
I will not make a slave out of the mother. That is what it is when someone forces a woman to live her life according to someone else's will rather than her own. You may not like that characterization, but that is how I think of it.
Member, American Conservative Party
Through (most of the time) her own actions, she became pregnant. If she didn't want a kid...she knows how they are made.
Now also found at The Minority Report
sorry, meant minds.
I am sure quite a few people that jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge changed their minds half way down. Too bad, once chosen, that path ends only one way.
Fortunately, the mother gets to change her mind before hitting the diapers, err....water.
Member, American Conservative Party
I thought that was a trait that conservatives, such as you claim to be, were proud of.
Now also found at The Minority Report
I don't hold people's mistakes against them. Your insinuation that the mother ISN'T taking personal responsibility for her misdeeds (or accident - sometimes birth control fails) - by not compounding them (maybe) is an attempt to impose YOUR belief system into her brain.
Member, American Conservative Party
such as you claim to be
Ah...a conservative litmus test? Here, let me make it easier for you.
I'm lesbian.
I am in a long term relationship with a LIBERAL
I am agnostic
I don't contribute to a church
I have a liberal arts degree from a liberal college
I am NOT a registered Republican
Member, American Conservative Party
You said you opposed legalization of partial-birth abortion. I'd like to know how that differs from doing the EXACT SAME thing (or worse) in a different location? Note that partial birth abortion was pre-viability. Why the double standard for "barbarism?"
Now I would also like to know why you think, as you claim, "abortion is wrong." Why is it wrong? And you said you wouldn't have one, but what about performing one? There is a difference. Would that be "wrong" too?
Surely you cannot honestly think pro-life people want to control women's lives or protect life for their own benefit? If so, then you are intentionally being thick.
If you still hold to it being barbaric, then you and I only differ by length of time. You say killing the baby from X weeks forward is barbaric. I say Y weeks. What makes your cut off so much more special than mine? Shouldn't there be a qualitative difference in the baby at the point where we decide it should be protected? If so, how do we definitively measure this difference to minimize the possibility of barbarism?
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
I hold that taking a viable child 3/4 way out of the womb and killing it is barbaric. What part of this is beyond your ability to understand? Have you been exposed to the abortion INDUSTRY and no longer have the ability to read?
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
Your not evil, your a rabbit. ....and people think I'm an idiot....
Member, American Conservative Party
you time and time again. You should re-read the responses to your posts with thoughtful meditation and without feeling attacked, and then maybe the light bulb upstairs will turn on to the fact that people are trying to help you.
Your definition of when human life has access to rights granted to it by its Creator is wrong. A "sole" human individual never, I repeat never, has the the right to terminate another human life.
I can think of a handful of circumstances that would allow me to terminate another human life without even really getting into weird and goofy hypotheticals.
Heck, I can probably google a handful of articles that talk about circumstances where a sole human individual terminated another human life and we'd get 98% of the board saying some variation on the theme of "that guy deserves a medal".
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
But I don't understand your reasoning, nor am I sure if you do (which I do not say to be insulting).
You say that taking a baby 3/4 of the way out and killing it is barbaric, but how about not taking it out but killing it all the same. Obviously (hopefully) you would agree that it's position or visability have nothing to do with its quality as deserving life.
What I need from you to understand you is some definition of the WHY it is barbaric. I believe that it is barbaric to shoot a horse for no good reason. I believe that it is not barbaric to put a horse out of its misery though. I need some kind of explaination reflecting some kind of standards like that to fully understand the WHY you think it is barbaric.
As pro-life as I am, I still respect the beliefs other minded people when then pose an objective measurable standard. For instance someone here (I don't recall who) a long time ago suggested to me that the cut off should be brain activity. The idea of using weeks as anything other than an approximation for our actual standard though seems absurd to me as everyone develops differently and at different rates. Time cannot be a standard of life as time is arbitrary. What I would like to hear from you is an objective state where the baby goes from not deserving a right to life to deserving one. What I would like to hear is this state being completely unrelated to the time or place of the baby, it must be a state that the baby is of itself and this state should for all practical purposes be measurable.
Otherwise of course, if no such reasonable state exists, you could do what I do which is fall back on conception to err on the side of caution.
By the way, I don't think you are an idiot. I'm just not positive that you have considered some of these arguments.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
I need to keep my emotions in check.
A child in the womb becomes an individual - FOR ME - when it can survive on it's own. If it must depend upon the mother for life, then it doesn't have a life of its own.
I understand the child is alive. I understand it is life. But those definitions, those positions, return to the origin. Which is the argument everyone opposed to abortion makes. If you agree it is life, then it must be life at the beginning.
And so what. The mother has rights and the only way to give the child rights is to terminate (at the very least restrict greatly) the mother's rights.
I can't support that. So, I have my position. I can JUSTIFY it to my satisfaction, but don't expect it do satisfy anyone else. It will never be enough for anyone anti-abortion.
Anyone can demand the child obtain rights - I never hear anyone explain their position or answer the question about the mother's rights.
In conversations here, I have stated that I will accept a state's decision on the matter provided it goes to a popular vote. Even if that decision strips the rights of the mother. I won't like it, I will oppose it, but I will accept it.
When two people hang by a thread, and you can save only one, what choice do you have?
Member, American Conservative Party
Well, it's one thing to argue that the woman must give up rights to give the child any; and it's another to say the child has none. That is where balance comes into play.
To that end, I would argue that giving a right to life to the child need NOT restrict a woman's rights if the woman is still allowed by law to do whatever she would be allowed to do if she were not pregnant. It even restricts them less when you don't apply any laws at all to the woman's own actions.
Of course that all blows away when you realize women don't have abortions because of any burdens of pregnancy and childbirth. They do it to intentionally kill the child because they think they would be too emotionally devastated to place the child for adoption, a reason that would be equally invalid for killing the born.
I would also argue that there is a similar situation of competing "rights" with conjoined twins, one of whom would die without the other. How do you deal with their rights? Or is there only one "individual?"
A child in the womb becomes an individual - FOR ME - when it can survive on it's own. If it must depend upon the mother for life, then it doesn't have a life of its own.
You would therefore have to argue, as a matter of principle, that a mother should be able to kill the mentally retarded. They are dependent on their mother for life.
Now also found at The Minority Report
I wouldn't make that argument at all. And, as a matter of principle, my position doesn't support such an argument.
Member, American Conservative Party
How could we practically test for survivability? Honest question. I'm worried that the test may be barbaric itself. Or is there a way that we could set that benchmark and know to a safe 99.9% of the time we aren't abot to kill a child who could survive on its own?
My opinion of the mother's rights does not differ in source from my opinion of fathers rights. A father does not simply have the right to say "I will not pay support for the child. I didn't want it" or even more absurdly "I'm going to abort it". To me life does not so much come with consequences in the "you had your fun now pay the price" sense, but real responsibilities chosen or not. For me a rape victim too has to carry the child to term as much as any other woman simply because no one has the right to kill an innocent life no matter what their burden. Carrying life is the woman's burden, like it or not.
So that is my opinion of a woman's right. She does have a right to her body, in as much as she does not infringe on the right of the child inside of her who she is responsible for whether she intended it or not. Many of us have sickly parents (my wife does), and it is our responsibility though we didn't choose it to support and care for them as long as we possibly can. My in laws certainly don't have any right to my money, but I'd be a repulsive individual not deserving of living in society if I chose to let them die because I didn't want to live that way.
And to answer your final question because it is such an awesome theoretical (we should seriously be smoking cigars and swilling brandy as we discuss that one), I'd save the most helpless one. While I did that, I'd hope that the least helpless could hold on longer and maybe just maybe I could come back for them. But always the most helpless.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
into the womb is always risky. Amnio tests even carry risks.
Medical research into children born premature indicates that, generally, after 24 weeks, there is a 50% survivability with survivability/viability improving almost daily. The problem with the research is there is no way to accurately - in most cases - determine the length of time from conception. The child may be 2 or more weeks older or younger than believed. (some indicate the range could be 4 weeks each way).
Non-intrusive tests appear to be able to narrow the range to a couple of weeks. If the estimate is 24 weeks, no abortion - there is a 50/50 chance, given normal pregnancy, the child survives - even a week improves the chances.
Based on the reading I have done, 18-24 weeks is the period of little knowledge. Children as young as 21 weeks have survived - with complications. Prior to 18 weeks, the child can not survive outside the womb.
An objective test requires an objective observer. Will doctors willingly review all the medical facts and offer an educated, professional opinion that a child is, or is not viable at that time? Maybe not, then the 18 weeks becomes a hard rule...or maybe the 24 weeks becomes the rule...and we all fight about the 6 weeks in the middle.
Without the certainty of age, there does not appear to be a reasonably certain ability to determine viability at any one specific point. Only a range is possible.
Member, American Conservative Party
innocent lives being lost just as much as the justice system could guarantee that innocent men won't be convicted?
I'm not arguing that the two situations are really comparable, but I just see numbers like 50/50 chance and would like to remind you that we don't take people's lives regularily because they fall into a range (time or anything else). Before we kill someone on purpose we generally try to determine objectively if we can do that based on their qualities. You say that there is no way that they can survive prior to 18 weeks, to which I ask, how can we demonstrate that so that we will know when the exception to that "rule" might come along?
If a range is only possible, shouldn't we pick the time that we think they become "survivable", and then drop back a safe distance to account for anomolies? Let's say I agree to 21 weeks. Shouldn't we drop back at a minimum another 2-3 weeks just to cover our butts? We are talking about someone who you agreed deserves to live when they can survive on their own after all.
What happens too as technology improves as the survivablility drops back to earlier weeks? Or are you limiting your definition of survivable to merely mean on it's own natural power? Because no child even born can survive very long if it doesn't have parents to care for it.
If you are interested in continuing this argument (as I am) please don't reply to this comment, but instead just down in the comment box at the bottom of the page. I'll join you down there before it get's to thin to read over here.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
When you have limited resources and try to maximize life, you usually do not choose the weakest, because in the real world there is always the possibility that you lose both lives. I answered the question above from the perspective that I was guaranteed to save at least one life. After arguing with my wife about a fictional scenario where a drowning 3 month old and a drowning NFL quarterback are equal distance from my life raft, I'd go for the 3 month old. And it wouldn't break down to "Well the baby has more life/potential/etc", because if you replace the 3 month old with grandma, I'd still go for the quarterback last since he's more capable and therefore more responsible to save his own life.
Now in a slightly more likely scenario where the quarterback was only 5 feet from my raft but the 3 month old is 100 yards, it is more likely that both will drown if I head out for the baby. So instead I'd save the closest one and then go for the farthest. So in case any medics or corpsmen are reading, yes, I remember how you guys have to judge which life to save.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
What I would like to hear from you is an objective state where the baby goes from not deserving a right to life to deserving one.
Breath.
Member, American Conservative Party
Actually, the requirement according to biology is the ability to exchange gases.
Most people who cite "breath" are often trying to rationalize excluding the unborn through ancient phiolosophy or religion that really have no more place than justifications of slavery from the same places had.
to outside it but with a plastic bag over their little heads. They haven't breathed yet, so do they deserve to live?
My earlier point of using objective standards not based on time or place is still not technically fulfilled here, since they do have the ability to breath prior to birth but their location restricts it. SO the act of breathing does not in any way change who or what they are, but perhaps the ability to breath is what you meant.
Like many around me have already mentioned, does this apply to the infirm as well? Can we take anyone off a respirator? Or are you trying to make a distinction between life that has breathed and life that has never breathed?
I personally think you should probably pick another bench mark.
(and you already know where my benchmark is)
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
to outside it but with a plastic bag over their little heads.
Why don't you just ask me if I think it is ok to strangle a child outside the womb? Why would you think such a question is either reasonable or respectful?
they do have the ability to breath prior to birth but their location restricts it.
This is the question of viability. Has the pregnancy progressed sufficiently enough for the child to be able to breath on her/his own? Not even for a natural birth can medical certainty be given until it actually happens.
SO the act of breathing does not in any way change who or what they are, but perhaps the ability to breath is what you meant.
Given we were discussing viability and mid-term pregnancies, duh.
Can we take anyone off a respirator? Or are you trying to make a distinction between life that has breathed and life that has never breathed?
Two VERY different questions. The first is asking if we can terminate a life with rights, because NOW, s/he can't not now free express their rights. The rights are already there. The other comment in this thread on 'when rights attach' applies. Can someone be taken off a respirator? Yes, should they? That is a decision they should make - of course they may not be in a position to make such a decision, so I would hope they have stated, in writing, what their desires are in that situation. I have a will, a living will and medical powers of attorney and everyone that has a potential to make such a decision should I be unable has clear, written statements on my desires. In the event that someone did none of that, then we give a spouse, or family members that choice/responsibility.
Victoria was interviewed on TV by a local station during the Schavio case. We both, professionally and personally, strongly suggest wills, living wills and mPOAs.
I personally think you should probably pick another bench mark. (and you already know where my benchmark is)
Offer me something that protects a mother's rights and I will consider it.
Member, American Conservative Party
...as many as it takes to end abortion, right?
As I understood the procedure, it was late second term, third term procedure. I have been unable to find medical literature from a non-bias source concerning criteria, but NRLC had a paper from a doctor that performs hundreds of abortions. His criteria is post 20 weeks, 'optimum' is 26 weeks. Although other documents indicate the procedure is done as late as 32 weeks, NONE indicate earlier than 18 weeks. Currently, babies have successfully survived early delivery at 21 weeks with significant developmental issues.
Medically, viability is post the 20th week, with a 50% survival chance after the 24th week.
Prior to this research - based on your prompting - my position was abortions should be denied at the point of viability, for me, that was 24 weeks. Because that point varies and because exact dates of conception are often not possible, my position was only a non-abortion performing doctor should determine the viability of the child from weeks 20 to 24. Abortion should be available prior to the 20th week.
Based on this research, I have changed my position. Abortion should be available prior to the 18th week, with a test/check for viability between the 18 to 24th week. Abortion should not be available after the 24th week. The only piece of information I used for that change is the apparent inability to determine dates of conception close enough for an accurate determination of how old the child is.
Congrats. You have moved me.
Now I would also like to know why you think, as you claim, "abortion is wrong." Why is it wrong? And you said you wouldn't have one, but what about performing one? There is a difference. Would that be "wrong" too?
If you are going to quote me, use the entire position:
I think abortion is wrong on a personal basis - but do not think that position should be the law.
I think smoking is wrong, I think most drinking is wrong, I think taking recreational drugs is wrong. ALL of these things are generally self destructive and contrary to the best interest of the person engaged in such. I think the long term consequences of such acts diminish the person and limit/harm their ability to be full adults. But what I think is wrong for someone else does not give me the right to impose that on them. So, I make no judgment about whether abortion IS wrong or not, I only state that I THINK it is wrong. And abortion as a single word can apply to the benign and natural - spontaneous abortion - or to the barbaric - removing a viable child 90% from the womb and killing him/her. Asking me if abortion is wrong fails to consider that range.
AS to whether something is right or wrong based on whether I would do it or not, puts it into the realm of unreal. I think removing an appendix is right (if necessary) but I wouldn't do it. Pathetic.
Surely you cannot honestly think pro-life people want to control women's lives or protect life for their own benefit? If so, then you are intentionally being thick.
I think many pro-life people don't give a damn about the mother's life or rights. I ABSOLUTELY think they are doing it for their own benefit - they believe they are right, they believe that is their purpose, they believe they are saving a child's life, they believe they have a responsibility, they believe that the mother has abdicated control over her life because she choose to bring another into existence, they believe if they DON'T do something, they are in mortal danger - it is all about THEIR belief. If THEY stand in front of a clinic and prevent a mother from getting an abortion, do they pat themselves on the back and think, we saved another child? Whether they are self congratulatory or not, I BELIEVE they DO think that way...they saved another child. If they overturn Roe and get abortion to be illegal everywhere, will they believe they have saved millions of lives. Certainly. They'd be wrong however. A mother changing her mind for any reason is HER CHOICE. The baby lives or not based on HER choice. Making abortion illegal will not end abortion any more than making murder illegal has ended murders. Sure, there will be fewer, but that is still the mother's choice.
So, absolutely do I think that the anti-abortion people are doing it for themselves, as are the anti-smoking and the helmet crowd and every other nanny-state supporting, government can be used as a hammer, self righteous, I know what is best for everyone piece of crap out there.
Forcing your beliefs on another IS WRONG. I don't think it, I KNOW it...in that absolute knowledge kind of way I have accused and been accused.
...they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...
inalienable = absolute, inherent.
If you or anyone else wants to stand up for innocent lives, get out there and use your time, energy and resources to save the lives of the children ALREADY BORN that are being DESTROYED. There are 500,000 children BEGGING for a home. For many in the 'anti-abortion' wing, it is much easier to write a few comments on a blog, give $500 to NRLC, spend a couple hours protesting every month, write some letters and be indignant when someone that disagrees with them.
MANY in the anti-abortion movement HAVE stepped up, they adopt, they foster, they help living, walking around kids and I do NOT demean or minimize their efforts.
If you want to end abortion - give the mothers a choice and a chance. Don't wait for government just to make it illegal and think you have done something.
Member, American Conservative Party
about how rights were absolute and not subject to modification or reduction?
I don't remember Mills talking about how rights were subject to the current state of technology. I must have missed that chapter.
Similarly, the Declaration of Independence says that we were all "created" equal. I don't remember modifiers or limitations saying things like "if born" or "if born and being welcomed by parents into a home." Rights vest upon creation, i.e. conception. I know that this fact is inconvenient, but it is nonetheless true.
FYI --- the Pro-Life movement does a lot of good work regarding adoption, early child care, etc.
However, the rights of babbies (they are sovereign after all) should NOT be subject to the actions or omissions of others, now should they? That is the nature of rights, right?
How can one person's rights be determined by the actions of another?
I keep thinking you actually read what I say.
I said rights exist, absolutely, inherently and without a Constitution, or a law or a moral code to say so.
I have also said that government has the right to limit, regulate and if decided by the majority DENY a right. My objection is about the people that claim a right doesn't exist.
I give up some of my rights, the state regulates some of my rights and the people can take away my rights - but the damn right exists.
Our Founders expected that they were writing to adults with more than a 5th grade education. If they thought someday people might argue that a 6 week old baby in the womb had the right to life, liberty and the pursue of happiness they might have added "when they are able" to make it clear. After all, they made it real clear that a woman's rights are terminated when she becomes pregnant...in the interest of the child.
FYI, I know, I met them. They are PART of the group that foster kids in this area (and in many around the country). THEY complain...privately mostly....about how hard it is for their friends to understand why they would open their homes to abused kids, drug and alcohol damaged babies. THEY complain how hard it is to get their friends to help. THEY complain how much the 'fred phelps' types hurt the Pro-Life movement.
YOU have made the point that majorities can and do limit and deny rights to people. So, explain:
How can one person's rights be determined by the actions of another?
THE FREE EXPRESSION LIMIT OF ONE'S RIGHTS IS AND CAN BE DEFINED BY CHOICE, BY OTHERS FREE EXPRESSION AND BY LAW UP TO AND INCLUDING THE POINT OF DENIAL.
That includes the right to life. I don't like it, but apparently most people here - especially you - like the idea that super-majorities can have that power.
Member, American Conservative Party
By your argument, the unborn child should have the right to life whether recognized or not. The "founders" could not know of it because they did not know for certain when a distinct human life began. They actually did protect unborn life from the point of "quickening" since they seemed pretty sure of it by then.
Some such as yourself may not perceive the unborn child as a distinct human (as many once did not perceive blacks as humans), but that does not change the objective fact that they are. It's a form of prejudice against a whole class of humans.
The woman has rights too. If you want to argue that any born person who unintentionally posed the same risks and problems as the unborn to the woman should be able to be killed, then you would have a different argument, but that is not what you believe.
Funny though, I still don't see why you personally think abortion is "wrong" for you? Do you think it harms your own health like smoking? I can't quite grasp how it would compare to an addiction or pattern of behavior. So, unless you are simply acknowledging you don't want to take the risk in having yourself injured or killed, I'm clueless, and it would be interesting to know.
See why abortion was prohibited in the 1800's in the first place. It was pushed by the medical establishment because they had discovered when distinct life began. Doctors knew their job was to save rather than destroy lives. They have no business killing children, and it should be a basic function of government to ensure they do not.
Pro-life people need not act on a belief any more than those who oppose slavery. The child is a living human by scientific definition, not belief. It is no more an attempt to impose on women than the abolitionists did on slave owners. The child, by virtue of being a distinct living human, deserves the right to live as much as a born child. You may not think they do deserve it, but the child is every bit as alive and human and distinct from the woman he or she is in.
You are the one imposing your belief that the unborn are of inherently less value than born humans.
No one would want such a law just to justify their own beliefs or make him or her "feel good." To think otherwise shows a stereotypical and false view of many people, normally propogated by the mainstream media. Such media also give the false illusion that picketers are representative of most pro-life people; they are not. And THAT is where you are being intentionally thick.
Even then, it is not a control of women because it applies to doctors. No one has proposed making it illegal for women to do anything on their own.
The born need protection too, but they already have more than the unborn. Fortunately, they are not being subject to mass genocide by "choice." The government's job is to protect innocents from intentional killing and injury.
We do care about womens lives because abortion is not necessary to save their lives outside of rare emergencies where no one would have a problem.
That said, I know you think abortion is "personally" wrong, and that was what I was wondering about. How so? What makes it wrong for you?
Even then, it is not a control of women because it applies to doctors. No one has proposed making it illegal for women to do anything on their own.
So, if the woman could reach in and remove the child at 15 weeks and just place s/he on the table and walk away, you would be ok with that?
It was pushed by the medical establishment because they had discovered when distinct life began. Doctors knew their job was to save rather than destroy lives.
So, if all doctors refused to performed abortions, we would have no abortions? If doctors believe it was wrong, why do they need to the government? Just stop.
That said, I know you think abortion is "personally" wrong, and that was what I was wondering about. How so? What makes it wrong for you?
My personal code requires that I always act in my own best interest, which is defined by the goals I set for myself. As part of that code, I must take responsibility for the consequences of those actions, all the consequences. I can not blame another for actions I took purposefully and I try as much as humanly possible to take all actions purposefully. Hence, if I were to become pregnant - regardless of the situation, it is my responsibility to deal with the consequences. If I do, by my actions, harm to someone else, it is my responsibility, to the extent possible, to make them whole. A child, unbidden, would be harmed by an abortion - duh, right? - and therefore, the only option, FOR ME, is to make the child whole.
These are my choices, my actions, my responsibilities. As a sovereign, not everything I do in my best interest is fun or easy or without pain.
Such media also give the false illusion that picketers are representative of most pro-life people; they are not. And THAT is where you are being intentionally thick.
My personal experience with those with an absolutist position, is exactly as those portrayed by the media. That for the anti-abortion movement, my position is either uninformed, ill-considered, or evil.
Member, American Conservative Party
If she could reach in and take out the child herself, the terms of the debate would change. I would imagine a prohibition on that would be hard to enforce or at least to prove intentional, especially in the early stages. Although, there was a case just recently in Massachusetts of a woman arrested for inducing a miscarriage and one in Arkansas facing jail time for concealing a still birth, so I don't know. The woman has rights too, and the child's life can only be protected to a limited extent before that protection infringes on her rights. Most pro-life groups oppose prosecution of women (sometimes on the grounds that abortion itself is a punishment for women).
Most abortions would stop without "doctors" to do them, probably as much as possible.
You "personally" would not abort because as you say, "a child unbidden would be harmed." But it's okay for other people to harm a child, unbidden? You don't make much sense. The rest of the explanation is as clear as mud.
I was going to ask if you would ever personally choose to perform an abortion on someone else (given the training), but I guess that answer would puzzle me too.
Regardless of your personal experience, a Pew survey last year showed 30 percent unwilling to compromise.
In any event, the pro-life "movement" changed quite a bit after the mid-90's. Much of it has focused increasingly on the harm done to women. They have taken on the cause of Susan B. Anthony. I'm not sure if you were aware she, as well as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, were very outspoken in the protection of life.
It would give me (and many others) a chuckle to hear you try to argue they had a desire to limit women's rights for their own purposes.
with my definition of individual in this context or not:
You "personally" would not abort because as you say, "a child unbidden would be harmed." But it's okay for other people to harm a child, unbidden?
Last first: Would I allow someone to harm a child walking down the street, no, under virtually no conditions.
But I do not believe, that I should impose my belief on others. Even if I think they are wrong. Understand, obviously this isn't clear - unless their actions, or mine, causes harm to others. -- you or others may argue that I am allowing or perpetrating harm on the child in the womb, if you do, you haven't been paying attention to this entire thread as that is the primary issue: when do we have an individual with rights?
So, my rights, no one's rights, give them the freedom to infringe on or harm others.
I was going to ask if you would ever personally choose to perform an abortion on someone else (given the training), but I guess that answer would puzzle me too.
Assuming I was a doctor and that was part of my job, the answer would be yes, given the specifics of the position I have stated: yes, 18 weeks or earlier, no, after 24 weeks and with the opinion of non-viability in between, I would - but given the uncertainty of any such opinion, I would offer other options, but not delay the procedure.
It would give me (and many others) a chuckle to hear you try to argue they had a desire to limit women's rights for their own purposes.
In the context I offered earlier, and with the change of purpose/reasons, I stand by those comments. We as sovereigns can give up the freedom to express our rights, either informally or formally. When others demand, by force of law or society, that others do so, it is a violation of everything this country stands for. Can they? Certainly. Should they? They certainly think they have justification.
Member, American Conservative Party
not others.
For example, I am presuming your position is that the following actions still constitute murder:
(1) killing someone on life support
(2) killing someone who is terminal ill or critically injured but still alive
(3) killing someone who is in the process of dying (seconds/minutes away)
A home burns down while under construction.
A home burns down after a family has lived there for 20 years.
No difference?
A child, not yet an individual, lacks rights.
A individual, having had and expressed rights, is no longer capable of expression, still has rights.
No difference?
I put one glass on the counter and pour in milk, then drink it. Now the glass is empty. Was it always empty?
Our rights attach to us, once there, they never leave. They might be denied legal expression, we might lose the capability to express them, but they are there, aways attached.
The child is not an individual til viability - MY POSITION - there are no rights attached.
That is MY position.
Member, American Conservative Party
So is your test "expression" or is it "viability"?
Is it both?
Or is it "viability" when dealing with abortion and "expression" when dealing with everyone else?
Maybe on even numbered dates it is "expression" and "viability" on odd numbered dates?
In terms of rights never leaving, are you proposing that corpses retain their rights?
Presuming your answer is no, then rights do leave upon death, which would suggest that rights arrive upon conception (life).
I prefer the position in the Declaration of Independence about being "created" equal--equal at the point of technical viability or alternatively upon expression doesn't have quite the same ring to it
Where is the point that rights attach? If the mother dies, the child could be saved, if viable. If the child is viable, s/he has a life independent of the mother, rights attach. If the mother dies and the child is not viable, then nothing can give that child a life, no rights attach.
I assume from all the comments you made that you believe we should perform last rights or burials of children that spontaneously abort at any point in the pregnancy. If so, how to acknowledge the 25% of pregnancies that SA in the first month when many women don't even know they are pregnant?
Do you oppose the RU486 pill if used in the first 72 hours after sex?
And your question about corpses is disrespectful.
Member, American Conservative Party
You cannot simply assert that the unborn have no rights until "viability." You wish them not to have rights so as to discriminate against them and feel better about yourself. It is YOUR POSITION that they deserve no rights until this arbitrary point. That is not an objective fact and should have no place in law.
In Tracy's world, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton fought against women's rights! They violated "everything this country stands for!"
Your reasoning for not having an abortion contradicts itself, but it's irrelevant since doing one is far worse.
Please stop repeating that mantra that abortion is an attempt to violate rights. Whether you want to believe it or not, it is an attempt to expand them to the unborn child.
Moreover, such an attempt does not violate women's "rights" if women themselves are not prohibited from doing anything themselves.
Beyond that, pregnancy is not a violation of one's rights. She should be obligated to respect the rights of the child as much as she would a born child posing the same "violation" of her "rights."
I'll leave it at that. I have no interest in carrying on with someone who thinks Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were out to stop women's rights for their own purposes. I just cannot take you seriously anymore.
The original post to this discussion was not about whether social conservatives are right or wrong on any issue, but merely about whether they have been reasonable or unreasonable. I argued that they have indeed been reasonable, and that the accusations of them being unreasonable are unfair. In order to make my case, I marshaled, if I may say, a considerable amount of evidence and took pains to make a cogent argument.
You disagree, as of course is your prerogative. But in disagreeing, you have not taken the opportunity to call into question my own argument or evidence, nor to offer your own. Rather, you have merely taken the opportunity to assert, without any evidence and without anything bearing a discernible resemblance to logic, your own (apparently unquestionable) personal opinions on social issues and your low opinion of social conservatives personally—including, in different comments, calling them bigots and saying that they want to make mothers slaves, as well as some things in this comment that certainly sound insulting but whose precise nature I cannot descry.
My original argument was that the critics of social conservatives are being unfair and unreasonable. Thank you, Tracy, for proving my point. However, if you would like to keep posting on this thread, I would appreciate it if you made some effort to contradict my case by engaging with your opponents on the basis that they are fair-minded people who happen to disagree with you on these matters, and who deserve some semblance of a rational argument rather than baseless accusations.
Let others address your post - I have allowed myself to take the conversation where it no longer does.
My apologies to you, and the other commenters.
Member, American Conservative Party
As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to discuss the larger issues here. These are important matters, and they need to be discussed. But I feel very strongly that such discussions have to be civil and reasoned. Otherwise, they just make everybody angry at one another rather than increasing mutual understanding. If you're able to make your case in a civil and rational manner, then I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
Your original discussion to which I offered two comments:
The opponents of social conservatives are generally either explicitly supportive of Roe, or else opposed to any actions than might be taken to undo Roe.Abortion. Social conservatives have a principled position in this matter - I think they are horribly vile (a small but vocal minority) to anyone that does not agree with them. Their strident support of their position wins them no friends and certainly no supporters.
I have many problems with social conservatives in general AND I support overturning Roe. I would support a state having the control over the issue - by popular vote, not state legislation.
When I lived in California, a couple of miles from a 'clinic', we would see people standing on the curb nearby with signs MURDERER and BURN IN HELL. They would shout at any car that came to the driveway, vile stuff. This was the late 70s, early 80s.
But with both parties having, at the time, significant contingents of pro-lifers in Congress, it was clear that the only way to fight against the ruling was via a constitutional amendment.
Some fairly absolutist versions of the Human Life Amendment were considered, explicitly granting the lives of the unborn constitutional protection. But these proposals went nowhere. These having failed, pro-lifers then considered compromise amendments, which would only have returned the matter to the states, which in turn would have been free to allow it or outlaw it as they wished. These compromise proposals fared little better.
Because no one trusted that there was a compromise to be had any longer. It was an absolutist position. If someone walks up to me today and says, I believe in a right to life, I immediately think, anti-abortionist absolutist. And nothing the Pro-Life movement has done in the last 30 years has changed my or anyone else's opinion of their(your) goals.
The only compromise is a willingness to make it a two step process. That is not a compromise in my book.
So, my original posts addressed specifics in your posting. I did not comment on the rightness or wrongness of the position OTHER than to say:
Social conservatives have a principled position in this matter
and
Social conservatives have strong reasons and principles supporting their positions on abortion...
Both of those comments began a long discussion that reaffirmed that the goal of people anti-abortion is the absolute end of abortion. And, that any position of compromise was either uninformed or accepting of murder.
At least once, I tried to put the discussion back to the original discussion of political rather than right/wrong. It failed. I failed because I continued to respond. With more emotion than I should have displayed and with less respect.
Member, American Conservative Party
Because no one trusted that there was a compromise to be had any longer. It was an absolutist position. If someone walks up to me today and says, I believe in a right to life, I immediately think, anti-abortionist absolutist. And nothing the Pro-Life movement has done in the last 30 years has changed my or anyone else's opinion of their(your) goals.
You are merely giving an opinion, not justifying it. I gave many reasons in the original post why I believe that such an opinion is incorrect. You are not arguing against this position, but merely contradicting it.
The only compromise is a willingness to make it a two step process. That is not a compromise in my book.
This is incorrect. Once Roe is overturned, all sorts of compromises will be available in a legislative context, with respect to the timing of abortions, the reasons for which it might be permitted, the possible punishments, and many other matters. These are the sorts of compromises that have been largely settled upon (though they are still debated, as are all issues in a democracy) in more civilized places like Europe, and such compromises obtained in the United States in the years before Roe, even the years immediately before when some states were liberalizing their abortion laws somewhat. But these are impossible under the absolutism of the present situation.
So, my original posts addressed specifics in your posting.
No, it seems to me that you addressed the general issues, but not my specific arguments, except insofar as you misinterpreted the significance in my citation of the polling figures on gay marriage. It's not a big deal, but the record is the record.
Both of those comments began a long discussion that reaffirmed that the goal of people anti-abortion is the absolute end of abortion.
The goal of anti-poverty activists is the absolute end of poverty. This does not mean that they are not willing to engage in practical politics, making reasonable compromises that will advance society towards their desired goal, nor does it mean that anti-poverty activists want to impose their will upon society coercively rather than engaging in reasoned debate in order to convince their fellow citizens that theirs is a worthy goal. The same is true of pro-lifers, and the many of them trying to engage you in reasoned debate in this thread should be evidence of that.
We all act occasionally with more emotion and less respect than we should. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, and I apologize if I've been testy. I'm glad to see that things have toned down a bit since I last looked in, and I appreciate your own effort in that direction.
My first comment was - admittedly sloppy - in response to this part of your post:
The opponents of social conservatives are generally either explicitly supportive of Roe, or else opposed to any actions than might be taken to undo Roe.
I stated that I had issues with social conservatives AND I supported the overturning of Roe. Granted, I speak only for myself, and you qualified in part by saying generally but even that seemed to me to be applied to the first part of the 'or else'.
Once Roe is overturned, all sorts of compromises will be available in a legislative context, with respect to the timing of abortions, the reasons for which it might be permitted, the possible punishments, and many other matters.
The point I was trying to make is that even if compromises will be available, the anti-abortion movements goal is complete abolishment. That would be a denial of rights. However, the anti-poverty movement is seeking an expansion of liberties (unless the tax everyone and give to everyone else movement wins).
You are right I addressed only the general issues. Your research stands on it's own. I can - but did not at the time - attempt to research on my own to either support or refute yours, but I don't have the time or inclination to do so. I made my comment.
I gathered from your original post that you were speaking to political issues, rather than rightness or wrongness of the positions - that is the manner in which I addressed my comments, poorly as it may have been.
Despite any doubts to the contrary, I am a conservative. If I have this much trouble within our own group, imagine the issues when trying to deal with those that consider us all Neanderthals. It is the problem I am trying to address with others at ACP.
Member, American Conservative Party
I didn't realize that you were attempting to refute my point about the opponents of social conservatives and Roe with your personal position. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
My point in saying that was that, while many pro-choice conservatives make a point of saying that they oppose Roe, they have a habit, amongst other things, of supporting candidates who do not share that stated goal and denying their votes to candidates who do. By doing this, they render their stated opposition to Roe meaningless. I did include the "generally" under the assumption that there are exceptions to this. However, you do not seem to be one of these exceptions. By starting, as I gather, your own party, you are denying your vote to the Republican party, which is the only party with a realistic chance of accomplishing your own stated position of undoing Roe. Your position on this is therefore quite meaningless.
I have no idea what you are saying about rights. To oppose abortion is to argue that the right to life of the unborn ought to be protected in law.
By starting, as I gather, your own party, you are denying your vote to the Republican party, which is the only party with a realistic chance of accomplishing your own stated position of undoing Roe. Your position on this is therefore quite meaningless.
I am denying my vote to the Republican Party - however, on more than a few occasions, I expect (I) we will support Republicans with strong conservative positions. Many are former Fred supporters, but most are just tired of the lip service (if that) Republicans pay to conservative positions. When we have sufficient capabilities, I expect we will support conservatives in primaries against established Republicans that think they can win without us.
At this point in time, I don't expect we will seek to put up our own candidates.
Member, American Conservative Party
I'm glad to hear that. That sounds like a much more constructive approach. I apologize for mischaracterizing your party's position, and I take back my contention that your position on Roe is meaningless. I'm glad to have you on our side on this. :)
to an accurate description of what is growing inside of her?
to information on abortion alternatives?
to be warned of psychological distress in the aftermath of an abortion?
and then also
to grieve when she has had a still birth or miscarriage?
The abortion industry has taken all of these away.
I didn't realize the abortion INDUSTRY had the ability to remove the mother's ability to read, think and act for herself.
DAMN they are powerful....I better stay away from abortion clinics....I like reading and I would hate to lose that ability by getting too close....
Member, American Conservative Party
the abortion industry is removing the mothers ability to read because they have an "adult" who is signing that paperwork.....but you knew that....obviously you don't read and you don't care!
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
With much civility I gave you my perspective, and you responded sarcastically with no substance.
I suppose the next time I go to the doctor, I should be prepared ahead of time with my own diagnosis and prediction of the medicine she will prescribe so that I can contradict her based on the side-effects listed in the Physicians Desk Reference. And I should expect high school girls to be able to do the same.
And I can't wait to hear how you would console a woman who lost a baby at 20 weeks gestation. She shouldn't be upset. After all, by your description her baby didn't "exist."
My brother (dob 1960) was diagnosed after much effort with muscular dystrophy in 1963. It took researchers another 5 years to find out - with my parents as one set of willing guinea pigs to find out they both needed to carry the gene, and that his particular version, limb-girdle, was a very rare version, 2-3% of all MDs. He was given 15 years at most before he would need a wheelchair, another 10-15 at most after that. He died at 43 having never been in a wheelchair. He played golf and bowled regularly up to the year he died.
My sister had significant medical issues starting at 17, (dob 1968). After numerous hospital stays, almost 2 years of tests, they decided her gall bladder was dead and causing all the problems. Too bad it was healthy when it was removed. When they took her off ALL antibiotics 2 years later, she got better and generally, is healthy today.
My father (dob 1931) had his first heart attack at 37. He smoked 3 packs a day, drank beer like a fish. He survived, had his second 14 months later. He quit smoking. The doctor told him the third one would kill him. He drove himself to the hospital (4 blks away in a straight line) for #7. Number 8 happened 2 years later, in his heart doctors exam room. He will be 77 this year.
I was diagnosed with a seizure disorder in 1981 (dob 1958). After 8 years of tests and exams and drugs, the seizures ended. No cause was ever determined.
Victoria is currently dealing with her 4th diabetic ulcer. The surgeon and doctors treating her have told her foot must be amputated to survive. 10 weeks into non-amputation, the bone is healing and the infection is being controlled.
This little bit of history is intended to show that my families experience with the medical community has shown that any patient that goes to a doctor without knowing about themselves, their condition (as much as possible) and treatment options is giving their family a good chance for a malpractice case after they are dead.
I suppose the next time I go to the doctor, I should be prepared ahead of time with my own diagnosis and prediction of the medicine she will prescribe so that I can contradict her based on the side-effects listed in the Physicians Desk Reference.
Yes, you should. I know Victoria's baseline numbers for a large number of factors. I know how she responds to meds and doctor instructions. I have been dealing with her medical issues for 13 years. I know my baseline numbers for many usual functions. Do you know yours? Do you know your cholesterol numbers? Fasting blood sugars? Do you know your blood type and what you are allergic to? Do you know your average blood pressure? Temperature? Mine is 95.1.
I don't expect everyone to be prepared. I don't expect everyone to know everything they can about their issues. I do expect people to deal with doctors as knowledgeable advisers. Certainly 13 yr olds will be COMPLETELY unable to do this. I oppose 13 yr olds getting abortions - I oppose 13 yr olds getting pregnant - I oppose 13 yr olds having sex. I have a 13 yr old daughter. She is a very good kid, but personal responsibility is something she is still working on.
The system is broken - abortion is only one little part of it. Parental responsibility and education are part of the structure that has failed.
Oh, last item. I was 12. Mom was pregnant. It was coming into summer and we talked about not going on vacation because she was due in a couple of weeks. Couple of days later, I woke up and both parents were gone and our neighbor was in the kitchen. Mom and dad were at the hospital. Cool! Another kid on the way. The baby was still born and mom's uterus was damaged in the delivery. She came home 5 days later, dead behind the eyes. Two days later we found her after searching for hours in a park a mile away, sitting in pool of blood.
After a month or so of treatment and help, I started getting my mother back. So, I don't know how to console a woman that lost a baby at 20 weeks...my experience is at 35 weeks.
- and just to add insult: my father was turned away from Catholic Charities when he sought out a possible adoption after my mothers hysterectomy. They turned him down because HE could still have children.
Member, American Conservative Party
Thank you for your heartfelt response.
Yes, I do have a good handle on my health, but WebMD doesn't have all the answers, especially when the symptoms are just weird. The search "abortion side effects" only covers abortion pills in the results.
I am amazed at your family's medical history and I applaud your parents. You, I am sure, understand how upsetting it is even when a child has nothing more than the flu.
Finally, still birth, in my opinion, is like a lightning strike. Out of nowhere, and nothing is ever the same. I just wish that our society would give back "person" status to the unborn so that friends and family would not be in an uncomfortable limbo and could simply say, "I am sorry that you lost your daughter/son" and allow the parents and siblings more time to grieve.
else's will.
We are talking about a specific action for which alternatives exist.
Adoption over abortion.
I don't recall pro-life people advocating the abolition of adoption laws requiring mothers to raise their children.
Nice straw man argument.
In the future: abortion is illegal. Women who are pregnant are not allowed to drink alcohol or diet sodas. They may not smoke, engage in strenuous sports, or work where strong chemicals like industrial solvents exist. They are required to take pre-natal medical care and if prescribed, medications or supplements.
The baby must be born naturally unless the life of the child or mother is in eminent danger. Doctors are not allowed to induce labor, even after the expected due date. Any mother failing to abide by this can be brought before a judge and further ordered to comply. Failure to comply results in contempt and the mother is held in a medical facility until the child arrives.
There is no reason, given the subjugation of the mother's rights in favor of the child, why the above would not naturally flow from the position that the child's right to life trumps a mother's rights. If a mother can be prevented from an abortion, she can be prevented from other actions or activities that impact the child's health and safety.
Maybe you don't think it would go there...are you sure, in our society of helmet and seatbelt laws, anti-smoking and anti-trans fat laws, that others don't?
Member, American Conservative Party
Sure--although it is so contrary to the extremely liberal abortion laws of this country that it is hard to imagine.
I would resist such laws 100% (as a side note, in Michigan the legislature recently passed a bill to remove the motorcycle helmet requirement, but the governor is certain to veto).
I would also note that you were not so concerned about the slipery slope argument in the context of same sex marriage (i.e. legalized polygamy) as you are in this context. I do think we are far more likely to see legalized polygamy in our lifetimes than we are to see the enslavement of pregnant women in the way that you describe.
At some point in the future, babies will be viable 1 second after conception. Would you support anti-abortion laws at that point?
I would also note that you were not so concerned about the slipery slope argument in the context of same sex marriage (i.e. legalized polygamy) as you are in this context.
You are for the position that we should restrict the rights of the mother and the slippery slope in that situation is towards more restrictive laws upon liberties;
You are for the position that we should restrict the limits of liberties in the arena of marriage and the slippery slope in that situation is towards more relaxed laws upon liberties;
Sorry, but I don't mind a slippery slope that goes towards more liberty. From my point of view....
At some point in the future, babies will be viable 1 second after conception. Would you support anti-abortion laws at that point?
Sure, if you accept two teenagers mixing sperm and eggs in a bottle in the basement...nah...that wouldn't be realistic.
How about you accepting that children created without the need for a biological womb or even an egg and sperm as equally human with all your rights? You know...from factories, in places like China and elsewhere.
Member, American Conservative Party
In the future polygamy is legal and if you want to marry your goat you can because marriage no longer has a definition...NO ONE will be smoking the government will have have made tobacco illegal...half the population in the coutnry will be in jail for "hate" crimes for talking about religion, race, homosexuality and denying global warming....
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
Isn't alive in the same since a Fetus is. Your finger is not genetically unique or individual from the rest of you. While you argue that unborn babies arn't yet people because they arn't "individuals" I'm not sure what you mean by this. After all a newborn isn't much of an "Individual" in terms of thought or function. Neither are some severely disabled people. In fact neither are you when you are asleep. But in all cases the "individual" in question is a unique and genetically identifiable person )except in the case of twins) with the possibility of developing into an individual. So according to yoour "individual" argument a Fetus should have similar rights to a person who is asleep. after all they both arn't conscious or induvudual personalities at the time but will both shortly become conscious individuals, one in a few hours, the other in a few months
way of consequenceless sex and the BMW payments. I don't dignify their "arguments" any longer. We all know its a baby.
Roe made barbarism acceptable.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
There's certainly nothing wrong about being prone to react. However, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Would you care to restate your position?
Social conservatives have strong reasons and principles supporting their positions on abortion, stem cells and the judiciary.
But their position on gay marriage - where they have their strongest support in the general population - is their least strong position. Their position is relying, right now, on popularity rather than principle.
Member, American Conservative Party
You went from Mills-mode ("rights" of a higher nature than law) to Dick Morris-mode (poltical commentator talking about political positioning).
What about individual sovereignty?
How can man take away the rights under the Declaration of Independence?
I guess "rights" only matter when you are the person trying to push the argument. Other people are limited to political considerations.
This was my point the entire time--you can't articulate a framework of "rights" that can actually be used to make decisions.
Your definition of "rights" is something you can assert to support your positions.
People arguing against your positions need to obtain political support.
did you just copy the comment and repost it??
I am not trying to support or defend a principle. I am commenting on a political discussion about political positions.
Member, American Conservative Party
(1) Argue unenumerated "rights" to bypass legal process for things desired by Tracy (legalization of same sex marriate)
(2) When pressed on basis of rights, or when taken to task about the "rights" of the unborn, switch tactics and argue exclusively about political positions (e.g. when you can't respond to a rights argument, switch tactics).
Key differentiator:
Use "rights" when the political process is against you
Use "political process" when you don't care that much about the issue.
Apply your logic to abortion to the issue of same sex marriage, and enjoy.
I should copy and paste your comments re: same sex marriage, change some words, and send them back to you re: abortion.
Remember, the individual is sovereign.
That conservatives are talking about political considerations when "rights" are at stake is quite sad (my paraphrase of your blog on right)
Problem when rights step on other rights. A "right" to marriage may legally impede others "right" to teach and preach that homosexuality is not appropriate behavior. Marriage=social endorsement of a relationship that has reprocussions on religious and freedom of speech/opinion/ and parental rights. As the cultural, historical, and evolutionary norms are all in the majority more people's "rights" would be infringed by courts ruling in favor of gay marriage than by a constitutional Marriage Amendment.
The Pro-Life position is even easier to defend. After all, which American person's rights matter more? The mother's or the baby's? As the mother need only give up nine months for a situation she is responsible for, and the baby must give up it's life for a situation in which it has taken no action, I'd argue that it's reasonable to think the child's "rights" preclude the "rights" of the mother.
So it is possible to hold a constructionist view and a Pro-life Pro-Marriage amendment stance without contradicting one's self.
By saying that the social conservative position on gay marriage was popular, I didn't mean to suggest that social conservatives do not have principled reasons for it. They do—although, being undecided on the matter, I'm not the best one articulate them.
Furthermore, the gay marriage issue, as it currently applies, is the judiciary issue, since no state has yet instituted gay marriage except by judicial mandate. If the point is ever reached where gay marriage is instituted democratically, then I would expect that the nature of the debate would change considerably.
I continue to complain about the limited focus of commentaries about modern SoCons. We know how the Libertarians feel about sex, drugs and derivative issues, but The SoCon agenda is so much broader than that.
The main issue battled last year (but only to a draw) was illegals. Though efforts were made to include fiscal and security issues, the main strength of the argument was from the traditionalist: "It's the LAW, damn it! Enforce it!"
Please don't forget the 2d Amendment. The SoCon movement is solidly behind RKBA. It has little FisCon or MilCon implication, but no libertarian worth his salt has any other view.
Can we talk about free speech? Do self-professed "social liberals" really side with the libs' desire to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine?" Or write PC and "hate speech" laws?
While we are mentioning government restrictions on individual rights, can anyone deny that governments at all levels are getting more intrusive and restrictive on the "free exercise of religion?" No bibles on teachers' desks (it used to be the primary textbook). No wearing of crosses (but mandatory times off for Muslem prayers -- go figure.)
And property rights! (Think Kelo.) If there is ever a firm allegience between SoCons and FisCons it is over property rights. Can any but a pure liberal make an argument for the EPA or the ESA?
Just a few of the often-ignored social issues that find traditions under assault by the big-government liberals, often by liberal judges in a most un-democratic (and even un-republican) way.
I didn't mean to suggest that the issues I addressed were the only ones of concern to social conservatives, and it's a common misperception that they are. In fact, I tend to disagree with the notion that conservatism is divided into factions like social/fiscal/defense conservatives, when most conservatives generally agree on all these areas and others.
But sometimes you have to use the common terminology in the common way in order to address other issues.
That was a topic you don't see anywhere else. Well argued. You could probably turn it into a book--if your name were "Coulter."
Democrats: Abandoning Allies, One Country at a Time.
Nah.
But thanks, Flagstaff. I do intend to write a few books someday, hopefully at least one on politics. But I think that the problem with my sales won't be my last name as much as the fact that I don't look quite as good as her in a miniskirt. Maybe if I shaved my legs...
Isn't it about time that you photoshopped your picture onto one of Anne's publicity shots?
That'll avoid all those little razor nicks.
Pluto, the Ninth Planet - Forever!
I wish I'd thought of that. I did try shaving, but I was getting really, really worried around the upper thigh. The straight razor was probably a mistake, too, in that regard...
so much on this topic. But I'm glad someone is discussing it. Honestly it's one of the few current issues I feel strongly enough about to debate.
Post all you want, as far as I'm concerned. I'm thrilled that people are interested. I posted something a couple of weeks ago that got almost no response, and it was unbelievably depressing. So, thank you.
Also, I was about to respond to you upthread, but I may as well get you here. I agree with you very much about distinguishing between temporary compromises and an unchanging end goal. I'm mainly trying to challenge the common misperception that social conservatives take an "all or nothing attitude" in the short term, which is why I'm emphasizing the compromise angle.
Thank you especially for putting the Schiavo incident in perspective for those whose only exposure to it was from the drive-bys.
You explained so much better than I ever could why I get so irate when people accuse socons of being uncompromising when all we are asking for is an up or down vote on most of our issues.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
I missed being able to follow the Schiavo matter very closely at its height, due to concurrent, time-consuming family issues, so I've had to go back through the old news reports to figure out how things actually went down. It's striking how many of the facts I came across in this research seem to have been forgotten. I'm guessing that my vague memories of very angry television reporters yelling about the issue have something to do with this.
Mid 2005, right? I have several friends and family who were actually at the vigils held outside of wherever she was. I seem to recall Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II dieing around the same general time and thinking, "well, she's in good company then."
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
Your hands must be cramped from responding to everyone. Very good reading.
I've iced my fingers and put them through a strict stretching regimen. They're better today. :)
This is an interesting discussion. I'm glad you've enjoyed it.
Since Doc brought it up here, I too am strongly against Frist's internet gambling ban. Not all socons are in favor of that kind of law.
People need to realise that the socon pillar of the conservative movement is itself not monolithic. Just as you have flat taxers, fair taxers, and same but lower taxers in the economic pillar, the socon pillar has its own different factions with common goals.
Among them:
1. Abortion is wrong because it is murder and should outlawed at every level.
2. Abortion is wrong and should be regulated by the states.
3. Abortion is wrong just as much as contraceptives are wrong and both should be outlawed.
4. Gay marriage is wrong because it is an abomination.
5. Gay marriage is wrong because it reduces the value of traditional marriage and will result in social decay.
6. All gambling is a sin, outlaw it everywhere.
7. All drinking is a sin, outlaw it everywhere.
8. Excessive gambling is wrong, put rules in place to stop adicts from losing the milk money.
9. Excessive drinking is wrong, put DUI type laws in place.
etc. etc. etc. ...
I for one am a 1,5,8,9 man myself (just as far as this incomplete list goes).
Just because there a faction that may be considered "extreme" does not mean that they represent the whole. What is does mean is that we have common goals and pull together until we can get our own personal goals accomplished.
Someday (God willing), abortion will be solved as an issue as well as the other key issues. When/if this happens, the socon movement will disband simply because we won't agree enough to unite on the smaller details like gambling. Of course people will attempt to portray this as some kind of backlash to socons for "ramming abortion laws down our throats", but they will be wrong. I for one won't bother to consider myself a socon once you take abortion, euthanasia, and marriage off the table. At that point, I'd just consider myself a constitutionalist for things like the 1st and 2nd amendment, etc.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
As a libertarian who models myself after Goldwater as well, my problem with some SoCons is the desire to create more power in the federal government, rather than giving power to the states to decide their own laws. For instance, I would look at something like abortion for instance. Absolutely overturn Roe vs Wade. But I would rather look at a winnable situation in banning abortions and saving children in different states such as throughout the South and Mountain West and actually making some gains rather than pushing a Human Life Amendment which will inevitably fail and reinvigorate the feminazis to push pro abortion legislation through, and if that fails, appealing to the electorate that Republicans are forcing women tot he back alleys again. I would rather be pragmatic and save as many children as we can and move pro-life legislation through the states, as SoCons have with gay marriage, which brings me to the next issue.
I am quite open with the fact that I support gay marriage-however, I also respect the will of the people in the states, and I do not believe this is an issue that should go to the courts. But again, I would not support FMA because I don't think that the federal government should make the marriage laws for all 50 states. Not to mention that the Defense of Marriage act makes FMA completely unnecessary as states do not recognize gay marriage in other states.
And to my final issue, which would be the War on Drugs, where many social conservatives disagree with me, but I see no reason to continue to fight a war nationally that has been widely proven to be a national failure, catastrophe and waste of the taxpayers money. If Californians want to smoke a joint, why should the people in Delaware really care? This is not something that should be a national matter, but a state matter, especially on the grounds that states should be able to regulate their own economy, such as they do with fireworks. My issue is when we talk about molding the Constitution to fit God's image, rather than focusing on conservative means to conservative ends, as Goldwater himself would advocate.
The trouble with our friend John McCain isn't that he's ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn't so.
Frankly I'd prefer to have less definition and involvement in it. If some state wants to be weird and allow for 12 year olds to marry, I'd prefer that my state did not recognise it or if we did recognise it, it would not receive any "benefits" of marriage until our state's requirements would be met. No, I don't want complex hoop jumping every time I move, but I don't think we should have to recognise bizaro state's laws. Nor do I wish that in some strange future scenareo when some Islamic state decides to join as the 58th state (get it? I'm joking) that they should be be allowed to maintain whatever polygamy laws they have, but that when someone moves to my state of Florida, they should have to declare which spouse they want to count as being "married" to. So as far as I'm concerned and marriage is involved, the "full faith and credit clause" can take a long walk off a short pier.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
It sounds like your main disagreement with social conservatives regards the HLA. As I said in the original post, the FMA is so popular that socons can't be expected to give up on it. And the War on Drugs is far more popular than that even, with the exception of legalizing medical marijuana, which has a decent amount of public support (and which I would hope the GOP would harness to their political benefit, but that's another story). The War on Drugs in general isn't going anywhere without profound changes of opinion on the part of vast numbers of all sorts of conservatives, as well as moderates and liberals.
But as for the HLA, how are the socons pushing it? What is its place in today's politics at all? It's only been in the news in recent months with respect to the Huckabee campaign, and his position was, I believe, merely that he supports it, and that he therefore supports the plank in the Republican platform calling for it, which has been a part of the platform since Reagan's delegates put it in in 1980.
But why should this even be newsworthy? It's hardly remarkable for a candidate for the Republican nomination to support the Republican platform. It was newsworthy because almost all of his opponents took the position of opposing this plank of the Republican platform in one way or another. Most said that they would oppose such an amendment, although they would not seek to have the plank removed. (I believe that this is McCain's position.)
By coming out against the substance of the plank, even if they intended to allow it to continue its ever more meaningless existence, these other candidates were attempting to distance themselves from social conservatives. Huckabee did not, but rather merely embraced the position taken by every Republican presidential nominee since Reagan. He and his socon supporters were not the ones doing the pushing. They were merely holding their ground. It was everyone else who was trying to push them away, in a sense.
Now, it may be that the platform's advocacy of the HLA is wrong-headed and counterproductive. (The HLA itself has not been seriously pushed for over 25 years.) But it's clear that social conservatives place high value on the symbolism of the plank—and with good reason, since it's been challenged at almost every convention since it was instituted, and the socons have always prevailed. If you want the socons to give that up, then it's only reasonable to offer them something of similar value in return.
But the debate is always framed as social conservatives pushing their agenda and other, reasonable people resisting them, even when social conservatives are merely holding their ground and not wanting to give up something for nothing. And since the social conservatives are portrayed as the ones being unreasonable, it never occurs to anyone to give the socons a reasonable offer.
When Giuliani was running, I advocated a plan which, in part, called for Giuliani to support and push for a version of the HLA that merely called for the issue to be returned to the states, in exchange for pro-life support. This would have moderated the present plank, but it might have made up for that in its increased chances of actually being passed. Perhaps this wouldn't have worked. (People were skeptical about this aspect.) But if you want social conservatives to give up on the HLA, you have to offer something like this, in order to make it worth their while.
Whether you call yourself a "constitutionalist" or a "federalist" or a "socon', but if you're waiting for "abortion, euthanasia, and marriage" to be "off the table", then you'll be a socon for a looong time.
I prefer the term "traditionalist" myself, because I seem to get most stirred up when (typically) liberals try to get some new government rule or law to change the way things have always been done. "Leave me and mine the h--- alone!"is a strong socon sentiment. It applied here in the mountains to the "revanooers" of old, and just as much to the EPA and ESA tyrants today. ("Shoot, shovel and shut up!")
And I didn't even mention education before, another area where the MilCons and FisCons have little interest (aside from the obvious inefficiency of state education.) SoCons have an acceptable compromise position--choice! (That's what W promised us 'til he caved to Teddy.) Instead, we have state schools teaching, indeed promoting, the gay agenda that is a greater threat to youngsters' life expectancy than smoking.
Not that I dislike TracyCoyle or Doc Holliday, but can we please drop the "I don't want to force my beliefs on everyone" line?
It's a BS line of reasoning because we all try to force our beliefs on everyone when these beliefs are strong enough. I'm sure everyone would agree that they think it should be illegal to publicily beat up 5 year olds until they are unconscious. Why? Because of your value system. Sure you have great reasons for that, and even the holy grail of reasons "I don't think you should do things that harm other people." But it is still a value that you believe and must be argued for. It doesn't achieve Truth simply by stating it, but by an actual justification just as pro-lifers try to do when they argue that no one should be allowed to commit abortion on the grounds that it kills an innocent life.
You can argue till you are blue in the face that "well that is your belief", but so are the rights of a five year old. Those rights may be more obvious, but they our agreed beliefs as well.
Please argue for or against a belief on the belief's merits and please don't trivialize it as a mere belief as opposed to the things you believe which are "facts" or something.
I for instance am not that unlike Doc, when I say that I don't want the govt to force nationally my personal beliefs. When I say that though, I don't mean beliefs in general. I mean those beliefs that I think are inaproppriate for the highest levels of govt to force. It is not a trivialization of my core beliefs, but merely another belief that some other beliefs are innapropriate for some levels of govt to enforce.
So please, stop with the "that's your belief, and the govt should not enforce your beliefs" line of argument because it has hidden premises which are rude and overall is illogical.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
The context of the discussion relates to what public policy (e.g. the law) should be, not the color of someone's bathroom walls.
Either there is some important ethical value at stake of the type that the law must acknowledge, or there isn't.
The whole, I am against it but I don't want to impose my beliefts on others begs the question of why you impose it.
If an unborn child is a bunch of cells, then why be opposed to abortion.
If an unborn child is a person, then who can you allow abortion.
The logic of, I am against aborting a collection of cells constituting a non-person, but don't want to oppose my views on others makes no sense.
taken, nor was any offered.
I try to be consistent in discussions - I will not attempt to impose my beliefs (the things I believe, not the things that are known) on others. I don't believe murder is wrong, it IS wrong - against the law, a violation of an individuals rights...
By implication, when I say that I will not impose my beliefs in a conversation, I am saying, implicating, that the person on the other side IS trying to impose their beliefs. That is wrong and I will attempt my best to avoid doing so.
However, in stating my positions, I am not suggesting they should be shared or imposed on others. I only want people to recognize the inherent rights individuals have and respect them.
Part of the problem this discussion is having - or maybe it is only me - is that beliefs, values, rights and morality all seem to have slightly different meanings.
I will try to be less picky about nits.
Member, American Conservative Party
hence the "slightly different meanings".
"the things I believe, not the things that are known" that in and of itself is a belief. You think you "know" that a woman has a right to her body. That is a belief, not a known. It is a belief I share in common, but not exactly as you do perhaps. If you want to assert though that it is a "known" as I would willingly accept it as, then you must also accept that I can argue other beliefs of my own to be "knowns" even if they contradict your current accepted beliefs.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
I can't apologise for my plastic bag comment because it follows logically from your assertion that breathing be the benchmark for deserving a right to life. If the child has never breathed then what do you do? When trying to answer that you say "Not even for a natural birth can medical certainty be given until it actually happens." To that I answer, then you must err on the side of caution and assume, yes they can breathe. When dealing with a question of life, we are always called to err on the side of caution.
You and I disagree on living wills and the bulk of the middle of your reply. While that is a closely related argument, I fear that it would be more complicated since it deals with people who may have been able to communicate their desires, whereas an infant in the womb obviously does not. I don't mind arguing that issue, but I'd rather do it appart from this argument.
You end your reply with, "Offer me something that protects a mother's rights and I will consider it." That is not how a Socratic argument progresses. Do you believe that liberty trumps life? Or that pursuit of happiness/property rights trump liberty? Or do you believe as I do that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness/propety are listed in order of importance. If you accept that premise, than you cannot add a pre-requirement that I define the protection of an infant's life around the liberty of the mother. You certainly would not accept me wrecklessly and unnecessarily endangering the life of my 15 month old child (let alone killing it) simply because I play the liberty card? Just as cannot use my liberty to trump the life of my 15 month old, nor can we continue this argument by using the woman's right to trump the life of the child.
The correct way to go with this argument is to continue to argue benchmarks for when a right to life truley begins regardless of the mother's situation. After that, we can argue more complicated situations like when the mother's life is in danger.
As far as offering a benchmark goes regardless of mother's rights, I'll offer something I don't actually agree with but appeared reasonable none-the-less: How about brain activity? We consider our species special among the animals because of what our minds can do, why not make our brain activity the benchmark?
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
FOXNews just ran a story about a child aborted because he was likely to die due to a kidney condition, survived the abortion procedure and now appears likely to live. My only point in bringing it up, is it is really dangerous to err on the side of despair when someone in medicine tells you the likelihood that someone will die. Had the abortion succeeded, that child who would have survived the kidney issue, would have been killed because of a likelihood as opposed to an actuality.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
for the apparent tone of your position, I will answer it.
I can't apologise for my plastic bag comment because it follows logically from your assertion that breathing be the benchmark for deserving a right to life.
The action is not similar. You are intervening. I left the short answer I did because there are enough issues inherent in the 'breath' that we could - are - carrying on a discuss WELL outside the original post. I have already been warned in this regard once. Whether the air gets into the childs lungs or not, it makes the attempt, it attempts to express its rights and you interfere with the process. If it makes the attempt and fails, then it wasn't viable or able to live independently - no rights attach. There is the possibility that a natural birth could have the same result - an inability to breath resulting in death, did rights attach there? Maybe, it is a moot point - but you may not think so.
To that I answer, then you must err on the side of caution and assume, yes they can breathe. When dealing with a question of life, we are always called to err on the side of caution.
My position is that prior to 18 weeks, not viable by all medical evidence. It appears that 21 weeks is the current limit so I am acknowledging some caution. Viability is 50% at 24 weeks, no abortion at that point, even if the chance were only 25%, the child deserves the benefit of the doubt. But I think we have gone beyond the issue of viability...or have we?
Or do you believe as I do that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness/propety are listed in order of importance.
The phrase is 'that among these are...', suggests that the list is not exhaustive, and that they might have considered them the most important, and that to the list they actually state they establish a rational hierarchy...but that is all supposition. I AGREE that the order presented is a rational way of considering them. And, from a point of view of how to live our lives, they are ordered in importance....
Yes. I do.
And by default, that suggests that the right of life of the child trumps the liberties of the mother. I agree, which is why I oppose abortion at the point I do - I deny the mother the free expression of her right in this regard - because I believe at the point we have an life independent of the mother, it trumps the mothers rights.
The correct way to go with this argument is to continue to argue benchmarks for when a right to life truley begins regardless of the mother's situation
For a long time I described the child pre-viability as a potential human individual. For many reasons, people didn't like that description. Part of the reason is we can go backwards from viability - hard to do in this type of forum, but let me shortcut it:
if there is 'almost' agreement on 24 weeks, why not 22, or 18, or 16, or....which is the argument against using some arbitrary TIME. But take it from the opposing side, but going in the same direction: at what point is there enough of a 'human' growing that you can say, human: 12 weeks, 8 weeks, 4 weeks? What about cell count? Millions, thousands, hundreds, 10, 2? 1? Is a fertilized cell enough of a human? The argument against stem cell research has set the benchmark at ...8? There is legal arguments about frozen fertilized eggs being lives or property. I am certain no one is going to argue that a woman's eggs are protected or have rights, even thou life exists in them, is inherent in them. Given the opportunity and time, they can become an individual. You can even remove them from the mother and they will persist for a time. Can an argument be made that eggs are protected?
How about brain activity? We consider our species special among the animals because of what our minds can do, why not make our brain activity the benchmark?
Ah, the Schavio argument. How much brain activity is sufficient to determine rights? Postmortem, the autopsy of Terri's brain found practically nothing functional or alive except a portion of the stem. The argument against taking her off support was her actions indicated that something was going on even if there was little brain activity. Her brain was dead, she wasn't...taking her off the machines proved it.
So, it appeals to me in one regard, it may be no better off in the long run as you will move the goal post from 24 weeks to ...10? If that benchmark were acceptable to you, and I don't think it is because all the arguments against 24 weeks still apply to 10 weeks. And at 10, we are getting closer to the point when someone women don't know they are pregnant.
Member, American Conservative Party
I can see that you are not limiting the child's rights to its environment. We've established that you are willing to set certain benchmarks with respect to the child in and of itself regardless of its situation. So we can move beyond that point to argue which benchmarks are the best.
You argue that there is a problem with degrees being an issue. Why 10 cells, why 24 weeks, etc? I understand that completely. That's why I suggest a benchmark of a distinct difference, not one of degree or magnitude but one of quality.
For instance, without getting into issues like Schiavo (which others here are better capable of arguing seeing as I'm somewhat uninformed on the issue), there are arguments to be made in favor of the bodies of the living vs the bodies of the dead. A distinct difference of life/death seperates the two where those close to death still enjoy the rights of the fully healthy. When we decide to execute a criminal, we don't discuss if they are guilty enough, we ask if we are sure that they are guilty or innocent. As far as life is concerned we should minimize the possibility error, and therefore any argument for a degree or magnitude benchmark for life, will ultimately break down to an earlier qualitative benchmark.
For me, the easiest one to see is that sperm on its own has no chance of life as a human. An egg on its own too has no chance. But together, they cease to be what they were alone, and become something brand new, qualitatively different. For me, there is no jump in quantity or degree, there is a distinct difference. That is what I choose.
Now if you were to choose mental activity, perhaps you could suggest the moment that the first brain activity occurs (warning, lest you think I'm tricking you, I believe that is about 30 days into life).
Perhaps you could suggest something like that?
I don't see why whether a woman knows she is pregnant or not has anything to do with the issue at hand which is at what point does haman life deserve to be protected.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
I don't see why whether a woman knows she is pregnant or not has anything to do with the issue at hand which is at what point does haman life deserve to be protected.
I asked earlier if the mother could just reach in and remove the child at any time, would that be acceptable? (Making abortion illegal would no longer be against others performing on the mother but against the mother directly). If the answer is it would still be an illegal act (if abortion were illegal), then are actions by the mother that could reasonably be considered fatal or harmful to the child illegal? What happens if the mother didn't know she was pregnant?
- that is the process, thinking by which the issue of knowledge of pregnancy comes into play -
Member, American Conservative Party
I don't think anyone would suggest anything but "That is between her and God". I'm betting she might grieve when she knows what she had done killed someone, but no one I know would suggest that society do something about it.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
but I don't think anyone would agree that she actually be prosecuted for manslaughter. It seems a bit extreme to me that a woman would have to avoid certain activities, reckless though they may be, on the off chance that she might be pregnant. I would say if it could be demonstrated that she knew she was pregnant, then we'd have something to consider as a society.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
Like it or not, a complete distinct human life (living organism) begins at fertilization by scientific definition. That has been a definite and known fact for over a century and a half, and it is the reason abortion was prohibited in the first place. The life is actual, not potential, and is totally and completely human. You may not perceive it as such, but that is the scientific (and thus objective and observable) classification.
Thus, to discriminate on the basis of lung capacity or condition of dependency is no different than to discriminate on the basis of sex or race.
People choose to make up their own words like "individual" or "person" to try to hide that prejudice (as with slaves), but that is all it is. It's meant only as an excuse to either make money or to make people feel better about themselves.
A 20-year old law school student got a Colorado initiative on the ballot for this November to protect rights from the point a distinct human life beings (fertilization). While I have no doubt it will be defeated in a landslide, I applaud her efforts and hope future generations see such an effort as a necessary struggle for equality and human rights.
I would also add that Schiavo was not "taken off of life support." She was dehydrated and starved to death, but that's an agrument I'll not start.
Of course, it's hard to convince someone of truth, reason, or logic who thinks Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony fought against women's rights.
"Thus, to discriminate on the basis of lung capacity or condition of dependency is no different than to discriminate on the basis of sex or race."
Absolutely. After all, even after birth children are "dependant"-this does not make them inhuman. Nor does a "Vent" make a 80 year old COPD patient less than a citizen. Even someone in a "minimaly functional state a la Schivo" has rights that can only be taken when a next of kin acts "in their intrest"
So basically independant function is no measure of humanity
Would your time ranges guarantee a minimum amount of innocent lives being lost just as much as the justice system could guarantee that innocent men won't be convicted?
Two things: try to get a doctor to say anything with certainty is like trying to get a lawyer to. The child that survived at 21 weeks COULD have been 22 or 20 weeks. There is no way to know. So, 21 might be viable, or even 20. I said that the prompting here made me push back from 20 to 18 weeks. I WANT to err on the side of the child. Second, actually having this as the law would allow more children a chance. it would not end abortions, even making them illegal wouldn't do that. Women will simply leave the state that bans them, or even the country. Some, hopefully only a few, would attempt to charge women that do that with murder when they returned home. And further, some are going to argue that if one state makes abortion illegal, other states should not be allowed to let residents of other states where it is illegal have abortions. People opposed to gay marriage are arguing that FF&C should not apply - they might then be arguing that for abortion, it should.
You say that there is no way that they can survive prior to 18 weeks, to which I ask, how can we demonstrate that so that we will know when the exception to that "rule" might come along?
It appears that medical research dealing with spontaneous abortions and premature births are setting the ranges. Premies prior to 22 weeks are just not surviving even with everything we can throw at them. 18 weeks acknowledges that almost all the time, we can not pinpoint conception well enough to know with some certainty what age we are really dealing with. As I said, the 21 week old could have been older or younger...no way to know... I assume premies will still happen and research will still happen. I am sure that having a hard and fast 18 weeks when the range might become 14-20 weeks is a concern. Mine too. If you accept the premise of the 18, 24 weeks, then it is details for another time - but I don't think you do. :)
I am also sure of this...setting a range will encourage people to do two things: get more money into research on how to help premies survive at younger ages; and get more money into research on how to test the child with less chance that the testing will cause problems of it's own.
Member, American Conservative Party
And because I do, I'm willing to compromise (as was the whole point of this whole post) with the understanding that we could settle for legal protection of human life once it passes some kind of 18 week benchmark. I'd be willing to leave it at that on the federal level.
I'd still seek to convince others of course not to get abortions and I would hope that technology advances enough to better illustrate to women what it is they carry inside of them.
But I could settle for that legally speaking. After all I currently settle for a legal system that lets some guilty go free just to guarantee the rights of the innocent. Why shouldn't I compromise on a system where 18+ week olds get protection where the only current alternative is none.
I'd still prefer a qualitative difference benchmark. *sigh* But I guess we aren't going to be able to come up with one following conception but prior to birth that can also be tested. Are we? I'd be interested to talk to you off this thread some time if you are up to it. Feel free to email me from http://redstate.com/user/23762/contact
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
I would prefer that women did not get abortions. I support making sure they get all the information about the procedure prior to do so - after all, if we get a 20 page leaflet for a prescription antibiotic, you would think we could get a 5 page leaflet into someone's hands before surgery.
I am also opposed to government paying for the procedure. It is elective surgery and government doesn't pay for any other elective surgery either. Of course they pay for viagra...
With a strong medical definition of viability and reasonably safe tests with a reasonable chance of accuracy, I'd rather not have a set benchmark. As viability issues improve - better testing, better premie care, better medical care - the viability range will drop - fixing it at 24, or 20 or 18 will probably be the last chance it ever gets done, getting the most flexible benchmark in the hope it goes lower is a reasonable goal.
I think many people would accept the idea of orphanges if we didn't have sooooo many kids in a foster system that is just terrible. Victoria and I have been foster parents, we are no longer as her medical issues and age are getting to be too debilitating. The true believers in that program are saints. The parents that take kids that are older and 'damaged' are every bit of the term Christ-like. The ones that are doing it for money - the worst we have as adults and parents. If kids went into foster care and it was a true improvement - and more people adopted so that there were fewer kids in the system, we might be able to give mothers a greater range of acceptable - even good, alternatives.
Victoria adopted CJ from China. On the day she arrived back at O'Hare airport in Chicago, the media was there. I was able to get them out of there without the circus and we watched the news that night. At the end of the story, the anchor commented that there were 50,000 kids waiting for adoption here in the states. Of course, at 42, with diabetes and gay, all the non-government agencies would not touch her. The government agencies could not guarantee closed adoptions. A New Jersey man spent like 10 years in jail for killing his second wife. When he got out, he sued his first wife (or it may have been the other way around) for custody of his daughter - which the court granted because the mother was not fit....she was in a gay relationship.
I don't want a federal benchmark. I want the feds out of the issue entirely. You are right, we may never get that, and if that is the case, something is better that the current status quo. This belongs in the states and I will accept that.
In the end, I appreciate the time to TRY to explain my position. I said it before, I will say it again: social conservatives do not help their cause on this issue. The response by my fellow conservatives here is just a little taste of the strong feelings on abortion - everyone here was , mostly, polite. Open this to liberals and this would have been war in 2 days.
We can get Roe overturned, never if the only option we offer is all or nothing...because we will get nothing and THAT is a terrible, terrible result.
Thank you all for working me over. :) Really.
Member, American Conservative Party
No that is not where it would go. Whether it makes sense or not, pro-life advocates affirmatively oppose any legal action against women. I would urge you to study why abortion was made illegal in the first place. Abortion was illegal for over one hundred years, and such extreme measures were not taken. I see no reason why they should be today. Indeed many pro-life people advance the argument that abortion already punishes the woman, probably not unlike some mothers who kill their born children.
You do have to have a reasonable balance regarding one's liberty and another's life. There is a point where legal regulations make the balance unreasonable, whether we're dealing with the born or unborn.
Now regarding the pill, I don't think it will ever be made outside China, though it could probably get smuggled in. In fact the woman in Massachusetts charged with inducing a miscarriage had done just that.
Moreover, it's sale or distribution outside a licensed abortionist's office is already illegal nationwide. I believe that includes the buyer.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks is the whole "ABORTION IS MURDER!" argument, then.
If abortion is, in fact, murder, then women should be held accountable for a contract killing.
If everyone agrees that women should not be held accountable for a contract killing, then yelling that abortion is murder is confusing at best.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Wasn't this discussed earlier up?
First, I don't know who's "yelling" anything.
Second, I'm talking about the goals of major pro-life groups that actually take their cause to Congress and to legislatures. Argue this point with them.
Third, it's punishable the same as "murder" in Texas (and is actually considered "murder" by one of the legal defintions) when an unborn child is killed by a non-doctor. However, there is an exception for the woman herself. So how is that not "confusing at best?" Laws and associated penalties and exceptions don't have to be consistent or make sense.
Fourth, "murder" is not a specific legal term in this country. It is insufficient to imply the punishment. There are all sorts of legal terms for killing (homicide, muder in various degrees, manslaughter, etc.). All have varying penalties, and there are variations among states. You'll note that women who brutally kill their children or newborns are often not sentenced to any jail time. Perhaps similarly, such psychological anguish is what a lot of the pro-life groups cite as reason for not seeking legal punishment. But I don't know.
Fifth, women rarely know what is happening in an abortion because the abortionists don't say and certainly don't show. If they did, they'd go out of business. Most people don't know. They've done a good job of hiding the truth and often perpetuating lies. They've had the help of the media, the medical establishment, the legal establihsment, the universities, and the educational establihsment. Pro-life people then seem less credible when they are in fact telling the truth.
Imagine that I am someone who might agree to certain legislation regarding making abortion illegal.
Now imagine that I find the pro-life position, as it has been typically argued by the plurality of pro-life folks exceptionally distasteful... and yet imagine that I find abortion exceptionally morally problematic at the same time.
Would you really try to use "Laws and associated penalties and exceptions don't have to be consistent or make sense" in an argument against this imaginary me?
Do you really think that folks out there who may be on the fence about whether abortion should be made illegal again would be moved by such an argument?
I, personally, think that abortion is not ever going to go anywhere. I don't think that a Roe.v.Wadeish case is going to be kicked up to the SCotUS any time soon and I certainly don't think that, if it did, the SCotUS would come up with any particularly interesting rulings but they would, instead, rely primarily on Stare Decisis and kick the can down the road a ways.
Mostly I think that this is because the Pro-Life position isn't argued particularly persuasively once the "So Roe is gone... now what?" question is asked.
But I ramble.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
That was not an argument to really convince. I'm just explaining what I observe in all areas if law.
The Supreme Court will deny cert should a case come to them for which they do not intent to deviate from Casey. That doesn't necessarily mean it's based on stare decisis. However, I do belive, given the popularity and attention such a case would likely have, any cert grant decision would equal a ruling. The justices get to avoid criticism because they don't have to say who voted which way, and they need not write a word. Besides, they are about ready to deny cert themselves out of relevance.
They may see a case soon. South Dakota will have another ballot question this year, this time with exceptions. If it fails, I doubt any other states will make any efforts.
Still, it should not matter what the court says. States should defy any court ruling that contains lies, is based on lies, and is illegal and illegitimate. That states have followed it pretty much, in my mind, means they agree with it or agree that it could at least be plausible (which is just as bad). The Casey ruling actually said as much. O'Connor essentially wrote in the plurality opinion that the court would not return it to the states because states were obeying it. If a state thought it was erroneous enough to defy the court, they would realize their mistake.
As one of those Libertarians, I totally understand pushing for a goal despite nigh-certainty that one will fail but continuing because it is the Right Thing To Do.
The abortion question, however, if it were to be achievable will require a lot, I mean a lot a lot, of groundwork.
You will need to convince folks that The World Will Be A Better Place with abortion illegal again.
For my part, I see the argument as similar to the arguments against prohibition or the war on drugs. Making X illegal will not result in X going away. If sufficient demand remains, X will go underground, the rich/middle classes will go to Canada for a weekend and the poor will not have the same option and so the law will come down hardest on them, so on and so forth.
It strikes me that the necessary groundwork needs to be done on a philosophical level.
And I don't think the pro-lifers have done that.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Below someone mentions that 2nd Trimester abortions should be punishable by death.
These things stick in the minds of those on the fence and makes them say "you know what? The people I'm arguing with want to change the status quo a lot more than they present themselves as wanting to change it. The status quo is better than what they really want to enact..."
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The status quo is not better because children are routinely being brutally tortured and attacked in an intended effort to kill them. That's all there is to it.
Penalties are a separate issue. Most people, including most pro-life people, would find a death penalty for anything called an "abortion" to be repugnant and ample reason to vote someone out of office. Under those circumstances, no such penalty could or should be enacted. I would certainly reject it in a heartbeat if a lesser penalty produced the same results (which I believe it would). While I think the punishment more fitting of the crime, too many others would not. It is not a change I would seek without more public support and less opposition.
Some people may think other illegal actions (maybe abuse of animals) should be penalized by death. However, if too many people too strongly oppose it, it is best to compromise. Penalties and punishments are the one place I think most pro-life people would be happy to compromise.
I honestly think that the majority of the country, as in 70ish percent, would be cool with 3rd Trimester Abortions being illegal with the exception of extraordinary circumstances (death of the mother) and severe handwringing over 2nd Trimester Abortions (legal but only after counselling and alternatives being presented... perhaps even an ultrasound) and first trimester abortions being safe/legal/rare.
The problem is that more than 50% of the country suspects that if a situation like this is set up... that there will continue to be a push... perhaps to the point where people might argue that the death penalty would be an appropriate punishment for a 2nd trimester abortion.
And, as such, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Again.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
First off, your percentages are a little off. In the third trimester, it's actually over 90 percent (though the situation in Kansas makes one wonder). For the second, you have to realize the numbers who opposed partial birth abortion. Why should other even more barbaric and sadistic "procedures" be allowed at the exact same stage? So it's not surprising that the numbers do match and are around 2/3 to 3/4 against depending on wording. I'd almost say typical second trimester abortion is worse than third trimester abortion or infanticide where the baby at least gets to go quickly and painlessly. And that is why I would justify harsher punishment then. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The rest sounds almost mentally insane. People are worried about what a future majority will want to put into law?! You can say that about ANY law. You may as well worry the sky will fall!
If we allow gay marriage, who's to say we won't allow plural marriage next? Or someone marrying his DOG??????
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
As long as you are talking about statutory laws and not judicial opinions, then the same logic applies regarding the rationality of such fears.
I never have and never would use those reasons to oppose any legislation unless the legislation included a provision for vague and unlimited expansion other than more legislation.
Quite often, when I debate gay marriage (on these very boards), I hear the argument that, yeah, sure. Maybe it *MIGHT* be *THEORETICALLY* okay for two guys to get married if they want. MAYBE.
But what about after that? What about plural marriage? What about incestuous marriage? What about the guy who wants to engage in incestuous plural marriage with his HORSE????
I realize now that I should have just responded with:
"The rest sounds almost mentally insane. People are worried about what a future majority will want to put into law?! You can say that about ANY law. You may as well worry the sky will fall!"
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
There is one difference here, I think. When a decision is made by democratic means, then politicians and voters are free to use any logic they wish and to turn back from previous arguments if they change their minds. However, the courts are bound to a considerable degree by the logic of their precedents. So to make such an argument with respect to a referendum on gay marriage wouldn't make much sense, but with respect to the logic of a court's decision it's a much stronger argument.
I argue for legalization. As in the law changing.
Not being overturned.
And people respond with "first we do this, then we do this! Next thing you know, people will be holding hands with horses in the mall and my kids will say 'that horse is my teacher' and then... THEY'LL LOOK AT ME AND SAY 'JUST LIKE YOU!!!'"
It's about why marriage needs to stay traditional No Matter What. Not about "well, it'd be fine if it were voted in but it shouldn't be judged in".
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Maybe I should elaborate a bit.
Let's say that an imaginary state's supreme court ruled that gay marriage should be legal solely because the requirement that spouses be of the opposite sex is "arbitrary." Now let's say that some polyamorists came to the court and said that the requirement that there only be two members in a marriage is arbitrary. In that case, the court would have to concede that the polyamorists have a point, and they would have to either legalize polygamy or else reverse their previous decision on gay marriage. (The actual legal arguments for gay marriage are more complicated than this, of course, but that just means that the logical endpoints of their arguments might be better hidden.)
If it's a matter of referendums, on the other hand, then voters can just decide that they like gay people better than they like polyamorists, and hence legalize gay marriage rather than polygamy. Not knowing any polyamorists myself, I can't say whether that would be a fair assessment, but the point is that the voters (and politicians) aren't bound by their previous votes in the way that courts are.
If people are making slippery slope arguments with respect to democratically established gay marriage (i.e., "future majorities"), then I agree that this would be uncompelling. But with respect to gay marriage as it exists—that is, judicially established—then I think that such arguments are very compelling. So far, all that's been in the news is the latter. But if gay marriage ever becomes an actual political rather than a judicial issue, then quoting Menlo would be fair game. (With possible apologies to Menlo, depending on his (her?) position on the matter, which I don't know.)
It seems to me that those that oppose legislation supporting gay marriage or civil unions for gays use the same arguments as those that complain that the judiciary is imposing it.
California established two parallel legislative schemes: one for traditional couples called marriage; one for gay couples called domestic partnerships. The CA Supreme Court found that separate but equal scheme in violation of the California Constitution. It did not impose gay marriage, it said that under the legislative structure gay marriage existed - the laws just called it something different. The Court found that discriminatory and served no compelling state interest.
Even in our discussion here, a legislative proposal for gay marriage is questioned under the basis that polygamists and animalists could use the same arguments. I consider anyone that suggests anything dealing with animals/marriage to be unworthy of even a derogatory comment.
So, slippery slope is used whether or not we are discussing legislative or judicial schemes.
I'm not sure whose remarks you are looking at, but you've obviously seen at least two of us, including myself, who do NOT use that argument against legislative proposals or find it valid. So don't say were using an argument we aren't using and never would use.
As I said, such arguments are unconvincing in a legislative context but convincing in a judicial context. If the state of California chooses to recognize the reality of polygamy in any way—by, say, not arresting polygamists or making some arrangement for welfare payments to polygamist families—then the court might be bound by their own logic to overturn such a "separate but equal scheme" and establish legal polygamy. However, the California legislature would be bound by no such logic.
Can I marry him?
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
the miracle we call The Common Law.
Let's start with Homicide, and its subsets:
Capital Murder
Non-Capital Murder
Voluntary Manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter
Reckless Homicide
and then
Affirmative defenses of self defense, defense of others and, insanity and accident.
All of the above are homicides, but, confused human beings fleshed out the above based on human frailty and circumstances that recur.
Consider premeditated murder vs voluntary manslaughter. The former gets capital punishment or life, while the latter gets 10 yrs to life. The latter is usually reserved for homicide in the heat of passion. But do we really want people that tend to kill in the heat of passion back on the streets?
Confusing.
Now, lets look at the UNIQUE situation of abortion (remembering the above). In this case, the victim is INSIDE the woman's body. There is some level of self defense/invasion. A result of the most popular sin, i.e. fornication.
So, bird, let's not use the uniqueness to play gotcha with lay people using the word "murder". Ok? Its beneath you. Pandora's box was opened by Roe. Here we are.
Don't dismiss attempts to deal with this barbarism with semantics.
Grow wise.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
But making it illegal entails a great many things... for example, when I hear the word "illegal", I think of police showing up with guns.
But procuring an abortion is engaging in conspiracy to commit a... misdemeanor? Felony?
It seems odd to say that this act is something that deserves little more than mandatory counseling while the person who provides the requested service needs be thrown in prison.
It's like the prostitution thing, only crazier.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
before Roe.
be serious bird, or this rooster will have to fly away again
I hate nothing more than to have my intelligence insulted, and given the millions of words I have read of yours, I know you know better.
I won't abide anything less than excellence from those capable of same.
That's you. From those that are blessed, much is expected and
demanded by GC.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
before the epiphany.
Bird, we know what is in the womb. We know we don't need the pictures.
No games pal
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I have spent the last week reading a bunch of analysis' of the Roe v Wade decision and some analysis' of how the current crop of Justices might rule in a case similar. I am not convinced that Roe would be overturned. Such a result would end the abortion debate, probably for several decades - or until some specific medical event occurs - such as the ability to image what is going on in the brain.
With a 5-4 conservative court, I think it would/could go either way - it is not a slam dunk. (A 6/3 court would probably overturn) But in both cases, a ruling that leaves in place privacy would continue to dog anything that comes later.
I think the argument that pre-1973 there were no attempts to control/punish the mother so therefore there is no reason to believe it would happen in the future ignores the last 40 years. I do believe that the left will continue to loosen any constraints on general behavior - there is clearly in the law and it's practice significant movement away from personal responsibility and the left will use that to protect the mother, but the nanny state (almost completely an animal of the left) would be turned against them.
The argument against RU-486 is clearly the direction pro-life advocates want to drive the discussion. It is not enough to restrict medical abortion, they want to eliminate all potential alternatives also. If a group of natural herbs found to work in a particular way to mimic RU-486, I would expect attempts to regulate them in similar ways cough syrups have been regulated, maybe more so.
If you eliminate all external methods of abortion (we know it will not eliminate abortions - other countries still offer them and well hidden clinics will exist for the rich) and they will continue to occur. There WILL be some attempt to criminalize the behavior that reasonably leads to spontaneous abortions. It will be against the most egregious women, but it would happen. Whether it succeeded or not is questionable. I bet it would in some very strongly anti-abortion states.
I am not suggesting that by itself, such outcomes should prevent the debate, but it is a fear that many have even if they support restrictions on abortion.
Even if the majority of national or regional pro-life organizations do not shout, or even say "Abortion is Murder", any march against abortion has those signs. Considered it damned by association but the Phelps klan does the same thing in many peoples minds to the anti-gay rights movement. It marginalizes them and it puts a little doubt into the minds of those on the fence about the veracity of the position that mothers are going to be safe from prosecution.
I do find it surprising that Roe basically laid out what I think was the right plan: no abortion in the third trimester, abortions ok in the first trimester and all kinds of hand wringing in the second trimester. I think everything that has happened since has been the anti pushing hard against the pro pushing hard against the anti. The result has favored the pro-abortion side....to the detriment of all.
The intentional termination of a pregnancy - the intentional termination of a human life is not done lightly (in all but a small number of cases - I BELIEVE). I think a significant number of abortions could be prevented if there were viable options available to women. I think the attempts to prevent information from being provided MIGHT have something to do with a lack of prejudice. I have never seen what is offered, nor have I seen what was attempted to be offered. If what is being offered is even remotely like what I have seen over the last 2 weeks - graphic depictions of the procedure - then I can see what the objection is. Frankly, if you produced something like that for most surgeries, most people would never agree to even gall bladder surgery.
I want to change the debate. There are a lot of people that do. Based on my experience here, the pro-life movement is not interested, thanks. The debate would go from one national debate to 50 state debates. 35 or so states would outright ban all abortions, another 5 or so would probably restrict it to saving the mother's life only. The rest would probably be a mix of moderate to no restrictions.
Can you guess what would happen if 5 states with absolute bans surrounded one with no restrictions? The 5 with would argue that the one with none should have to restrict abortions to their residents - they should respect the banning states prohibition on their citizens. The opposite position many states now have on gay marriage.
Despite all that, I am still willing to have the fight go to the states. Knowing full well that the pro-life movement is only for the complete end to abortion. There is no compromise from them. That makes their position a principled stand - which I support in principle....even if I disagree with the position.
I think many people in the pro-life movement have a level of disgust towards anyone that argues for a right to an abortion. I think we feel that, I know I feel it.
The discussion here has been civilized, but it changed no ones mind. I hope it made some people think - it did me.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
We can see a brain thinking (under the right conditions), we can't see WHAT it is thinking. Imagine putting a machine on a person's head and it translates the brain scan into visuals or aurals that are understandable. You could 'see' what a person was dreaming. Now, put that on a child's head in the womb.
Shiavo case presented both. Either life is intrinsically precious and so worthy of preservation or it is not, and so subject to a utilitarian evaluation that puts all handicapped humans at risk.
But, there is another issue. Are Shiavos, baby Does and the life that exists when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall a test for US?
I think so.
That life is more important that BMW payments (see "health of the mother").
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
If a 6/3 conservative court upheld Roe. The debate on the national level would end. Those that oppose abortion would lose any hope of getting Roe overturned. 5/4 conservative upholding of Roe might continue to give the movement life, but I think most people would switch to some other way of dealing with abortion rather than fighting it in the court, or hoping for it to be overturned.
The pro-life movement would still exist - but it's focus would be gone. IMO.
people's hearts and that argument has not abated in most churches. But law is a necessary brake on sin, and in this case, Roe allowed barbarism to go mainstream. But people know what they are doing. They know.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
on this:
But people know what they are doing. They know.
That kinda puts lie to the belief that women don't know what they are doing because information has been withheld. I think if a woman wants to know, the information is freely available. Let me tell you I have seen enough abortion results to last 10 lifetimes over the last 2 weeks of internet looking.
I also agree that only in the changing of minds is abortion going to end. Laws don't change minds.
But law is a necessary brake on sin,
goes back to the very beginning that started all the arguing under my blog post, My Rights. Morality as a basis for laws. What is sin is not universal. People, rightly or wrongly, do not think the same about many issues. I think it is perfectly fine for people to propose laws based on 'sin' or morality. People that oppose those laws are not sinners or evil.
*endofline*
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I'd disagree with gamecock here. I don't think most women know what abortionists are doing because it requires too much research to get everything AND to be sure it is accurate. That's another reason you can't fairly punish them as addressed above. Many people are uninformed because the mainstream media, medical, legal, and educational/university establishment favor abortions and will present or hide any information or misinformation to favor their side. Even the Roe ruling contained the lie that there was no scientific or medical consensus when life began. Unfortunately, pro-life people lose credibility when they try to present facts and information as a vehicle to present their religious beliefs. They also lose credibility when they start lumping abstinence, sexual behavior, and contraception in the same category as abortion. I still can't get why people of faith are disproportionately pro-life and vice versa. It never did make much sense to me.
Anyway, the abortionists DO know what they are doing, but they have become callous to it, usually in their pursuit of quick cash.
I do believe laws can change minds. Look at slavery and segregation. It took the force of law to change people's minds in both cases. Look at abortion. People (even Ted Kennedy) were overwhelmingly pro-life before the Roe ruling. I'd imagine cases on school prayer and the establishment cause changed people's minds as well.
they don't need pictures to know that
that's what I said
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
A lot of "converts" would disagree. They claim to have been fully convinced it was just "tissue."
Abortion had once been accepted to the point of "quickening" until science told us when life truly began.
It took the popularization of ultrasound images to really show the humanity and development of the child.
Even I wouldn't have known the facts of an average second trimester abortion (which should be punishable by death). It should shock anyone who is not a sadist to learn that it is legal. And, given the facts, no decent and civilized person could ever think such a "procedure" should be legal.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
you talking about? Are you a frontman for the eyes glazed over crowd that don't blink when they say they don't know its a human being?
You have lost it man.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
there vagina. They know mom told them that's how they got to Earth. What's to know man? That's rhetorical. OF COURSE GIRLS AND WOMEN KNOW WHAT IS INSIDE THEM AND WHAT IT WILL BECOME IF THEY DON'T KILL IT, ie
a drain on the ability to make BMW payments.
Directors! Someone stole Menlo's Identity, or is this an example of an elitist reverse-epiphany?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I still think you have an outdated view of the modern pro-life movement. The signs now say "Abortion Hurts Women" and "I Regret My Abortion." It's about how women themselves have been hurt, usually emotionally but sometimes physically, by abortion. Their argument is that abortion itself is a punishment to women, the same argument advanced by Susan B. Anthony.
They got credited in the partial birth abortion ruling, with Kennedy noting the unlikelihood of women knowing about what was happening.
FYI, Roe, coupled with Doe, said abortion with no limits until birth. The "trimester framework" was thrown out in 1992 because it made no difference in what they "allowed" states to do. Abortion on request is and was allowed until birth. The ruling lets doctors define "health" and "viability" as they wish. The only allowed requirement is that a doctor do it (which the abortion groups still oppose).
As for the court rulings, what constitutes "upholding" and "overruling?" Roe was already overruled in one sense in Casey in 1992.
Do you consider denying cert to be upholding? And if so, what kind of case would the cert denial be for?
Because it is so multifaceted, it's not a simple matter of "overruling" or "upholding." If overruled, are old laws repealed by implication of the post-1973 regulations enacted? What if a court challenge were only to second trimester abortions? After all, there are some states where none are available. What if it was only the "health" exception? What about the hospital-only (or second trimester hospital-only) requirements that were ruled against in the 1983 Akron case?
I honestly think the South Dakota voting proposal this November will tell a lot about the future. It could influence the actions and attempts of other state legislatures, and it could reach a differently composed Supreme Court if it passed (though I still doubt it will get cert).
However, I think some people might be surprised when state restrictions do little to reduce abortion rates due to the ease of hopping over to the next state. In 1972, special abortion travel packages to New York and DC (the only places allowing out-of-state elective abortions) resulted in about half the abortions we have now. Given the much larger number of states that would legalize it for women from anywhere (and the special offers they would come up with), one has to wonder if the numbers would change much at all with only an increase in later abortions. There are probably only about 5 states with pro-life majorities right now with another 10 or so divided 50/50.
I still think you have an outdated view of the modern pro-life movement.
This is probably true. One, I don't attend marches (for anything) and many marches no longer even make the news. Further, I live in Madison WI and it is called the San Francisco of the Midwest for a reason.
It's about how women themselves have been hurt, usually emotionally but sometimes physically, by abortion. Their argument is that abortion itself is a punishment to women, the same argument advanced by Susan B. Anthony.
Two points, last one first. The continued mischaracterization of my comment regarding anti-abortion/women's rights' activists, including Susan Anthony has not been answered. Whether or not I agree or disagree with the positions advanced by Anthony and others, their motivation is:
I ABSOLUTELY think they are doing it for their own benefit - they believe they are right, they believe that is their purpose, they believe they are saving a child's life, they believe they have a responsibility, they believe that the mother has abdicated control over her life because she choose to bring another into existence, they believe if they DON'T do something, they are in mortal danger - it is all about THEIR belief. If THEY stand in front of a clinic and prevent a mother from getting an abortion, do they pat themselves on the back and think, we saved another child? Whether they are self congratulatory or not, I BELIEVE they DO think that way...they saved another child. If they overturn Roe and get abortion to be illegal everywhere, will they believe they have saved millions of lives. Certainly.
Is this a bad motivation? No. Righteous certainly. But women's rights? I don't think so, which brings us to point two.
If the current movement is based on the philosophy that people are trying to prevent women from hurting themselves emotionally (and I concede some women suffer physically - women have died getting cosmetic surgery but I don't see protests about that) then their position has LESS validity in my mind. I have always acknowledge that anti-abortion is a principled position - I disagree with it. But if
Fighting for the life of the child is a principled position and worthy of a fight. Fighting to prevent women from regret by fighting for a law banning the action that will cause that regret (in 95% or more of women IMO) is not a principled position. It is fighting for prohibition.
more later...
This I believe:
That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.
If the anti-abortion movement has shifted from protecting the child to protecting the mother, they have lost any ground to stand on - in my eyes. Protecting the mother from herself is a nanny state idea. You oppose those things right?
Do you consider denying cert to be upholding? And if so, what kind of case would the cert denial be for?
My opinion as to whether or not Roe would survive a 6/3 or more likely a 5/4 conservative court would depend on the case brought before the court. The problem with Roe, in my opinion, was the purpose of the SC is to interpret the Constitution in context of the case before it. Roe wasn't a Constitutional case, but they made it so. The question now is, was Roe decided wrongly (it can be overturned) or was Roe decided correctly but should have been denied cert, in which case it won't be overturned. I am leaning towards the later based on my readings. My opinion is relevant only to me however.
I honestly think that if Roe were overturned it would end up back in the SC in a decade or so after states muddied things up so badly that the SC would have no choice but to get back involved. Given such a scenario, I can see the Justices wanting to get back to the relative (legal) sanity of Roe and overturning their own overturning. (which might be a consideration in their deliberations in a case that had the potential to overturn Roe and why they - even a 6/3 conservative court - would deny cert).
I don't know about the South Dakota issue, I will go look.
Given the much larger number of states that would legalize it for women from anywhere (and the special offers they would come up with), one has to wonder if the numbers would change much at all with only an increase in later abortions. There are probably only about 5 states with pro-life majorities right now with another 10 or so divided 50/50.
I think more states would ban than you give credit for, but it certainly would not be a 50 state ban. Which brings up the potential for one state to demand other states prevent out-of-staters from getting abortions. Even if it didn't happen, we have some states with few if any abortion doctors so there is state hopping now.
I still think abortion is a terrible choice. Anything to get women to seek alternatives:
These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him
But people don't act in their best interest. Only after suffering the consequences do they consider what they have done.
I have never smoked - anything, never, not once. I have few issues with smokers. But former smokers...damn they are virulent anti-smoking advocates. The "I had mine and I was stupid so we are going to outlaw yours" attitude is the worst nanny state position.
Thank you for your comments.
I agree with you on the desire to protect people from themselves as a basis for law. In fact, I VEHEMENTLY oppose the current laws that allow people deemed a threat to their own lives (by a "doctor") to be institutionalized. Unfortunately, this kind of thing tends to resonate better with lawmakers and sometimes with the public. Even Planned Parenthood considers it more of a "challenge."
Hardly any states would change the law regarding abortion because I've seen so many of them try and fail. They can't even get simple regulations passed! It takes an enormous effort just to narrowly pass a bill requiring women be offered more information! Sometimes, there are also too many disagreements over what exceptions to allow, if any, and how to define the circumstances justifying it. They often get caught up in details that would become irrelevant if the abortion businesses closed down.
Of course no state wants to be the first to bring a case to the court, especially with court costs and uncertainty as to what would result.
Most importantly, I want to say that if state legislators and executives wanted to do it for the purpose they should be doing it (or even claim to be doing it), they would just defy the judiciary and make it a priority.
Your comment:
I still think you have an outdated view of the modern pro-life movement. The signs now say "Abortion Hurts Women" and "I Regret My Abortion." It's about how women themselves have been hurt, usually emotionally but sometimes physically, by abortion. Their argument is that abortion itself is a punishment to women, the same argument advanced by Susan B. Anthony.
A comment upthread just made:
Even I wouldn't have known the facts of an average second trimester abortion (which should be punishable by death). It should shock anyone who is not a sadist to learn that it is legal. And, given the facts, no decent and civilized person could ever think such a "procedure" should be legal.
Apparently, my opinion of the pro-life movement...or at least of someone that is defending the pro-life movement - is not wrong.
I'm not sure which opinion you mean, but I don't necessarily agree with all the strategies and motivations shared by most of the mainstream pro-life "movement." I do not represent them.
There is actually a growing divide among pro-life groups. The ones advancing the argument that it hurts women are much larger in number and do all the work to appeal to the legislatures, to Congress, and to the voters. Those arguing that the unborn need equal protection are part of a smaller group that does not have the numbers, resources, or influence to do very much. It's what divides the National Right to Life, Feminists for Life, and Silent No More from Operation Rescue, the Constitution Party, American Right to Life, and the American Life League. While there is a desire to protect the unborn for anyone who is pro-life, the larger groups are more accepting of compromise.
If you were trying to represent a position you didn't agree with as the majority position of the anti-abortion movement, maybe you should have been clear. I certainly read your comments as suggestive that you agreed with them.
My point was that the 'abortion is murder' portion of the pro-life movement were not helping to make pro-abortion moderates comfortable. As such, that point was related to the original post. You have made an argument that the pro-life movement has moved away from such a position and were now more concerned with the mother and protecting her and therefore the idea that absolutists were not doing harm, only an outdated stereotype was preventing any movement.
Well, your comment makes it clear that the 'abortion is murder' and participation in an abortion is a death penalty offense portions of the anti-abortion movement are in fact alive and kicking.
As such, consider my positions unchanged, but any acknowledgment that the 'abortion is murder' stereotype is outdated, hereby revoked.
I don't quite agree with the majority. If you can call a tiny minority with little influence "alive and kicking," so be it.
I'd never used "abortion is murder" as an adjective. Whether one agrees with the statement or not, I would agree that such a statement is not going to change anyone's mind or even give them much useful information.
However, I think you are taking a lot out of context if you assume from any of that an "all or nothing" mentality. The vast majority of those who are pro-life, including myself, would indeed favor compromise over the status quo, particularly with regard to penalties, and particularly if it could have real results in substantially reducing abortions. That does not mean we cannot have higher goals and aims, and that does not mean there is a secret or hidden agenda to sneak those higher goals into law afterwards (which is what a lot of people seem to be implying). Any later changes should have to be added the same way.
to reconcile:
It should shock anyone who is not a sadist to learn that it is legal. And, given the facts, no decent and civilized person could ever think such a "procedure" should be legal.
with
The vast majority of those who are pro-life, including myself, would indeed favor compromise over the status quo, particularly with regard to penalties, and particularly if it could have real results in substantially reducing abortions.
I think it is disingenuous to suggest a willingness to compromise when you hold the position above. I am sure that you would support anything that limits abortions but I doubt anyone would trust you to sit and negotiate with you in good faith.
As such *endofline*
Well, I don't find it hard to reconcile, and I would see no reason to distrust as I've been completely honest. I have no secret hidden agenda, nor would I lie. However, you are entitled to think what you wish.
At any rate, I'll never be working to negotiate any legislation or legislative proposals, so I guess it's not too relevant.
In the original post, my intent was not only to argue that social conservatives have acted in a reasonable manner, but also to suggest that their opponents often behave in the same unreasonable manner they accuse social conservatives of exhibiting.
I take it from your comment above that you believe that the pro-life movement should take pains "to make pro-abortion moderates comfortable," and that these pro-abortion moderates will not be made comfortable so long as any pro-lifer implies (Menlo did not use the word murder in the comment quoted) that abortion is anything like murder, even if, as Menlo correctly notes, the pro-life movement on the whole is trying all sorts of other approaches in order to convince others of their case. In other words, pro-lifers cannot count on the aid of any moderates on matters of common interest unless they completely silence those who make a certain argument that makes moderates uncomfortable.
But let's turn things around. One of the most prominent pro-abortion thinkers today is Peter Singer, who is also a prominent supporter of both euthanasia and infanticide. These positions make pro-lifers uncomfortable, to say the least. They are also often made uncomfortable by the fact that many other people make arguments similar to Singer's (those about "personhood," for instance) in reference to other political issues, which could be taken as implying that they, too, support such distressing positions. And these dark suspicions might be reinforced by any number of facts in evidence, such as the fact that the current, pro-choice Democratic presidential nominee strenuously opposed efforts to legislate against infanticide in Illinois, as well as the fact that the same effort on the federal level met a noticeable (though happily small) degree of opposition, even within the Republican caucus.
If pro-lifers were to hold others to the standard that they are being held to here, then they would have to either refuse outright or loudly complain about any sort of political alliance with, say, those who support embryonic stem cell research because an embryo isn't a person in the sense that an adult human is, and in which sense an infant might also be excluded from personhood. Such ESCR-supporters might claim that they don't, in fact, support infanticide, but the pro-lifers would just dismiss them as being philosophically inconsistent and hence unworthy of respect.
I think that this would be an unreasonable position, and that its practical consequences could only be unproductive. Happily, pro-lifers have not taken this position. From what I can see, they instead generally give potential allies the benefit of the doubt, and they generally realize that their own possible discomfort in dealing with people with whom they have such disagreements is of no great consequence in the grand scheme of things. I encourage others to adopt a similarly productive attitude.
but I would suggest to you that the situation differs in this regard: the pro-life movement is fighting to restrict a right, the pro-abortion movement is fighting to keep one (all the issues that have been discussed considered).
You noted that Menlo did not use the word murder - he seeks a death penalty for an abortion. Given we don't have too many types of crimes that warrant a death penalty, is it unreasonable to infer that his position is not markedly different than 'abortion is murder' even if he actually fails to use those words?
Given the status quo is in fact the position attributed to the most radical of the pro-abortion movement, nothing they say can actually move the position any further - unless you think their future position is allowing parents to kill children they have taken home but changed their minds about.
So, the radical left position IS the status quo. Moderates from the pro-abortion side have no incentive to negotiate - anything different from the status quo is more restrictive - so I, just me, consider their offer to be a good faith effort to improve the situation. If moderates lose in their effort, the status quo remains.
The pro-life movement - from all appearances - holds the pro-abortion moderates in contempt (yes, I took Menlo's comment personally). I don't HAVE to take the abuse. Abortion is legal. I can walk away from the table and nothing changes. I support a restriction on abortion and a more liberal policy already exists. What incentive do I have to take the scorn of the pro-life movement?
If you fail to make the pro-abortion moderates comfortable, the status quo remains. Calling us sadist or evil isn't the way.
In the discussion here, we have seen exactly this play out.
the pro-life movement is fighting to restrict a right, the pro-abortion movement is fighting to keep one
No, the pro-life movement is fighting to protect a right: the right to life.
is it unreasonable to infer that his position is not markedly different than 'abortion is murder' even if he actually fails to use those words?
The question of reasonable interpretations of Menlo's words can be taken up with Menlo. But we can certainly find some people, somewhere, willing to say outright and without qualification that abortion is murder, and even some willing to say outright that abortionists can be justly killed, even extralegally. What I think is unreasonable is holding any individual case against the tens of millions of people who make up the pro-life movement, which is what I interpreted you as doing.
Moderates from the pro-abortion side have no incentive to negotiate
They do if they are moderates. If they genuinely believe that, say, late-term abortions according to some definition are the unjust taking of human lives, then they have every reason to work very hard to move the law in the pro-life direction. Even if they only disapprove of 10% of the abortions that take place, then this amounts to around 130,000 innocent human lives unjustly taken each year in this country, which would seem to be a matter of great consequence. But moderate pro-choicers often seem more concerned with distancing themselves from pro-lifers than actually dealing with the problem at hand.
The pro-life movement - from all appearances - holds the pro-abortion moderates in contempt
I can't speak for the pro-life movement, obviously—no one person can—but speaking for myself, I don't hold you in contempt, nor do I hold any of my political opponents in contempt, be they moderately pro-choice or Peter Singer. (Well, not in general at least: Assume the obvious exceptions.) I do think that you (and they) are wrong on certain points. But my hope is that such disagreements (and new ones will always arise) can be resolved to a degree, and perhaps only over the very long term, by reasoned, civil discussion. And at the very least, I think that such reasoned, civil discussion can give all of us greater understanding of and greater respect for our opponents' positions, and our opponents themselves.
And I think that this discussion has been a great example of this. Perhaps, as I think you said elsewhere, nobody's mind has been changed on the larger issues. But I think that most of us participating and looking in have a better idea of where the other side is coming from, and I think that that can only be a good thing. I believe that this entire discussion has been a credit to the Redstate community and everybody who has participated in it, on all sides.
Which seems like a nice sentiment to end the day on. But I'll check in tomorrow.
"If you fail to make the pro-abortion moderates comfortable, the status quo remains."
The SoCons are a considerable voting block in this country that could even be concidered swing voters. Until RVW many were even Democrats. The loss of these voters may have been a large force in the shaping of the new conservative movement and the reason that Clinton has been one of the few sucesfull Dem presidents in enacting any policy changes. The fact that this block of voters will lend their support to anyone who is willing to sign any pro-life bills or laws makes them a powerful force and makes it likely that RVW will eventually be overturned-whether or not Moderates walk away from the table. There are enough of us that Presedential candidates want our votes and will give us what we want on the Abortion issue to get them. Also realize that Gen Y represents the most conservative generation since the 1950's. The number of college kids regestered as conservatives and Republicans has not been this high in years-so I think progress can be made on the abortion issue with only temporary compromise followed by continued political and social change.
From the numbers I've seen, Gen Y is not particularly Republican. I'm not sure whether they are particularly conservative in general--on at least some issues I think that they are not. However, the rising generation does seem to be particularly pro-life from the few age-specific polls I've seen. If so, then I think that this can be attributed to two factors:
1.) Anyone born after abortion legalization began in 1967 (which includes a chunk of Gen X) knows that they could have been aborted themselves, which gives many of them a particular appreciation of the value of their own life, and hence of the lives of others.
2.) Most of Gen Y came of age when the abortion debate centered around the issue of partial birth abortion and the like. Knowledge of such barbarities caused many people of all ages to adjust their positions on abortion in general either somewhat or wholly. It stands to reason that young people, without preconceptions, would be especially affected.
So I think you're basically right with respect to abortion. Big change could well be in the offing.
You can put me in that second category. I've always thought abortion should be illegal, and my first thought was shock to learn that it was "legal" when I first heard the definition of abortion. However, I had never really thought about how, when, or why it happened. I really didn't care that much.
Partial birth abortion led me to learn about its alternative ("standard" second trimester abortions). I saw that it was objectively even more vile, cruel, and inhumane; and I never could figure out why it was not being equally targeted.
Learning the facts from both sides, I saw this was pure intentional torture in an effort to kill someone. That is why I said earlier that it is deserving of a far harsher punishment than a first trimester abortion would be. I would never propose death for a first trimester abortion.
"From the numbers I've seen, Gen Y is not particularly Republican. "
But compaired to their parents and grandparents at the age of 18-24 a far higher percent is Republican. There was even an article about this in TIME. No generation I know of is more than 20 or 30 percent conservative in college but becomes more conservative as it ages. Gen Y is more conservative than previous generations at colleeg age and should become more so as they get jobs, have children,and pay taxes
Sorry but I had to leave for a while, but just thought I'd come back and see how things were going. Most every point I would argue has been covered by better men than me.
One irritating quibble though I do have, birdmojo, with your mischaracterization above where you state I'm all gung-ho about snooping through people's medical records based on a hunch. My main and most emphasized (and most ignored by you) argument is that it get treated the same way an accusation of the murder of a 3 year be treated. Whatever the current powers we have given the state to investigate the murder of a 3 year old is all I want to extend to the state to investigate the unborn. If we need to compromise on that (the whole point of this post) that is fine by me. I really don't care about the details until we get there. Your fear of govt power paralyses the argument and mischaracterizes the whole thing by painting pro-lifers police state advocates when the truth of the matter is that some people are not being treated equally under the law and we pro-lifers seek to stop that inequality.
What powers extended to the govt to investigate the alleged murder of a three year old do you disagree with? Whatever they are, I might even agree with you. But to think that laws shouldn’t extend equally to everyone because of a fear to grow govt is as absurd as me demanding that women not be given the right to vote because then they’ll be taxed and the tax revenue will grow govt. If you only have a problem with govt power, find a different subject to argue about besides human rights. I certainly didn’t ask for battle plans when we invaded Afghanistan. I figured that I agreed with the goal and I’d let other competent men sort out the details, and that’s exactly how you and I should be approaching this issue. Do we or do we not agree on the overall goal? If we do, we can hash out the details later. If we don’t, then the details don’t really matter do they?
You seem to be so gung-ho to know the minutest details of the bill I've apparently drafted that will solve all abortion problems forever. I'm curious, are you in favor of drilling for oil domestically? I want to know every detail of your plan to drill domestically. And as you list every suggestion, I would like to argue extensively with it, and declare that your details scare me so much that the status quo must be better. Do you see how annoying that is? The details you or I recommend does not negate the overall argument. At best, it shows I don’t have a practical plan to implement, which is not the same thing as saying the overall goal shouldn’t happen.
Have you not noticed, birdmojo, the majority of pro-lifers either want the issue returned to the states or would compromise on it returning to the states? Do I need to list how each state will execute their abortion laws or are you suggesting that each state have identical abortion laws? Given your libertarian leanings, I fear the latter. I think you and I had this argument about local liquor laws (which if you remember is not something I like personally but I still respect a community’s right to enact).
Okydoky. Enough repeating myself. Besides, TomlinsonDouthat and Co. make better arguments than myself anyway.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
Dude, I say "my problem is that I think stuff like X is worse than the status quo. What about X?"
And some say "Man, X would never happen!"
And others say "No, X is workable... we could model it on this other thing here."
And you're saying "You're completely mischaracterizing!"
No, dude. My problem is that I think that there will be unintended consequences to the programs that you are advocating. The unintended consequences that I see as somewhat likely trouble me greatly... and they're why I oppose the change to the status quo.
And while you say that the unintended consequences are not, in fact, likely (indeed, that I'm mischaracterizing your arguments by focusing on unintended consequences!), there are voices that pop up and say not only that the unintended consequences aren't unlikely, but they imply that they aren't unintended.
Look above. People pop up and say, paraphrased, "We can model it on this other thing!"
I'm not making this up. I'm not mischaracterizing this.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
You and Tracy both claimed that I was in favor the state prying into medical records.
You said to TomlinsonDouthat:
Indeed, read above and you will see people defending the state requesting medical records from women rumored to be pregnant.
This is not something I am making up.
It's right there.
and later:
You overhear that your next door neighbor thinks she is 3-4 weeks pregnant. What powers ought the state have?
Instead of "none", I get answers like "the right to request medical records".
and Tracy said to Menlo:
And, someone in the thread suggested the privacy of the mother from prying into medical records - privacy doesn't exist for criminal behavior - ifin I recall.
Now I did only do a quick word search for the word "record", but I don't see anyone else talking about it (kinda short on time rather than re-read the whole page) except us three.
All of this was in response to my statement:
I suppose they'd have as much right (should we grant them) to demand her medical records. How absurd would it be if a child abuse defendant said "I don't have kids". Wouldn't we grant the state the power to find out if it was true? If yes, then I say the state should have similar power. If you say that we wouldn't grant medical record searching in the child abuse case, then we might agree that we couldn't do it in the abortion case which would result in basically no way to find out. All I'm saying that all the power we grant them to investigate the murder of an infant is the exact same power we'd grant them to investigate the murder of an infant in the womb.
Some key words and phrases there are "defendant", "similar power" and "exact same power". I quite clearly do not suggest random medical record prying based on whims.
Maybe you are referring to other people in other arguments, but it seems pretty clear here on this page you are both referring to me.
You still don't indicate your opinion on returning the issue to the states (or I forgot where/if you did). Fear that some state might be overly prying still doesn't seem like a very appropriate argument against allowing states to decide to enact a law.
I fear govt encroachment as much as the next guy. I like animals, but I sure don't want a govt bureaucracy making sure the endangered ones are kept alive as I know what the logical conclusion of that would be. This is not the same kind of issue. Pro-lifers are asking for a class of people, the unborn, to receive equal rights under the law - not a new set of govt powers. I'm not terribly interested in how these investigations will occur as I'm not currently interested/aware of how child murder cases investigated. If there is a problem we see in how these investigations occur, then the law should be modified for both the unborn and the born. The fear of what adding the unborn to the list of those deserving a right to life would do to our legal system is unwarranted and it also lacks faith in the American people's ability adjust the law accordingly (assuming a dipstick judge doesn't jack it all up in the process).
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
I found this:
"All medical professionals are required by law to report any and evry suspicion of child abuse to the state. Neighbors can make anonymous calls if they are concerned. Keeping an eye on abortion could be done in a similar fashion if it was made illegal."
Anonymous calls to the State if abortion is suspected.
That quote you see here? That's a quote, cut and pasted from this thread.
Are you perfectly reasonable? Sure you are. My opinion is that 1st Trimester Abortions should be legal, 3rd Trimester should be illegal, and 2nd should have all sorts of handwringing and counselling and all that stuff... but I read quotes like the one that I quoted (after cutting and pasting it from this very thread) and I get all nervous.
You and I probably think of different things when we hear about having official policies of anonymous phone calls to the authorities about the neighbors.
Part of the issue with regards to the personhood of the unborn is the issue of when their personhood becomes something the state needs to start investingating.
If the state gets a phone call that says "the next door neighbor is pregnant and might be considering an abortion", I think that they shouldn't have the power to do *ANYTHING*.
And yet, on this very page, we've got someone saying... I'll quote it again:
"All medical professionals are required by law to report any and evry suspicion of child abuse to the state. Neighbors can make anonymous calls if they are concerned. Keeping an eye on abortion could be done in a similar fashion if it was made illegal."
I am not making this up.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
It seems your problem is the failure to see the need to protect the unborn the same as the born. You seem to have more sympathy for the one who wants to do the killing than the one to be killed. This becomes even more evident when you say you would have "handwrigning" over criminalizing cruel, inhumane, barbaric, and brutal torture and the people engaging it.
It boggles my mind to think how so many people could be callous and/or cruel enough to think that what has become a standard second trimester abortion is anything less than the most barbaric, vile, and inhumane torture imaginable.
It's a problem of perception. That is something that has to be resolved before any criminalization will be possible. Society needs to overcome the perception of the unborn as less than fully human.
Your response to that is to assume that I'm a bad person who isn't responding to a need?
Has the health care debate taught you nothing?
No, wait... it's taught you quite a bit... never mind.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
"All medical professionals are required by law to report any and evry suspicion of child abuse to the state. Neighbors can make anonymous calls if they are concerned" then?
If you have a problem with that (which would follow logically if you had a problem with it being done for abortion cases), then your problem is not with abortion issues, but with current govt powers. I think you should address the two issues seperately... unless of course you actually support the above mentioned govt powers, in which case I'd say you have a double standard: some citizens are more important to protect than others.
For the record, I can't say I'm crazy gung-ho about the existing govt power mentioned above, but I can tolerate it. It looks like it can be easily abused, and risks violating more rights than it might protect.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
replace "citizens" with "lives" as arguing that they should be treated as citizens is a longer argument and I'm not interested in complicating the issue here.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
A woman is considering an abortion - people drop a dime on her. What action, other than being pregnant, might tip off the ordinary neighbor?
A child appears in a hospital ER with suspicious bruises...duh.
A child's normal behavior in school changes dramatically, a teach is worried...duh.
No, I don't like government sticking it's nose into things - but when there is EVIDENCE of a crime, it has an obligation. Being pregnant is not (usually) evidence of a crime.
"when there is EVIDENCE of a crime, it has an obligation" Okay, then. And if you have no evidense then nothing. If the neighbor has nothing more than a gut feeling about child abuse ("Their hiding the bruises, I know it"), then that is how we will treat an evidenseless accusation of abortion. If someone has evidense, then law enforcement could move forward.
See Menlo's comment below anyway. The investigation would probably move forward, based on most people's feelings about the issue, to only seek out who besides the mother was involved.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
The suggestion that I am a person who just doesn't understand the importance of a system where neighbors call the police when they suspect their neighbors of being pregnant...
Should the police be able to show up and force the girl to urinate into a jar? Should a policeman be present to ensure that she's not using urine from someone else? If she turns out to have the pregnancy test turn up negative, do the police have evidence of an abortion having taken place?
If you argue that the police shouldn't investigate further after this point, can you really claim to want to protect innocent children?
Or... what do you hope will happen when you call the police with a pregnancy suspicion report?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
What happens when you call the police with a child abuse suspicion? No really, you tell me! No, really, don't bother to post a reply until someone here will explain what actually happens.
You continue this BS about a pro-life police state, but all you are doing is repeating a leftist fantasy that is about as reality based as old people starving because evil Republicans want to cut off their SS checks. You have no historical evidense that pro-life laws were treated this way back when the Supreme Court respected the constitution.
I don't think you are a person who can't understand the importance of govt abuse. I question your ability to comprehend what I am writing over and over again. You and Tracy and really pushing my limits tonight.
I'll restate in plain english what logical piece you and Tracy keep avoiding: What is wrong with current govt power to investigate child abuse?
If you got nothing, then you have nothing in your argument. If you have something, then we can argue that. But unless you do, there is nothing more intrusive about investigating a pregnancy than busting in on a family to see if a kid has been abused.
"I'm not a malefactor, I'm a lagomorph"
Maybe we should take things over here:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/tomlinsondouthat/2008/jun/19/social_conser...
and Tracy said to Menlo:
And, someone in the thread suggested the privacy of the mother from prying into medical records - privacy doesn't exist for criminal behavior - ifin I recall.
Hey! You missed the paragraph prior to that:
The point I was getting at earlier, is that at some point, regulation will fall upon the mother and the limit to that regulation will be what harms the child. Any action taken by the mother with the intention of aborting or harming, or the reasonable belief that the action will cause abortion or harm, would become regulated. Isn't that where that would go?
The quote of mine you used was noting that if a mother was considering abortion, and abortion were treated as you wish - like potential child abuse - then there would be no privacy of medical records. Just the accusation:
"I spoke to Mary this morning and she denied being pregnant. You know she is...I'm calling the police. She is probably denying it so that when she gets an abortion she can hide it."
would be enough to allow the police to get access to the medical records to see if Mary were really pregnant.
The idea that the potential for abortion might be treated in the same way as potential child abuse SCARES the hell out of me...why not YOU?
If your analogy were legally possible (which would imply the unborn had been given equal protection of the law by constitutional amendment), we would have already started replacing birth certificates with conception certificates. They would be separate from medical records.
However, whether they admit it or not, I think 98 percent of pro-lifers would be perfectly happy to compromise with a statute to prohibit abortion that exempted women from criminalization.
That's how it was in the 1800's when abortion was first restricted. It had been prohibited largely because it was deemed as a perversion of the medical profession and its whole purpose and mission.
I've long thought that Social Conservativism wins elections.
Up until recently, Social Conservativism was pretty much linked to Fiscal Conservativism as well... to the point where people thought it notable to say something like "Well, I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal".
People were generally Conservative (with what that entailed) or Liberal (with what that entailed).
But, recently, there was a big movement toward "Socially Conservative/Fiscally Liberal" which left folks who said stuff like "Well, I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal" out in the cold.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire