Redstate

That carry the pill?

Do you really think this is going to cause many to stop shopping at wallmart, especially since for many in the heartland, it is one of the few one-stop shops they are able to go to.

I don't really think this decision will affect them financially.

And I go to a doctor who won't prescribe them.

I think the only thing I'll add is that the next jackass that makes some insinuation or accusation that I'm using my position at RedState to protect or help my client can either 1) go play in traffic or 2) take a long walk off a short pier.

You don't like the abortion pill? DON'T BUY IT. Free market economy, baby. Let them sell what they want.

and can choose what they would like to sell.  If enough of their customers are upset about this and stop shopping their, I bet they change their tune.  I would, however, bet that there is quite a demand for these pills by the WalMart clientel, otherwise the decision would be a no brainer.

DON'T USE IT.  Just don't get in the way of my high.

I thought it odd that two states can require all pharmacies to carry any product, much less this one.  Not that I know anything about the pharmacy industry, but is it somehow mandated by law that pharmacies stock say, Oxycontin?

I think in response all red states should require that pharmacies sell AR-15 assault rifles with 40-round extended magazines and collapsable stocks.  Also, minors should be allowed to buy them without parental consent.

I guess money trumps integrity and principles after all.  I was hoping Walmart'll stand firm and not crave in.  Boy I was wrong.  Maybe the Crunchies are right....Walmart's evil!

THEN DON'T COMMIT IT. Free society, baby.

It's disappointing that a company can be forced to stock or a pharmacist dispense a product that they find morally objectionable.

If we ever have a draft, are we going to see a day where Quakers will be forced to the battlefield?

THEN DON'T NOT BAN THEM.  The pile is lonely.

implications regarding businesses' rights to determine what they will do as a business, and the state's ability to impose on that.

With Walmart caving, it appears that issue won't be tested.  I wish Walmart would have stuck to its guns.  

Wal-Mart should stock whatever Wal-Mart wants to stock.

If you want to buy something that Wal-Mart doesn't carry, go shop somewhere else.

I rarely shop at Wal-Mart, not because I have a problem with how they do business, but because I do have a problem waiting in a line 10 carts deep when over half the registers are closed. But that is MY choice as a consumer. If you like Wal-Mart, go ahead and shop there.

What is so hard about the concept of "consumer choice" to these people? Why can't they go to K-Mart or CVS or Walgreens?

thought it was their business and mandated that Walmart had to carry these drugs.

I think a business should be able to determine for itself what products it will or will not carry, and if a person just has to have the plan B pills, then they can choose to go to a pharmacy that carries them.

My point was that with the caving of Walmart to the demands to carry the pills, we are unlikely to see anyone go to court over the issue of the state mandating the drugs Walmart or any other business must carry.

That's sort of what I keep coming back to as well.  I can predict stock responses like "because Wal-Mart caused the mom-and-pop pharmacy to go out of business", but trust me, Rite-Aid and CVS put mom and pop out of business long before Wal-Mart.

If Wal-Mart runs out of Plan-B in MA or IL, do they get fined or something?

small towns in Montana have only one pharmacy (and it probably isn't a chain), Mass isn't any less rural than NH, and my teeny tiny town has two pharmacies across the street from each other, and three just across the town line (none of which is a Walmart-one is mom and pop, the others are all chains).

I seriously doubt that anyone in Massachussettes was totally unable to get the scrip filled when Walmart said they didn't have it.

Forcing pharmacies to stock a certain product is ridiculous IMO. I think Wal-Mart should have stuck to their guns (so to speak)

But if I was forced to stock this product I would... at $300.00 dollars per bottle!

The groups, including the National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood and the National Council of Women's Organizations, said Wal-Mart did not have the right to overrule a doctor's prescription of emergency contraception for a woman.

Seeing that Wal-Mart is "the country's only major pharmacy chain not selling it", those hatehags could have gone to ANY other pharmacy in town.  No one overrode their doctor's prescription.  

Connecticut added pressure Thursday when Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the insurance plan for 188,000 state employees and retirees should no longer cover prescriptions at Wal-Mart unless the retail giant agrees to stock emergency contraception pills.

The medical needs of how many were threatened over one murder pill?  Where is the outrage?

Not to the person I'm replying to, but to the neat row of replies above me.

Any town big enough to have a Wal-Mart probably has at least one chain pharmacy, at least one mom & pop drugstore, and more than likely has grocery store that fills prescriptions.

If Wal-Mart doesn't stock it, there are plenty of other places to go. The "some towns only have a Wal-Mart" argument is only used by people who are completely ignorant of small town America.

So if I want a product that isn't stocked, should I fill out a request form or do I contact my legislature?

many Quakers served as medics in WWII--they did not carry weapons, but wounded soldiers were sure glad to see them.

In WWI, the Americans Friends Service Committee had its origins. Its members drove ambulances.

I know it's Friday, but you know that's not what he meant.

have them sue Walmart at the same time you ask your legislature to mandate the said item be carried in the store closest to your home.

Maybe I can get them to sue the city of San Francisco into letting me buy a gun...oh wait, of course not.

Sorry.. "to the battlefield to shoot at enemy du jour".

It doesn't matter if it's Redcoats, Confederates, Spaniards, Mexicans, Germans, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, assorted Muslim jihadists, etc...

That seems like an odd label. Whom are those people hating? No offense meant by that, I just don't care for baseless namecalling, even in emotionally charged situations.

> "Seeing that Wal-Mart is "the country's only major pharmacy chain not selling it", those hatehags could have gone to ANY other pharmacy in town.  No one overrode their doctor's prescription."

I think the concern is that if other companies follow suit, then people in a particular area would not have access to a particular prescription. Like it or not, that prescription is currently legal.

> "On one side, you have the majority of people who actually shop at Wal-Mart. On the other side, you have the pro-abortion lobby, the ACLU, and the liberal elites - the same people who try to keep Wal-Mart out of their towns and communities, and wish that no one would shop there."

This isn't a dig at you, but to be fair, I don't think you can accurately split the argument on this issue into those two sides -- the "majority of people" vs. "pro-choice, ACLU-card-carrying, liberal elites". Plenty of middle- and lower-class liberals shop at Wal-Mart, and plenty of well-off folks who are die-hard anti-abortionists would sooner die than step foot in a Wal-Mart or let one such store into their posh burbs.

And I'm not sure I agree that "everyone else is doing it" in terms of caving in to the pro-choice left (e.g., the whole South Dakota thing). Those on left generally feel just the opposite, actually. Personally, I think things just go back and forth, averaging out. It's just a matter of perspective.

Anyway, I'm just stating my opinions, and they are not meant as an accusation, so please don't take offense.

Regarding going to other pharmacies, my guess would be that, in some areas -- small, religious communities, for example -- all the pharmacies might (eventually) try to follow Wal-Mart's lead. Whereas some would see that as a good thing, the action would nonetheless keep people from being able to purchase a drug that (like it or not) happens to be legal at the present time.

So this was maybe just an attempt to nip such a situation in the bud, no?

I choose by quality, not by political belief.

And I shop where I can find the lowest prices and good service, not by what they stock.

But maybe i'm wierd.

keep people from being able to purchase a drug that (like it or not) happens to be legal at the present time.

I especially like referring to the substance as a "drug." That makes it sound so, you know, all medical and stuff.

Remind me again: what disease does this, erm, substance alleviate and/or cure?

Not sure what your point is. But if you'd like to call it a "murder pill" to express your dissatisfaction with it, go ahead. I choose to call it a drug, because that's what it is, just like aspirin or birth control. Call it what you want, I'll call it what I want.

And if you want to get into semantics, plenty of drugs out there are used to "cure" things that aren't "diseases" -- such as the aforementioned aspirin for headaches.

E-mail Walmart and tell them.  I just let them know I won't be shopping there anymore.

What they need to do now is find Pharmacists who object and will not fill that prescription. There is a law on the books that allow pharmacists to object to fill a prescription.

However, they will go do the list and find one that will.

Wal-Mart should look for those pharmacists that object to fill that type of prescription.

Just a thought...

in a small religious community will stock the product, then that is an opportunity for some mom and pop that wants all that MAP business to open a pharmacy and start selling them.

That is the beauty of capitalism, if there is a hole in the market, some bright person will step in to fill it.

what products it will and won't carry.

I choose to call it a drug, because that's what it is

Jeez. I thought you were just some random Joe, but it turns out you're the one who decides what words mean. Good to have you here. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

or whatever you want to call 'em, Nick.  For policy reasons.  The name is just the window-dressing one chooses to justify the policy choice.

A Real American Hero:  Mr. Word Person

Not only was it Friday, it was a Friday spent judging middle school history day entries--including an oddly incomplete one on Sgt. York.

has a Wal-Mart and probably 3 or 4 mom and pops. No chains. The mom and pops stay in business because they offer a number of services (credit, home delivery, faster and friendlier service) and if you've got an insurance plan, there's no cost difference.

and is vehemently opposed to Wal-Mart. Hates them! Says they are ruining the country! Putting the little guy out of business!

But his hardware store it the largest hardware in three counties, and he is doing a huge business. Doesn't seem to be putting HIM out of business!

I guess he just hates the competition!

But as my Uncle Fritz said (before that stupid horse kicked him in the head): what doesn't kill me makes me stronger.

the big opposition the morning after pill. Which is preferable, a spontaneous abortion of a few cells, or a late term abortion at a mill, performed for the profit of Planned Parenthood?

  I know its not a strict either/or propisiton but its seems to me that this pill does lessen the role and power of groups like PP.

No offense, but what's your point? You really want to argue labels? That's just sidestepping the issue.

And I'm being civil, so there's really no need for sarcasm. If you don't agree with me, fine, debate the points. Don't stoop to pettiness.

Yes, good point. In that situation, though, the pharmacy that chooses to offer the pill might find much of the community of that small town boycotting it, making it financially difficult to stay afloat. So again, the people who want the pill are out in the cold.

Note that although I have no moral problems with the pill, I'm not defending or accusing either Wal-Mart or the gov't here. I'm just trying to reason out a possible rationale for the action.

this has apparently escaped your notice, so I'll just bring to your attention once.

You don't make the rules here. You are a guest and not even a highly valued one.

Nick, on the other hand, does make rules here when he's not poking fun at fatuous comments, ergo this exchange.

In the civilized world one does not go into another's house and accuse one's host of pettiness. It sort of guarantees that you won't be invited back. Doing it a second time ensures you'll be bouncing down the driveway.

Democracy is about protecting those not in power (in this case, people needing a certain product) from those who are in power (in this case, a distributor of the product). It's not a clear-cut issue by any means, but I believe the Wal-Mart decision is good from one point of view, at least: I think it favored the rights of the individual over that of corporations -- and conservatism (traditionally, anyway) is all about individual rights.

This situation is kind of messy, of course, in that conservatism also tends to favor a free market...

And here I've been deceived into thinking democracy was about  self-government and all that other stuff in the constitution. I'm going to call my grad school and demand they rebate all my tuition.

And I apologize for the "pettiness" crack. However, all I was doing was offering a potential rationale to a question that someone posted. I wasn't making a value judgment. So, I was understandably curious when I received sarcasm in reponse.

You and others may not like or put much merit in whatever explanation I presented, but I presented it respectfully, so I would hope to get the same in return. Either that, or just ignore it.

...the powerless vs. the powerful being one of them. Is that not the case?

That's not a rhetorical question -- I know mine isn't the point of view on the matter, so if you have another perspective, I'm open to hearing it if you want to share.

it is about the rule of law. It is about being able to receive justice without fear or favor, regardless of your station in life.

The Gorean 'people vs. the powerful' is nothing but cheap class warfare and the assumption that 'the people' need constant protection and that the powerful are evil.

I am against abortion, but I never saw a problem with the Pill.  All it does is it doesn't allow Fertilization so it isn't anything like abortion.  I find this topic rather funny because it seems to me just like Birth-Control and I dont see many people wanting to ban that.

Sometimes when something is not convenient, people choose simply to not do it.

You are correct in that there is no difference.  The result is the same - life ends.

> "It is about being able to receive justice without fear or favor, regardless of your station in life."

I agree totally. The "regardless of your station in life" statement says it all -- equality.

There are many definitions for democracy, but the ones I prefer are the following:

• The practice of the principle of equality of rights, opportunity, and treatment.
  
• The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Both of those definitions would seem to go along with your first statement about equality of justice. The means, to me anyway, not letting the powerful step on the powerless.

I don't mean to imply that the powerful are necessarily evil, but it is easier for them to impose their will on those with less power. That's what power is, after all. If a democracy is to ensure equality, then, that means making sure that the powerless have the same opportunities/freedoms/etc. as the powerful.

Well, that's the way I see it, anyway.

Democracy is about protecting those not in power

Democracy is about MOB RULE!

A Representative Republic, which is what the US is, is about protecting the minority...among many other things!

It is majority rule. But democracy is all about equality, too -- ensuring that those in the minority or with no power have the same rights/freedoms/opportunities as those in the majority or those with power.

Why, you could KILL someone with one.

Between a condom and taking a drug that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall?

Hope you're not in med school...

don't confuse the two! Our history teachers have done enough of this already.

Democracies eat their own young.  If we have three men and a woman and vote 3-1 to rape her, in a democracy this is fine! It was voted upon and the vote stands.

We are a Republic!  Huge difference!

I'll be damned, you're right -- I may have been confusing some terms here. Color me embarrassed...

I need to do some more research on this.

you haven't answered my question, is it better to do it this way or in a PP abortion mill. Maybe one is convenient and the other is not, but surely you are not suggesting that killing a few cells is exactly the same as killing an almost born baby?

  Or maybe you are, in which I have to respectfully disagree.

is still a fertilized egg.  The method of extermination is simply that - one method vs another.  

I can't say I blame women for not wanting to "suffer" when popping a pill kills just as effectively.  

surely you are not suggesting that killing a few cells is exactly the same as killing an almost born baby?

What happens if those few cells aren't killed?  

I don't mean any offense with this post, and I respect your strong beliefs, but it's still a matter of opinion as to whether life begins at fertilization or not. So, in the absence of an ideal world where people always act responsibly and abortions are not needed, isn't something like this pill somewhat of a compromise that can help to prevent later-term abortions, which arguably MORE people would agree is an ending of life?

I'm not judging your beliefs here, just trying to understand the perspectives involved.

You really want to argue labels? That's just sidestepping the issue.

Yes, I do want to argue labels. Co-opting the language is half the battle for the issue. That's why the people who advocate death call themselves "pro-choice." If they came right out and said they were "pro-death," they would not have as many fans.

It's the same trick the press uses when they call telephone intercepts made in foreign countries "domestic spying." Nobody wants domestic spying. Ask them if they want the NSA listening in on al Qa-eda's phone calls, and they'll say 'yes.'

And so here we have a substance that cures no disease, alleviates no symptoms, but does help advance the cause of death. Naturally, the people who favor death want this substance to be perceived as a medicine of some kind. Who could be against giving people their medicine?

It is true that the term 'drug' can be used more widely than that, but not usually in the vicinity of pharmacists. Drugs that are dispensed by "pharmacists" are usually intended to combat disease or discomfort in some way. The sorts of drugs that are administered specifically to induce death are typically not sold to outpatients in mass-market drug stores.

So I don't think crabbing over the language is either petty, picayune, or beside the point. If the pro-death contingent wants to play games with the language to advance their own propaganda, then I reserve the right to do the same.

We could assuage my concerns, and keep all legal substances legal, if we were to simply forbid co-mingling poisons and death pills with 'medicines' as defined above. You would go to CVS for your blood pressure meds, and the Healthy Death store for the pills to kill your kid, or yourself.

If life never began, it wouldn't need to be ended.

Pill, coathanger, PPH, alley - only the method and place change.  The act remains the same.

or whatever the appropriate legal function is to keep possession of that name.  It will be the place to shop for the people I mentioned above that some took offense to my name for them.

Just like Whole Foods...

The Whole Death Pill Store

I think you're on to something.

You have just tested out of "Fighting for Correct Labels 501".  Excellent thesis.

You tell 'em Nick!

Quality means (to people like me and Augustine it would seem) that you feel comfortable with a doctor.

My doctor prays daily for each of his patients by name (a fact I learned by being friends with the man before he was my doctor).  He's in a church mens group I go to.  What does that have to do with quality?

Simple.  I trust this man with my life, and trust him to do what is right.  In my mind that is quality.  I'd rather have a doctor that shoots straight and really (deeply) cares about my health than a doctor who has a reputation for being "the best".  The ideal doctor I'm describing has a passion to learn and the humility to say, "I don't know, but I'll refer you to someone who does".

Augustine seems to have a doctor that shares his values.  That shouldn't seem odd to you if you really ponder it.  (And why would that rule out that his doctor or mine is superior in terms of skill?)

go for your "truth in pills" idea, but at least your idea is honest.

boycott a store for selling products they don't like?  

Frankly, a business can choose to sell whatever the heck it wants as long as it is legal, they should also be able to opt out of selling whatever the heck it wants, even if it is legal, and some people might want the item.

If people choose to Boycott, and a store chooses to not sell an item, then they can, and those who think they need the drug will either have to be more careful, or get their drugs elsewhere, but I am not convinced that a MAP is a neccessary medication, nor am I convinced that the lack of a pill would be a life or death situation for the person who wants it.  

I think businesses should be able to carry what they want to carry based on what they think will help them make a proffit, and the state has no business mandating this.

socialists?

The constitution is meant to protect people's rights from government interference-not from private entities.

it is all about intent.

You still intend to kill a human life.

So it is the moral issue here that bothers me.

the decision-making process for any business in such political circumstances should be crystal clear: stick with your friends, customers, and employees.

 Don't expect a business to make decisions based on political ideology. Wal-Mart, I don't think, has ever claimed to be a "pro-life corporation". That they previously did not stock the product in question surely had more to do with the net value to Wal-Mart's bottom line. In the face of lawsuits, their math adds up differently. That's it - they aren't "evil" as one commenter above (perhaps jokingly) pondered.

Instead, the store has decided to cave to the pro-abortion left. Their reason? Why, everyone else is doing it.

 Again, characterizing this as a cave in just isn't accurate. If fighting the lawsuits and pursuing remedy in court were seen by Wal-Mart as producing a stronger bottom line then that's what they'd be doing. It's a safe bet that if the government was pressuring them to remove a profitable product or product line they'd be putting up a stronger fight. In this instance the pressure is to stock a product - a negligible increase in operating expenses associated with procurement and stocking plus a negligible increase in revenue from sales but avoidance of costly litigation and public controversy all adds up to a fairly no brainer decision.

 It's also a safe bet that Wal-Mart's competition is just as dissappointed in this decision - another point of differentiation eliminated means even more pressure to compete with Wal-Mart on price (near impossible) or service.

 Don't get all down on Wal-Mart. Where the concern is that the end result of government meddling causes companies to make decisions they wouldn't have otherwise, then fight the problem where it begins, by stopping it at the government intervention level. Where the concern is that increased availability of objectionable product will result in increased usage of said product (and therefore as many believe the termination of unborn humans), then fight that problem where it begins too - on the demand side. Persuade people to no longer use the product, and then what Wal-Mart does or doesn't stock (or what state governments unjustly demand them to stock) becomes moot. Until then, there will continue to be plenty of supply for what people want - and BTW, even if the persuasion process is bypassed by making said product illegal, such product will still be widely available given a demand...

With all due respect (seriously), you honestly think people just want other people to die? You think that pro-choice people LIKE abortions? What possible reason could they have for such enjoyment?

The other perspective is that maybe this "pro-death" contingent, as you call them, aren't fighting FOR abortions, but fighting for people's right to choose. Another point of view is that many people (yes, many), like it or not, simply don't consider a day-old fertilized egg to be "alive".

You have every right to go and co-opt language and labels for your own use, and then use those labels to demonize others -- in this case, pro-choice folks. People, as you say, do it all the time. PETA people, for example, label animal researchers as "vivisectionists" to give them a grizzly image. Big business and many conservatives label environmentalists as tree-huggers to ridicule them and minimize their image. Moderate republicans are labeled RINOs in an attempt to show they're not real Republicans.

However, even though you have the right to do so, that doesn't mean you're right IN doing so. You can say that pro-choice people are pro-death, for example, and the negativity of that phrase will give your argument strength if people don't examine it with an objective eye. If you listen to the argument from the other side, though -- and listen to it objectively -- I think you'll find that no one is saying that abortion is good. Rather, the fight is for a person's right to choose.

You may not agree with that, and you're free to rally against it, obviously. Nor am I attempting to criticize you in any way. However, I would suggest that maybe you put emotion aside for a bit and examine your labels objectively. Some of them may be accurate, but -- at least from my point of view -- many of them seem to be coming from a skewed view of the "other" side.

Again, no offense is meant by this, I'm just offering my opinions, so I'd appreciate the same from any responses.

As usually happens in abortion debates, the question has gotten down to the fundamental one: When does life begin? You think it begins at fertilization. I respect that, but disagree. No amount of debate or evidence is going to sway the other person. It's just a matter of opinion.

The question still remains, though, as to why the pill can't work as something of a compromise, as mentioned earlier, in a less-than-ideal world.

My apologies for posting again, but I really wanted to address this issue more fully, because I think it warrants discussion.

> That's why the people who advocate death call themselves "pro-choice." If they came right out and said they were "pro-death"...

That's just your point of view that they are pro-death, though. You have the perception that pro-choice people want all fetuses dead for some reason, and so you label them as the pro-death squad. There's another reality out there, though, in which pro-choice people dislike abortion (who would enjoy it, really?) but feel that a person's right to choose is primary. So although you feel that they are using the label "pro-choice" to cover their attempts to go out and stomp out life, there's a chance your pro-death label may be inaccurate. I know for a fact it is, actually, but I know you have no reason to take my word for it, so I won't ask you to.

I would suggest it might be useful to examine what led you to have such a view, though. That's one of the reasons I come to this group. I have different opinions than many folks here, but many of them post intelligent counterarguments that cause me at least to re-examine my views.

> It's the same trick the press uses when they call telephone intercepts made in foreign countries "domestic spying." Nobody wants domestic spying. Ask them if they want the NSA listening in on al Qa-eda's phone calls, and they'll say 'yes.'

But maybe the press labeled it what they did because that was an accurate label. Maybe not. It's a possibility, though. At any rate, the White House did exactly what you are accusing the press of, though, by RE-labeling it "terrorist surveillance". Who could possibly be against such a thing? No one.

Is that an accurate label, though, or one designed simply to recover face and to get more people in favor it? (Interestingly, that's just what you're accusing the pro-choice folks of doing in the adoption of the label "pro-choice"....) Could be either one. Personally, I'm leaning toward the latter, but I'm willing to wait until more evidence is gathered.

The point is that when getting into a labels argument, one should also examine the basis of their own labels -- not just those of the other side.

They disagree.

Having read the thing a couple of times, you know, to bash Mr. Bush, I don't recall anything that specifies a private entity is entitled to do anything to a minority that the government can't.

I see a lot of "No person shall be...." and no "...except by a private entity."

But they're not necessarily MY compadres, and I don't think a few people speak for the majority of pro-choicers. Not that I've heard, anyway.

However, I THINK you might be misinterpreting the content of the link you sent. Or I'm mis-stating my position. Either way, I read through some of the related comments in that blog, and although it may sound (from the perspective of an opposing viewpoint) as if the posters are saying that abortion is a grand old thing, they're not saying that it's good thing that a fetus is being destroyed. Rather, I THINK they're looking further down the road, weighing the life and future of the mother and the future life of an unwanted child, and suggesting that it might be better for all involved if the fetus were terminated.

Obviously, if you believe that life begins at conception, then that's an atrocious act. If you believe that life begins some time later, though, then the perception is that it would be worse to let the fetus grow into a life, given the impact on the mother and that it's not wanted.

So you've definitely given me food for thought, but I don't think that link you sent is indication of a desire on the part of pro-choicers to kill fetuses, but rather of a strong desire to protect both the quality of the mother's life and that of the potential child (by not letting it come to life in a bad family situation).

My interpretation, anyway. Regardless, like I said, one person, though outspoken, doesn't speak for all of us.

Careful Nick - tactics intended to grab particular emotions may seem to make great partisan sense, but can prove to be a double-edged sword.  I think you realized this in emotional, knee-jerk response that many Americans displayed in reaction to the "news" that "Arabs" (of "terrorist" fame) may end up "owning" American ports.  Fortunately that problem didn't affect the clear thinkers here at RS.

Co-opting the language is fair enough if you want to go ahead with it on a purely partisan basis, but I presume it's just a strategic/tactical decision that still leaves some room for rational discussion with the likes of guys like den Beste and other different-thinking Critters.

I prefer the painful process of working through issues, but maybe that's just what I get from my Fogged Vision?  In this case, it seems to me we are working through a spectrum of difficult choices I have mentioned elsewhere, from

i) the venerable practices of infanticide and child abandoment (to which by legend we owe the founding of Rome, the adopted home of the RCC) (both still much in practice around the world),

ii) medical operations to kill and remove growing babies from their mothers' wombs,

iii) the "kill my future baby by preventing uterine attachment" pill,

iv) requiring all women, once an ova is fertilized, to carry the infant to term - in which case we need to discuss how to ensure healthy children are born and who (adoptive parents, unwed/teenage/indigent mothers, taxpayers, the couple if there is one, or relatives) will bear to the costs of raising healthy children - and

iv) the role of abstinence and contraception in avoiding unwanted pregancies in the first place.  As the great Satan Hilary noted last year, "7% of American women who do not use contraception account for 53% of all unintended pregnancies".

As you know, "the pill" finally became legal in Japan 5 years ago (only after a furor after Viagra was approved), and baby killing by abortion remains the prevalent method of "birth control" - use of hormonal contraceptives being seen as "unnatural" by most women and burdened by requirements of quarterly pelvic exams.

I share concerns about demographics, as I noted before.  If we want more babies, I think part of the analysis should be whom we ant to have them.

Anyway, all this thinking makes my head hurt. I guess I need either some of that Acme Vision Defogger that you use or a good pair of blinders.  Or failing that, a new drug.

Your friendly alien, TT

If you believe that once the sperm meets the egg it is life then you must be against "test tube babies" because thousands of babies die just to save 1.

You better go start adopting those fertilized eggs

you have the perception that pro-choice people want all fetuses dead for some reason

I don't think their position has much to do with fetuses. It has to do with death. You'll find most of the same people coming down favorably on the side of euthanasia; on what they call "assisted suicide;" and so on. I doubt that the procedures themselves are all that fascinating. I think it has to do with 'death' in the abstract.

A strain of death-worship is a durable thread in the fabric of human history. There have always been death cults, goddesses of death, even whole societies that elevated death to a kind of public sacrament involving blood sacrifice rituals.

Why ask why? It's just there. It will always be there. The influence of such cults rises and falls over time, but they never really go away. Some fraction of the population is just fascinated by death. They see it as a force of Nature or something.

What does a death cult look like when one surfaces in a sea of secular humanism? I suggest it looks a lot like NARAL. You're not going to hear anything about goddesses of death from them, but the rest of the noise is about the same. Let's have death. Let's make death into a sacrament. Let's make it so that people can choose death. The more death, the better.

That's what I think is going on. It's your basic primeval death cult wearing a secular humanism suit.

The point is that when getting into a labels argument, one should also examine the basis of their own labels -- not just those of the other side.

Precisely. Which is why I got on your case when you pretended that your labels weren't labels... mine were labels, but yours were just "the way things are."

If you now agree that your use of the term "drug" was a form of labelling designed to make distribution of a death-causing substance by pharmacsists sound innocuous or even desireable, then I will get off your case.

 This is a fascinating comment to me from a couple different angles...

 The other day someone posted a diary asking this loaded question about why this one group of (religious) people wanted to force their beliefs on him/her. And it was way too late to respond but my gut instinct was to ask the poster to justify the question itself - demonstrate in what manner they were being forced to adopt the religious beliefs of the group of people she was questioning? I don't see any Christian re-adjustment camps were adults are being coerced into attending at gunpoint. I don't see any requirement of being able to recite the Ten Commandments prior to getting a driver's license. In fact about the most "forceful" example of being asked to adopt some shred of a belief system would be swearing on a bible in court, but unless I'm mistaken even that can be changed for some kind of substitute oath. So in fact the question was so much a distortion of reality as to be absurd.

 Now I read your comment and it strikes me as a remarkable parallel to the predominant feeling of most truely "anti-religious" persons - not those who simply choose not to practice a religion and leave others to do as they wish, but persons who are vehemantly or let's say militantly athiest. Their feeling could be just as succinctly stated, that Christians are your basic primeval big-man-in-the-sky worship cult. And hey, man-in-the-sky worship is a "durable thread in the fabric of human history". That in fact, "some fraction of the population is just fascinated by big sky men. They see it as a force of Superstition or something."

 I always get perturbed by militant athiests because they so grossly mischaracterize the group of people they have great differences with in terms of belief, values, and so forth. And it's so incredibly counterproductive to assign such undesirable traits as "primeval", "cult", etc - at least if they ever want any chance of persuading their assumed opposition to at least respect their own viewpoint, if not concur. Instead they just keep pushing them away and creating a larger gap.

 Of course, that's their right, and all of ours as well. On the other hand, you convert more viewpoints with reason and reconciliation than with flames.

 Having said all this, my obvious point is that, in my opinion and respectfully, characterizing your opposition the way you did is essentially false and counterproductive. Do you honestly believe people who argue for legal abortion, assisted suicide, etc are fundamentally the same as a medieval death cult who sees the termination of life as a "sacrament" and who measures their overall success by number of lived ended? I think even lumping all those different issues together is dangerous because there seems to be a fair number of conservative and/or Christian people who for example believe abortion should be illegal in most or all cases but assisted suicide should be legal in some cases.

 Finally, the risk of labelling is that it ultimately distorts the core issue away from where it needs to be in order to effectively argue a point of view. "Pro-life", "Pro-choice", "Culture of life", and "Culture of death" are so inadequate as tools to express the problem at hand, well, they lead to side arguments that get nowhere fast - "you just want to kill everyone, you death cultist!"... "oh yeah? You want to keep everyone alive even if they're a braindead vegetable, you religious freak!".

 The thing I've gleaned the most in reading some of these sites in the past few months is a much better understanding of the two sides of the abortion debate. I think it's far too simplistic and just plain incorrect for the pro-choice side to characterize the pro-life side as a bunch of religious zealots trying to force everyone to believe what they do. It's equally simplistic (and incorrect) for the pro-life side to characterize the pro-choice side as death mongerers who can't wait to praise Nature for chalking up another dead baby. Again IMO, they both do a disservice to their sides to the extent they repeat these mis-characterizations.

Do you honestly believe people who argue for legal abortion, assisted suicide, etc are fundamentally the same as a medieval death cult who sees the termination of life as a "sacrament" and who measures their overall success by number of lived ended?

I'm not sure what I think about that yet. At this point I'm still toying with it. I consider the hypothesis promising.

I do not share your belief that the goal of political discourse in forums such as this is necessarily to persuade those who are far from my position to take up mine. While there do exist people who are so persuadable, I do not particularly value such people as political allies. If I can persuade someone this way, then the next guy can persuade them that way. To heck with them; far more reliable political allies are numerous and available. These are people whose fundamental assumptions about how the world works will eventually lead them to conservatism. Most such people already know they are conservatives and will self-identify as such. The others are almost always young, and are congenital conservatives whose political thinking has not really developed beyond conforming to peer pressure and absorbing the influence of authority figures such as teachers and professors. They will spout all manner of liberal nonsense, because that is what was poured into them and it is virtually all they have ever heard. But I don't need to persuade them. When they hear what they truly believe inside, they will recognize it. Rush Limbaugh works that aisle very well. He certainly needs no help from me.

As for the non-persuadables — the congenital liberals — they are basically of two kinds. Some of them come here for good-natured give-and-take with The Other Guys. They do it for fun. They know they won't persuade anybody of anything, and we'd fall out of our chairs if we persuaded them. But if they make themselves fun to have around, they are welcome to stay.

Others need more than anything else to be poked in the eyes with sticks. This is a Republican blog. It says so on the door. We are here to iron out differences and fashion common causes among people who may have differences, but are at least on the same planet politically. People who arrive from a totally different political planet are annoying at minimum and disruptive at worst.

Such was the recent visitor who penned the diary you referenced. Although claiming to be here to receive such wisdom as we might impart to convice her of our position, she was in fact as persuadable as a rock... a fact which her subsequent behavior confirmed. Since I have been doing this online for longer than some people in this forum have been alive, I would have bet the farm after the first note that this would be the case. And so I set out from the very beginning to poke her in the eyes with sticks.

When I started, there were but three replies. By the time I finished my editing and hit the 'post' button, I was #58 in the thread.

So how to poke this woman in the eyes? Well, I started with crafting an anti-abortion argument which relied in no way upon anything religious. But then I had an inspiration: let's make her position the one grounded in faith! What better way to plunge a sharp object into her other eye! Hence the Aztec blood sacrifices that made their way into that note.

But you know, the more I thought about it, the more I wondered whether I'd stumbled onto something useful. Death cults really have been around forever, and they've appeared in virtually all societies. Why should ours be exempt? And if a death cult did appear in the modern United States, what would it look like? An abortion lobby is not far off the mark.

And so you may see this idea again as I refine it.

I agree with you that calling someone an unwitting member of a death cult will not endear them to me. Or persuade them to my position. However, if experience tells me that the person is unpersuadable anyway... a congenital liberal of type Ongoing Pain To Have Around, I will not care about that. Then I will care about sharpening the spear, and encouraging others to copy it and sharpen it some more, so that we can all throw it around the water cooler at work.

I think it's far too simplistic and just plain incorrect for the pro-choice side to characterize the pro-life side as a bunch of religious zealots trying to force everyone to believe what they do. It's equally simplistic (and incorrect) for the pro-life side to characterize the pro-choice side as death mongerers who can't wait to praise Nature for chalking up another dead baby.

What are you going to do, fashion some Universal Compromise that we can all sit around while we sing Kumbaya? What, beat the babies to within an inch of their lives, but let them live?

This isn't about finding agreement. Many, many issues are about out-organizing, out-planning, and out-fundraising The Other Guys so as to render them impotent as a cultural force. And that's really all that can be done with them. Because everything they know is wrong, and all their policy prescriptions are mistakes. Hence the Republican blog. We're not here to debate the liberals. We're here to beat them in the elections.

I appreciate your point of view, but in my case, and in several others', I think you're misperceiving what you see as the opposition. Speaking for myself, yes, I am in favor of legal abortion and, in some cases, of euthanasia. I'm guessing Schiavo was on your mind when you used that word, so I'll just say that, yes, I supported the removal of her feeding tube.

However, it's not because I wanted her dead, or because I get off on the thought of killing someone. Rather, as I've stated in my previous messages, the issue is not one of death, but of dignity and quality of life. Schiavo was brain-dead -- she had no quality of life, and it was undignifying to keep her on life support. Opponents to such a view would say, I'm sure, "Who am I (figuratively speaking) to play God by removing her tube?" I would answer, "Who are you (figuratively) to play God by keeping her alive unnaturally?"

I would dare say that anyone who fought for her tube removal feels the same. With due respect, I simply cannot grasp your description of a cult of death worshippers in our society who are fighting for abortion and euthanasia because they get their kicks off it. Sure, there were such cults in the past. And there may be small pockets of actual cults here and there who do such things. But to characterize the pro-choice movement as such a cult borders on conspiracy theory, reminiscent of modern legends of the Illuminati. Plus, if that were the case, why would many of those same people be fighting AGAINST the death penalty? And, in the case of abortion, the majority of pro-choicers don't see as fetus as alive -- so how would "killing" one satisfy their death lust?

All I can do right now is say that, from my point of view, I think your outrage toward the practice of abortion has perhaps led you to focus incorrectly on what pro-choicers are supporting and why they are doing so. It's not a desire to "kill", but rather is a desire to preserve quality of life. You won't agree that their actions will result in such an outcome, I'm sure, but that's just your belief -- a belief shared by many but not by everyone.

Again, as this board has caused me to do many times, you might find it an interesting exercise to re-examine what led you to have certain opinions or conclusions. In my own experience, it's not always objective evidence that has led me to have this or that judgment, but is sometimes instead me simply looking for things that confirm my particular worldview, and ignoring those things that disconfirm it.

No, you're right, I purposely used the labels I did to counter what I saw as your mis-labeling of pro-choice-related issues.

However, I didn't use "drug" as a label. Seriously. It's a generic word used to describe a bunch of things. Syrup of Ipecac just makes you throw up, and it's a drug. To me, and probably many others, "drug" is a fairly neutral term. If I had wanted to gild the pill, I'd have called it "medicine". If I wanted to damn the pill, I'd have called it a "murder pill", as you did. (Or someone did. Apologies if I misremembering that it was you.)

So I purposely used "drug" because my original post was about something entirely tangential to the categorization of the pill. Hence, my initial confusion when you decided to focus on that word rather than on the argument I was presenting.

If you want to keep calling it a "death-dealing substance", that's your option. I would just ask you to be aware that, in doing so, you are using labelling for the exact same reasons of which you accuse me.

Plus, if that were the case, why would many of those same people be fighting AGAINST the death penalty?

If there is in fact a death cult mentality operating (think Jack Kevorkian before you say these people aren't getting their kicks off people dying) it would seem to me that they know the people on death row are on their side whereas the unborn and the infirm are the quintessential helpless victims.

Hope this helps

Those in assisted suicide are willing participants. Plus, again, many pro-choicers don't consider fetuses to be "alive", so where's the thrill in terminating it?

And you can say that Kevorkian and his followers got their kicks off of helping people die, but I doubt that's true. As I've said many many times before, it's not a matter of death, but of choice and quality of life.

I would think that assisted suicide would be supported by conservatives, actually. Conservatism holds individual rights to be primary, and so if a person wants to die, that's their choice. Why should it be anyone else's business?

Do the same people who oppose assisted suicide or "pulling the plug" also oppose "Do Not Resuscitate" orders, out of curiosity?

 Appreciated your reply very much.

I do not share your belief that the goal of political discourse in forums such as this is necessarily to persuade those who are far from my position to take up mine.

 Yes, thats fair enough. I often imagine a site like this somehow working a role as a destination point for "persuadables" - of which I think there are more than you do, but then again I havn't been around these circles nearly as long or as actively as you. But still, I imagine people engaged in discussion saying, well, go look at RedState, they make a very persuasive argument for/against x, y, z, (insert some conservative principle or position). And you know then a seed is planted, or at the very minimum, the seed is one of recognition that, oh - they aren't raving lunatics after all; in fact they sound more mature and rational than all the other people I've been listening to, so maybe there's something there...

Although claiming to be here to receive such wisdom as we might impart to convice her of our position, she was in fact as persuadable as a rock.

 True, and you guys do get a lot of that here!

And if a death cult did appear in the modern United States, what would it look like?

 Well, at least for me to qualify as a "death cult" it would have to be one whose core platform was the ending of human life by whatever means possible as the end goal in and of itself. And they would need to be advocating ritualistic mass suicide, and the coerced termination of persons based not on age or infirmity but by some bizarre but imaginable calculus that says, this person's death will be more pleasing, or the most pleasing, to Nature or some other deity-like entity - one would imagine then that if death was being glorified, then the death of persons in their prime would be the height of "worship". Their adherants would be standing on street corners passing out literature on how best to kill oneself, and they would periodically sacrifice themselves as a combined demonstration/sacrament, with hope that others would follow their example. The holy grail of all these death cultist's efforts would be the ultimate extinction of mankind, and they would advocate reaching that state as being the most noble cause for humanity - take ourselves out of the universe, end all suffering, war, evil, and so forth by simply not playing "the game" anymore, so to speak.

 I'm sure someone could draw up a different but similar vision for our hypothetical death cult, but the very phrase does beget this sort of concept, and I don't believe anything in America or the world comes even close to qualifying. The Nazi movement had death on their minds perhaps more than any other group but even they weren't glorifying death per se. They wanted a specific end state that they could thought they could achieve only by killing Jews.

Then I will care about sharpening the spear, and encouraging others to copy it and sharpen it some more, so that we can all throw it around the water cooler at work.

 I understand, I'll try to stop butting in between you and the trespassing "wildlife"  ;)

What are you going to do, fashion some Universal Compromise that we can all sit around while we sing Kumbaya?

<...>

We're not here to debate the liberals. We're here to beat them in the elections.

 Well, I wouldnt say proverbial hand holding and singing is going to solve all our problems. And I appreciate the calm reminder of the point of the site. Still, it's hard to see how simply winning elections will ultimately cure the problem. We can illegalize the objectionable behaviour but until you convince people that mere illegality isn't the only reason they shouldn't engage in the behaviour then it will continue, muted perhaps but ever present.

 Perhaps what I'm saying is fight the battle on both sides as you never know how many lurkers are of the persuadable variety, although I realize this site is geared more toward one side of the effort.

 Thanks again!

to qualify as a "death cult" it would have to be one whose core platform was the ending of human life by whatever means possible as the end goal in and of itself.

I think that's overcooking it. Not even the Aztecs did that, and they practiced ritual blood sacrifice.

To qualify as a "death cult," it seems to me that the members need only want to glorify death. It doesn't mean they want to kill everyone right now. And it certainly doesn't mean that they want to kill specific people, such as The Jooz. That's a totally different thing altogether. Death cultists just want some rituals out there that remind people that Death is out there, and that it's Kewl.

You really had to be there to see this to understand it: The day the Supreme Court issued the final-final-SuperFinal ruling in the Schiavo matter, Alan Colmes confronted some guest on the Hannity & Colmes show with one of those "So how do you feel about that" questions. It was only there for five or ten seconds, but in that extended instant there was a glee on his face that was like a peek at Evil Incarnate. No matter what views one might have had on the matter, reacting gleefully to the news that someone was going to be put to death is a very creepy thing to do. I could see people saying, "Well, it's for the best," or "It's too bad, but she's probably better off." But glee? That's weird. That's taking joy in the news of human death. And not because the person was hated, or deserved it. Strictly because death — as a force, as a desired outcome — had won a Great Victory today. Sorry, I don't want that in my society.

muted perhaps but ever present

Of course. Neither laws nor social taboos ever achieve perfection. We will always have some murderers and robbers no matter how many laws we pass. The best we humans can do is keep these things down to a dull roar.

Dr Jack Kevorkian! I got so tired of hearing people say, "If they choose to die, we should let them.  Who are we to tell them they have to live in pain."

While half the people he helped to die were not IN pain.

The next step down that road is mercy killing, and then the state deciding who's life is not worthy of life.

again!

Neither laws nor social taboos ever achieve perfection. We will always have some murderers and robbers no matter how many laws we pass. The best we humans can do is keep these things down to a dull roar.

Amen.  So why do you want to look for death cults everywhere so you can slay them at the water cooler?  Why not admit that there are difficult issues involved and then insist that everyone address them honestly, or at least try to push for common ground where possible - like that laid our by Hilary last year?  Isn't there some fruitful common ground that can be explored to avoid atrocities like this?

http://www.local6.com/news/7696594/detail.html

The baby-killing that abortion represents truly is appalling.  What I also find appalling is not one really wants to talk about how to cut it way back - through abstinence, contraception (maybe even mandatory in some cases), faciltating adoption and family support services etc. - but would rather focus their attention on politcally beneficial but facile policies that would make young women carry babies they don't really want (and in some cases didn't even invite).

Is this simply the wrong site for a productive dialogue on baby-killing and supporting, other than for a discussion of whether laws should be established by the legislatures or the courts?

Yours in anguish,

TT

facile policies that would make young women carry babies they don't really want

I don't want to hear about it, Tom. That's crap. In fact it's facile crap. I didn't want to spend two years of my life running around in fatigues hoping nobody would put a bullet in my body, my self. I did it anyway. It was my duty to do that. Remember duties? These were things you owed your society for all the infrastructure that was there when you arrived.

Nobody says the women have to keep and raise those children if they don't want them. But if they get 'drafted' for nine months to perform a 'duty' that society needs done, they should shut up and do it. Gimme gimme gimme whine whine whine; I'm sick of it.

...but I've long been convinced that abortion is one of those issues on which it's futile to seek common ground, because there simply is none. It's just non-negotiable for pro-life people to consider the being in a mother's womb as anything other than a human being entitled to the fullest protections of both law and morality. Notice, I didn't say it's a baby or an infant. But it is indisputably a human being.

People on the pro-choice side non-negotiably deny that this creature in the womb has the full rights of a human being who has been born. They employ all kinds of strategems to mask this denial, many times genuinely seeking "common ground." Some of these include word games: for example, the unborn human is not actually a "human being," or not actually a "baby," or not a "person," and therefore it obviously has not the full set of rights because it can't unambiguously be described with one of those magic words. Other strategems include the instrumental ones like "it's not a fully-protected human unless it can survive outside the mother's womb." This was the trap the Harry Blackmun fell into when writing the Roe decision, and it's putrid because it defines humanness in terms of the current state of medical technology. I can go on and on but I'm not adding anything to a debate that been aired millions of times.

The ultimate point of disagreement is this: is the value of human life intrinsic or instrumental? If you feel one way about it, then full protection of unborn life is simply non-negotiable. If you feel the other way, then it's immoral not to balance other considerations like the welfare and convenience of a distressed mother against the unborn life. There's no common ground here, Tom. It's no good looking for any. We don't have to be uncilivized about this, as so many in the debate are. But we won't be agreeing either, and that's just what it is.

[jaw drops, shakes his head]

Alright; thanks, now there's something (totally unexpected!) that maybe we can run with a little bit.

1.  The theme of duty resonates with me in many ways, including duty to one's family, country, faith and common humanity.  Duty certainly strikes a strong chord in connection with military service, although today it is no longer a duty in the US, but a need that we meet not by conscription but by going to the marketplace for available talent and paying the going rate for the skills and the manpower required.  So we fill that need by asking for volunteers and paying them.
   
2.  I've listened to too alot of strange and jarring music in my day (gagaku, for example), but I'd say that applying the concept of duty to pregnancy and child rearing strikes a totally fresh, discordant and alarming note.  I presume that what you've let unstated is that our society need more babies - conceding the premise, aren't there are a number of approaches that can be taken to address that problem a little less intrusive than making young and foolish (and frequently indigent and strung-out) women do the heavy lifting.  
   
3.  If we see a social need here (maybe "duty" is too strong?), why can't we handle it similar to how we maintain our troop levels - by seeking and paying volunteers?  Wouldn't we simply need to set a subsidy budget sufficient to elicit the needed numbers of healthy babies from the marketplace for mothers?  Oh, and child-rearing funds, to the extent there are insufficient adoptions, I suppose.
   
4.  It seems that this might be something worth considering doing deliberately, now that we're cutting back on the baby subsidies for welfare moms (and rightly so, I think; why should we be subsidizing irresponsibility?).  On the other hand, Nick, doesn't your approach of banning all unborn baby killing (contraception too?) mean that we would use for at least 53% of our new baby pool those 7% of American women who do not use contraception (as Hilary noted)?  From this group, that might mean we end up with alot of expensive preemie and crack-addicted babies.  

Which is the more morally acceptable policy position, and the one that would lead to the wiser use of public funds - baby subsidies to repsonsible mothers or mandatory babies for the foolish?

5.  Did I hear you wrong?  But if they get 'drafted' for nine months to perform a 'duty' that society needs done, they should shut up and do it.  That's what you said, even if I'm not sure I know what you mean.  Do you simply mean that if you're pregnant, that's it - no deferrals or "get out of baby" cards?  

There's alot to be said for forcing young women to take responsibility for their actions, but let's not forget how difficult it can be to find and make the fathers take responsibility for their acts as well.  And don't forget who is going to end up having, and who is going to end up paying, for all of the new babies (unless we change our contraception policies).  And how does personal responsibility inform policy when a woman is raped?

6.  Personally, though, I'm not sure you have the the right set of Critters in mind or the right time in history - we're alot like bonobos in terms of the role sex palys in socoiety and, as I noted earlier, modern child raising is magnitudes more expensive than it is for the Yanomami, and our child death rate is a mere fraction of what it once was.
   
7.  I will not take you too seriously on a duty to have babies, I can't imagine you intend the implications - besides a duty not to go AWOL by killing the unborn baby, are there corrolary duties to enroll for the selective baby service and not to avoid conception if called up?  Will there be a Selective Service, and exemptions and alternate means of service for COs, those in divinity schools etc? And will we have a new Mothers Administration that will look after moms and babies (with a contuining struggle for funding, like the VA)?

Sorry, Nick, but it seems your rocker broke and has flipped you completely off the front porch.  Why don't we brush you off - here, sit down over here - and here's a nice glass of warm milk with a cookie.  Okay, feeling better?  So why don't we talk about contraception instead?

I think blackhedd, although it may be possible on some issues for certain people trained in arcane Eastern arts of self-control (no, not me) (wait - maybe for people who really try) and/or for certain aspects of a problem.

Ever read Hilary Clinton's speech last year on abortion?  There's tons of room for compromise and compromise in that.  The problem on this issue is that the Supreme Court's foray into this area has stifled reasoned discourse and encouraged emotional partisanship.  This is has become one of the classic examples of how our cognitive predilections screw up our ability to reason.  And as reason is what distiguishes us from the beasts, then by God we'd better make sure we're using it.

I appreciate you're trying to be even-handed, I do, even though it's clear you've taken a position (and overgeneralize other views).  In my view there is no simple or easy answer, but lots of room for compromise in recognizing the unborn child killing (or abortion) is undesirable and that we should be doing our best to eliminate it.  There is also lots of room here at RS, even in conceding the position that all unborn babies should have full legal protection, for discussion of what the consequences of that position are likely to be and how to prepare for such results.

Don't know what you've seem of my thoughts on this so far, but some are here, as well as in my response to Nick.

TT

...I think your position is that there are pro-life people in the world and pro-choice people, and we'd better find a way to get along. There's something to that, but usually when people agree to disagree, there is at least a shared recognition on each side of the validity of the other point of view. That will never happen in this case. So there will always be immoderate people on both sides who consider their opponents to be nonhuman monsters with no power to reason clearly, while being amazed to find that these same monsters hold precisely the same view of them. I applaud your good-hearted impulse to bridge this troubled water, Tom, but I still think you're wasting your time. And this by the way leads to the passionately-held conservative view that the whole debate should be fought out legislatively in each community rather than by the Supreme Court.

There's much that I'd like to say in response to your specific points but I wouldn't be saying anything new, and at any rate the preceding paragraph sums up my view of the debate (if not of the issue itself).

Sorry I disagree that we can't work this out politically.  If not now, then someday.  It's only in the States that the discourse is this rancorous - they allow abortion but have MUCH LOWER abortion rates.  

I think that we will get there eventually, and sooner if the Supreme COurt steps out of the way.  And this by the way leads to the passionately-held conservative view that the whole debate should be fought out legislatively in each community rather than by the Supreme Court.  I hope you are not shocked to know that I've held this view myself from the late 70s?  I meant to give you this link to my first post on this diary, which would lead to other places where I discussed the daners of "th eleast dangerous branch";  here it is: http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/3/3/182059/6955/84#84.

If I can't get your comments here on either the debate or the issues, then maybe I'll just have to start another diary, just as an attempt to be a bridge builder - and not to pontificate ;) ...

that the pro-death caucus prefers to believe that we on the pro-life side are merely knuckledraggers who haven't taken the time to think through the ramifications of our position, and if we did, we'd immediately run out to staff abortion clinics across the nation. We, or at least some of us, have 2000 years of philosophy behind our position. Some of it even recent:

65. For a correct moral judgment on euthanasia, in the first place a clear definition is required. Euthanasia in the strict sense is understood to be an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering. "Euthanasia's terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used".[76]

    Euthanasia must be distinguished from the decision to forego so-called "aggressive medical treatment", in other words, medical procedures which no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, either because they are by now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose an excessive burden on the patient and his family. In such situations, when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one can in conscience "refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted".[77] Certainly there is a moral obligation to care for oneself and to allow oneself to be cared for, but this duty must take account of concrete circumstances. It needs to be determined whether the means of treatment available are objectively proportionate to the prospects for improvement. To forego extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death.[78]

...I just don't have anything to add that hasn't been said a million times. For the little that it's worth, I'm doctrinaire pro-life and anti-death penalty.

statement when he signed the McCain anti-degredation (Ann Lander's etiquette) law...

I didn't say that abortion is wrong because society needs babies. What I said was that arguing that abortion must be at least tolerated because people should ever have to do anything they don't want to, is waste material.

I'd say that applying the concept of duty to pregnancy and child rearing strikes a totally fresh, discordant and alarming note.

That's my job. I look for new and exciting places to stick the pigs to make them squeal. Duty: it was so obvious, too. Why didn't we think of it years ago?

We'll ultimately solve the 'numbers' problem with machines. There's little point in wasting time or money on other approaches; might as well cut to the chase. Human females are too valuable to use as incubators of little humans. Machines can do it.

There's alot to be said for forcing young women to take responsibility for their actions, but let's not forget how difficult it can be to find and make the fathers take responsibility for their acts as well.

I see you have been to Famous Apologists School. To defend Behavior A, drag a Wookie on stage and say, "Would you look at at that Wookie?" Such intellectual honestly is rarely encountered outside a political convention.

when a woman is raped?

Now we got dancing Wookies. Two of 'em.

Please... we've all been through all of these arguments a thousand times. Let us not have the M151 Standard Abortion Thread. No one is going to be convinced of anything. No common ground will be found. At the end, we won't all be singing Kumbaya.

What we're going to do over here is organize to win the elections. Then we get to appoint the judges. Then questions like this will be settled by voters instead of elitists in black robes. My guess is that some places will vote to allow abortion in all cases, some will vote to allow them in no cases, and we'll have 48 points in between.

Don't forget, I have a performing arts background. :-)

...last night and I missed Oscar. So I can't really speak to your point. ;-)

Others don't. I, for example, know that many abortion opponents are acting according to their own moral/ethical code, and although I have a different code, I respect yours. Many others on the pro-choice side feel the same.

Of course, there are others on my side who just feel that, yes, anti-abortionists just aren't thinking clearly about the issue. However, to be fair, many on the pro-life side similarly malign those on the pro-choice side, calling them monsters and baby-killers and so on, not realizing that those people are just acting under a different code of morality.

So people on both sides make emotionally charged assumptions about the other side without taking the time to talk with people on that side.

some other S & M? sorry, please don't answer. I do draw lines!! I was happy to see that a large part of the academy didn't break their backs.

In fly-over country

Cinderella Man and Walk the Line rules.

what happens if the pill isn't taken?  Answer that and you have the truth.

Sorry, to pester you Nick, but I missed all of the other standard threads - just made to SDB's and to your N ew Ty pe of T hr ead.  I'm still rarin' to go.

And your protestations to the contrary, I see your rhetoric about death cults and all as an invitation to discussion - or are you being really picky about what pig you're going to stick?  What's wrong with my pig?  Unfair!

And sorry, but I disagree - there is lots to talk about and lots of common ground.  I expect those more fruitful discussion to finally start to happen as Roe and Casey are eroded; this has already gotten Hilary moving in the right direction.  And please don't misunderstand me - I understand fully the horrors of abortion, and sympathize with the views of many here (except for the righteous and hateful venom-spitting) - although people may not be receptive to discussing middle ground, they certainly ought to be prepared to think through the consequences of the policies they profess to desire.  Even you.

It is those consequences that I'm trying to discuss.  That would be new, wouldn't it?  We could call it a "more babies" thread or something.

TT

Given a choice between discussing with you how we might engineer Positive Social Change by forecasting the output of a chaotic system of unimaginable complexity, and discussing with actual Republicans how to defeat at the polls the people who think they can forecast the output of unimaginably complex systems so as to engineer Positive Social Change, I choose the latter.

I do not wish to find common ground. I wish to crush my enemies; to see them driven before me; and to hear the lamentations of their women. It's time you knew.

It's all about us vs. them, standing ground with your comrades, and feeling good from fighting the good fight against the evil foe.  The tide is turning, and we're gonna crush'em like bugs!  Yee haw!

But we don't need to waste our time thinking about where we're going - it''s the journey, man.  And for most of us, God's on our side anyway.  Let's leave the moral dictates to Him, and the programming crap to G'Narr.  

Sounds like a program, but I'm not buying.  I got shortchanged in the groupthink genes.

I'll try not to bother you too much about it.

Tom, you are a congenital liberal. You just cannot let go of planning the world. It seems so obvious to you that the world needs to be planned... designed... engineered.

Humans can do that for small-scale projects. Microsoft is proving that humans can't even do it when the object of their affections is a single sufficiently-complex computer operating system. The notion that humans can plan and design entire societies is ludicrous.

I am perfectly happy to have the citizens of the 50 states vote on how they want this issue resolved. I do not know what the consequences of that will be. This does not make me cavalier. It makes me realistic about my limitations as a human. That you think it would be a useful exercise to have humans try to plan in advance how something as complex as this will turn out, just marks you as one of those folks from the other side of the ditch.

...the fetus eventually turns into a baby, a real person. Before that, it's just cells. Cells with potential, but just cells, with no more life than a houseplant.

Sorry if that sounds harsh to you, but you asked for my opinion. I mean no disrespect to your point of view, but you have your truth, and I have mine.

The MAP works just like any other birth control pill.  

The birth control pill (and, similarly, Deprovera and other hormonal contraceptives) prevents pregnancy by:

1.  Preventing ovulation
   
2.  Thinning the uterine wall (why many women do not menstruate when on hormonal contraceptives). If the woman does ovulate and the egg is fertilized, the pill prevents pregnancy by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall.
   
3.  Thickening the cervical mucas to serve as a barrier to fertilization if the woman does ovulate.

The morning after pill works to accomplish #1 and #2 (if a fertilized egg is already implanted in the uterus, then the MAP is useless).

Thus, I do not understand how anyone who does not oppose the birth control pill would oppose the MAP, as both operate the same way.  Please explain.  If one kills a human life, they both do.