October 18, 2012

Romney on abortion — 2 ads.

Romney's ad:



Obama's response:



That sounds terrible:
“If Roe v. Wade was overturned, Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions, and it came to your desk – would you sign it? ‘Yes’, or ‘no?’”

“Let me say it: I’d be delighted to sign that bill.”
Ban all abortions? Including abortions that would save the life of the mother? Did Romney really say that? The Weekly Standard prints whole context:

QUESTIONER: Hello, my name is AJ. I'm from Millstone, New Jersey. I would all of the candidates to give an answer on this. If hypothetically, Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it? Yes or no?

COOPER: Mayor Giuliani?

GIULIANI: If Congress passed a ban on all abortions throughout the United States?

COOPER: If Roe v. Wade was overturned and Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it, yes or no?

GIULIANI: I probably would not sign it. I would leave it to the states to make that decision.

(APPLAUSE)

I think that that -- the problem with Roe against Wade is that it took the decision away from the states. If Roe against Wade were overturned because it was poorly decided, if the justices decide that, it would them go back to the states, and it would seem to me that that would be the answer.

The answer is that each state would make a different decision. I don't believe, in the circumstance that you asked before, that it should be criminalized. I think that would be a mistake unless we're talking about partial birth abortion or late-term abortion.

I think you should have parental consent. I think we should have access to adoptions instead of abortion. But, ultimately, I think these decisions should be made on a state-by-state basis.

COOPER: Governor Romney?

ROMNEY: I agree with Senator Thompson, which is we should overturn Roe v. Wade and return these issues to the states.

ROMNEY: I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period. That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted.

COOPER: The question is: Would you sign that bill?

ROMNEY: Let me say it. I'd be delighted to sign that bill. But that's not where we are. That's not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific.
That is kind of a weird answer by Romney, and I don't blame the Obama campaign for pulling out that quote. I can see why, fighting for the Republican nomination and pushed and cornered like that, he said "I'd be delighted to sign that bill." Notice that the idea is that we'd be in some hypothetical other America, and if we had arrived there, it would be terrific and delightful, but that's not where we are, so there's no immediate prospect of seeing that bill.

The Romney campaign wants to say, it's not a realistic present-day threat — which is true — and it's not what Romney is really talking about when not pushed and cornered by the formidable Anderson Cooper — which is also true. When free to put his policy in his words, Romney prefers to leave the matter to the state legislatures. Of course, that involves overturning Roe v. Wade, which he's open about. It's an anti-abortion position, though not as anti-abortion as the way it comes out in Obama's ad.

Bottom line: Those who are considering voting for Romney ought to understand exactly how anti-abortion Romney is, but it's up to Romney, not Obama to do that precision work.

246 comments:

1 – 200 of 246   Newer›   Newest»
Christopher in MA said...

Bottom line: Those who are considering voting for Romney ought to understand exactly how anti-abortion Romney is, but it's up to Romney, not Obama to do that precision work.

Conversely, those who are considering voting against Romney ought to understand how utterly miniscule is the chance of any bill overturning RvW reaching his desk.

Romney has a record on abortion. Why bother with idiotic premises with no basis in reality?

Oh, it's the Obama campaign. ZOMG! Mittler wants to sew your lady parts shut and outlaw tampons! Help!

Chip S. said...

I don't blame the Obama campaign for pulling out that quote...

Then I question your ethical standards. If anyone distorted one of your nuanced analyses like that, you'd post complaints about it all day.

Methadras said...

Roe v. Wade will be overturned because it is simply a horrible law.

TosaGuy said...

"Then I question your ethical standards. If anyone distorted one of your nuanced analyses like that, you'd post complaints about it all day."

And we've seen it happen.

Synova said...

It's a Geraldine Ferraro answer about abortion.

Remember what She said?

She was Catholic and Catholics opposed abortion but Roe VS. Wade was the 'law of the land."

That didn't work so well for her.

But it's sort of the same thing. He's separating his personal preferences from what is politically possible.

Also, I don't think there is any merit or honesty in jumping on "all abortions" as meaning anything other than "all elective abortions."

Michael The Magnificent said...

What Chip said.

Ann Althouse said...

"Conversely, those who are considering voting against Romney ought to understand how utterly miniscule is the chance of any bill overturning RvW reaching his desk."

Right. The concern is that he'll appoint Supreme Court justices who will vote to overrule it. It's not something Congress can do.

If the Court ever does, the GOP is going to have a hell of a time, I think.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Baelzar said...

The reason I'm able to hold my nose and vote Republican in most elections is because I don't see their religious agenda as a real threat.

The instant is BECOMES a real threat, then I can no longer defend them and I vote Libertarian.

Considering how squishy Republicans have been on fiscal issues, it won't take much to tip the scales.

Lem said...

I dont think is necessary to attack Althouse to make a point... is it?

Inga said...

That cat's been out of the bag for quite some time. Liberal and many moderate women are aware of where he stands as well as his VP, Ryan.

But IMO, he won't go that far, without strong consensus. He will put his finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing, if the wind is blowing in the right direction, he will sign. I don't think he has a sincere moral conviction regarding abortion, either way.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Obama is spending big money to lie by omission.

Is this presidential? Should this behavior be rewarded?

Dan in Philly said...

Let's be realistic. If RvW were overturned the law would revert to what it was before, that is states would decide on their own, without any action by the president or congress. All the pro-abortion rhetoric has done ever since the ruling was made was mis-represent what would happen if it was ever overturned, and for some reason, even though the truth is quite easy to verify, woman have bought it ever since.

wyo sis said...

It's just another in a long line of desperate Obama distortions.

Lynn Meadows said...

There is no "nuance" here. Romney on one day did say this and it is in context and has said it repeatedly. However, on another day he says something else.

Are you forgetting that his hero-running mate was co-sponsor of legislation that was even more extreme - that could lead to the criminalization of certain birth control methods?

If you vote for this weasel who will say anything to anyone at any time that he perceives to suit his needs and ambitions, then the hell with ya'.

Askance said...

Althouse, are you begging the bias?

Do you really think it is appropriate to say that Romney and his campaign need to explain exactly how anti-abortion Romney is, as opposed to simply explaining his position on abortion, his position on the Roe v. Wade decision and his practical plans to act on those positions?

Every serious candidate of any party is against abortion to some degree -- desiring something less than that every pregnancy be terminated. Every candidate is anti-some-abortions, but only some candidates are depicted that way.

That asked, obviously the ad is vile. In a more functional democracy, such a distortion would be sufficient to shame the people who produced it into abandoning the campaign. The public tolerance for corruption and deceit will obtain both.

Lyssa said...

I don't blame the Obama campaign for pulling out that quote...

I'll have to agree with the professor there. The context doesn't change the meaning of the quote enough to consider it out of bounds, IMO.

I have absolutely no problem with what Romney said, though (other than the fact that he didn't take into account the limited powers of Congress and the 10th Amendment, but that's asking a little much from anyone short of Ron Paul or Antoine Scalia). FWIW, I do think that we'll eventually arrive at that "other America" where we'll scratch our heads over how it was ever allowed.

I'll make no comments on the allegations of hypocrisy from Chip S. and TosaGuy.

I do think that the "Republicans are going to steal your ladyparts" has already jumped the shark, though, and don't expect this to have any impact on anyone who wasn't already voting Obama.

Lynn Meadows said...

Methadras said...
Roe v. Wade will be overturned because it is simply a horrible law."

It isn't a law dummy.

Patrick said...

You cant tell that things are rough for the President when he brings in the abortion issue. He cannot defend his economic record, so he distracts.

Lem said...

If the Court ever does, the GOP is going to have a hell of a time, I think.

I dont think women are as exercised about abortion as they were in the past.

I mean, if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant... I mean are we still living in the pregnancy prevention dark ages of the 70s?

Or is it 2012?

wyo sis said...

"I don't think he has a sincere moral conviction regarding abortion, either way."

It's not obvious. His religious affiliation indicates he has one.

His religion also had a strong statement about obeying and sustaining the law. If he had a realistic chance of signing the bill he describes I believe he would do it.

Sencho said...

Amusing, very amusing.

Romney is quoted as being willing to sign a hypothetical bill that would outlaw all abortion. And this is the latest "don't vote for him, he hates women!" concoction by those stuck between Barrack and a Hard Place.

Meanwhile, Obamacare WILL cut out mammograms and other screening from women below 40 - with indications it'll be pushed back further - for cost reasons. This will lead to higher female mortality, there's no way around that. Yet he's the 'champion of women.'

Orwell approves the doublethink here.

My respect for Professor Althouse has been waning in recent weeks as a growing double standard erases my ability to trust her. Quite the pity, in my opinion, to be losing a formerly quite reasonable mind in the blogosphere.

Patrick said...

And can I just say that if my kids ever use the term "ladyparts" I'm going to slap them and tell them to grow up.

bagoh20 said...

Yes, Romney is much more likely to appoint justices that would overturn it, and do other things to limit the federal power. And, Obama is much more likely to appoint justices that would give more power to the Federal government. That is clear.

So, choose.

Lyssa said...

Baelzar said: The reason I'm able to hold my nose and vote Republican in most elections is because I don't see their religious agenda as a real threat.

Abortion isn't a religious issue, any more than slavery is. It's a human rights issue.

Lem said...

Abortion on demand.. imo... was an artifact of an era long gone.

I could be wrong about that... but thats my opinion and I think I'm right.

Patrick said...

And for the record, that doesn't apply to people like Lyssa, who are quoting others. But please, grow up.

Lynn Meadows said...

Sencho said...
"...Obamacare WILL cut out mammograms and other screening from women below 40 - with indications it'll be pushed back further - for cost reasons."

WTF? Are you crazy? There is nothing anywhere that indicates that other than your imagination and Rush Limbaugh.

Hagar said...

This does not have anything to do with fingers in the air.

For a bill like that to pass Congress, the Muslim Brotherhood would have to have taken over the country and appointed their own Congress first.

Inga said...

Wyo Sis, hard to know where he stands because he flip flopped so dramatically on abortion. He has no credibility on this issue at all.

Saint Croix said...

Romney's position on abortion annoys me because it's so knee jerk. He favors abortion in cases of rape, but he's opposed to emergency birth control. This sort of thing makes me insane. If you support emergency birth control, dummy, then you don't have to do abortion in rape cases.

I wish Republicans would be a little more serious about IUD and the birth control pill potentially terminating zygotes. Do you care? I don't.

And I wish the GOP would focus a bit more on liberals killing the handicapped, on our death statutes, and in general how liberals have defined the unborn as property. I wish the GOP would focus on the homicide issue and separate out the abortions that are homicides from the abortions that are not. That would help a lot.

Lyssa said...

Lynn Meadows said: Roe v. Wade will be overturned because it is simply a horrible law."

It isn't a law dummy.


It isn't a statute. It, like other still valid court decisions, is law. Lawyers call it case law, to be exact.

Dummy.

Lem said...

If abortion on demand were a car... it would have been recalled a long time ago.

MayBee said...

Liberal and many moderate women are aware of where he stands as well as his VP, Ryan.

So do men.

Here's my thing: I'm pro-choice, but I don't agree with abortion until birth.
I don't agree with either party on abortion.

wyo sis said...

His so called flip flops have always had similar caveats.

Drago said...

Lynn: "If you vote for this weasel who will say anything to anyone at any time that he perceives to suit his needs and ambitions, then the hell with ya'."

LOL

Looky here...guess who's the newest bestest oil and gas energy candidate evah?!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444734804578062721764365776.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

gerry said...

There is no "nuance" here. Romney on one day did say this and it is in context and has said it repeatedly. However, on another day he says something else.

Change your Pampers, darling. Then read the entire interview.

FleetUSA said...

I don't see abortion as anywhere on the horizon of this election.

Jobs and the economy must be the first priority of the next administration.

Without that everything else is just dreaming.

Saint Croix said...

If the Court ever does, the GOP is going to have a hell of a time, I think.

Liberals have to run on birth control because they're terrified of abortion.

Dan in Philly said...

Lyssa, "Abortion isn't a religious issue, any more than slavery is. It's a human rights issue."

Human rights advocates didn't end slavery. The big push came from the religious.

bagoh20 said...

You know, if we ever get an openly gay candidate, all this war on women, alpha/beta males stuff is gonna be off limits, so lets get it all out this time.

Patrick said...

Human rights advocates didn't end slavery. The big push came from the religious.

Well, really it came from the Union soldiers.

traditionalguy said...

The moderate position is the Romney acceptance of abortion bans that the States themselves place on females.


But Which State besides Utah would do that? Now that is a binder on their women.

MayBee said...

And just because liberals love to talk about Europe so much, I'll point out that England's Labour, while proposing no specific legislation, has had some secretaries float the idea of limiting abortion to under 12 weeks, because science is making that possible.

clint said...

It's interesting that no one's noticed that Obamacare places the power to effectively ban abortions (except for the rich) in an unelected panel of 15 "experts" who will decide what procedures will and will not be covered by health insurance companies.

If Senate Democrats manage to filibuster the Obamacare repeal, perhaps President Romney should simply appoint fifteen pro-life religious leaders to the IPAB. And see how many Democrats still think it's a good idea to hand over their health care decisions to that panel.

gerry said...

Why are white liberals so racist?

Lyssa said...

Human rights advocates didn't end slavery. The big push came from the religious.

I don't think that changes my point. Religious advocates are often supporters of human rights. My point is that abortion is not wrong because God told us don't do it (the way, say, eating shellfish might be to some), but it is wrong because it takes away the rights of innocent human beings, like slavery.

Patrick said...

Lynn: "If you vote for this weasel who will say anything to anyone at any time that he perceives to suit his needs and ambitions, then the hell with ya'."

I'll assume you're not voting for the President. I'd probably be wrong, but I'll be charitable.

Drago said...

Lynn: "WTF? Are you crazy? There is nothing anywhere that indicates that other than your imagination and Rush Limbaugh."

Yeah, where would anyone get the idea that obama and his minions would cut back on mammogram screenings?

Gee, it's inexplicable...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=akOgwtIEOEXw

From 2009 no less!

Econophile said...

I just can't imagine this a big issue for "undecideds"...

And how could this possibly help Obama with black turnout?

chickelit said...

Lem said...
I dont think is necessary to attack Althouse to make a point... is it?

Is it Constitutionally forbidden, Lem? Don't be a leghumper.

Lem said...

Abortion on demand is like bloodletting a case of the flu.

It would be considered barbarian should we discover the practice in a race of baboons out in undiscovered woodlands.

Baboons killing their progeny in the womb.

Renee said...

I'm pro-life, but I know how Roe v Wade works. I also know the decision to keep a pregnancy has more to do with a woman's social support group then it does that law. Thank God, my family is more then willing to accept my pregnancies without judgment. Nothing worse for a woman to have her partner and family reject her.

I personally hate teen pregnancy shaming, while I was not a teen mom myself, I couldn't imagine the judgment. MTV Teen Mom series disgust me, I know quite a few younger moms and as long as they come from a stable home, finish school, and stay out of abusive relationships. It turns out OK.


I'm know also to be a strong supporter marriage/fathers, but also I don't believe any young woman should be forced to give her baby up for adoption, just because she is young.

Saint Croix said...

What I favor is a federal statute that recognizes the humanity of the unborn and protects their civil rights, including their right to life. (Congress has specific authority to enforce the 14th Amendment).

I believe Congress should make it a federal crime for any state to allow an abortion that would be a homicide under state law.

Then you leave it up to the states to define when people die. Currently the rule is the same in all 50 states, total brain death.

And you leave it up to the states to decide what to do about abortion that is not a homicide. And of course states can change their death statutes if they want, too.

Lem said...

Don't be a leghumper.

I just think our brain power capacity is higher than that... and we choose not to use it sometimes... go for the cheap shot.

I do it to sometimes.. truth be told.

chickelit said...

Lynn Meadows rasps:

It isn't a law dummy.

Lie back and think of pedantry.

Saint Croix said...

The point is to stop discriminating against the unborn. Defining them as sub-human or property has ensured that our abortion rules are very unfair to them (a.k.a. homicidal).

MayBee said...

Why do moderators never ask the Democrats at what point (in the pregnancy) they would make an abortion illegal, and under what circumstances federal taxpayers should pay for it?

It's topical, and just as important to voters.

PatCA said...

Well, that ad shows editing skills worthy of NBC, but yes, Romney and Ryan are anti-abortion.

The possibility of the Supreme Court reversing Roe in my lifetime is almost nil. The possibility of our economy going totally Third World within my lifetime with Obama is 99%.

So, as de Toqueville says, we go with the guy who will do the least damage. And that's the beauty of it all.

roesch/voltaire said...

Abortion is a difficult moral decision and one that needs to be a rarechoice, which I why I support family planning, reproductive education and PLanned Parenthood, therefore I will not vote for Romney.

Ben Morris said...

From a political perspective, I think your analysis is fair, but I don't think you're giving Romney quite enough credit. Or you're giving him too much credit for pretty generic rhetoric.

This is kind of a classic hedge for moderate Republicans: His position is that he wished America were ready to ban abortion--not just politically, but culturally, etc etc--but it's not (and the reasons for this are left ambiguous).

Therefore, he'd rather see it returned to the states. This is basically just the Guiliani position wrapped in a little bit of hope-speak. It's basically the Republican version of Clinton's safe/legal/rare. (I.e., promoting position X while wishing you were in a country that had no abortion).

Agreed, however, that if you want credit for your anti-abortion rhetoric--no matter how empty--it's still fair for your pro-abortion opponent to use it against you.

Shanna said...

It sounded like Romney was saying he wished there was consensus and nobody wanted to get an abortion. I wish it too.

chickelit said...

MayBee asks
Why do moderators never ask the Democrats at what point (in the pregnancy) they would make an abortion illegal, and under what circumstances federal taxpayers should pay for it?

Because the answers are unpredictable. In Obama's case, he'd argue that's OK right up until the first gasp for air outside the womb. Joe Biden might push it back earlier or say that he thinks it's all immoral but should remain legal.

Inga said...

http://www.gotquestions.org/abortion-Bible.html

"Question: "What does the Bible say about abortion?"

Answer: The Bible never specifically addresses the issue of abortion. However, there are numerous teachings in Scripture that make it abundantly clear what God’s view of abortion is. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He forms us in the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God’s active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty—death—for someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb to be as human as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6)."
---------------------
Lyssa,
Abortion most certainly IS a religious issue as well as a societal one. The first protesters outside abortion clinics were members of the religious right. It's their religious conviction, I'm not blaming them for having one.




hawkeyedjb said...

"The concern is that he'll appoint Supreme Court justices who will vote to overrule it."

And then what? Abortion will suddenly be illegal? Wouldn't overturning Roe simply make it, once again, legal for a state to enact laws related to abortion?

How many states would ban abortion, if they were able to? That would be an interesting fight to watch. I'm betting two or three states might enact severe restrictions, but mostly nothing would change. If it actually comes down to voting for or against a law that actually bans abortion, you'll find few state legislatures willing to do so.

I speak as one who doesn't care about abortion as a political issue, and can't understand how it came to be the defining issue of a major political party.

Ben Morris said...

From a political perspective, I think your analysis is fair, but I don't think you're giving Romney quite enough credit. Or you're giving him too much credit for pretty generic rhetoric.

This is kind of a classic hedge for moderate Republicans: His position is that he wished America were ready to ban abortion--not just politically, but culturally, etc etc--but it's not (and the reasons for this are left ambiguous).

Therefore, he'd rather see it returned to the states. This is basically just the Guiliani position wrapped in a little bit of hope-speak. It's basically the Republican version of Clinton's safe/legal/rare. (I.e., promoting position X while wishing you were in a country that had no abortion).

Agreed, however, that if you want credit for your anti-abortion rhetoric--no matter how empty--it's still fair for your pro-abortion opponent to use it against you.

Gahrie said...

Because the answers are unpredictable. In Obama's case, he'd argue that's OK right up until the first gasp for air outside the womb. Joe Biden might push it back earlier or say that he thinks it's all immoral but should remain legal.

According to his previous votes, President Obama, an abortion continues to be legal after the baby has taken its first breath.

MayBee said...

Because the answers are unpredictable

Ha! You and I think alike!
Journos won't ask Obama questions they are afraid he can't answer in a palatable (or factually correct) way.

Smilin' Jack said...

The answer is that each state would make a different decision.

Well, I'd rather have my fundamental rights decided by counties. That makes a lot more sense than states.

wyo sis said...

It's obvious that both campaigns are going to use abortion as a wedge issue whether we think it's a legitimate issue or not.
I don't think it changes anyone's mind. If abortion is your issue you have already made the decision and ads aren't going to change it.

PatCA said...

roesch, we were told abortion would be safe, legal and rare. I feel the same way you do about the decision.

The reality is different. The CDC reports that in 2008, for example, there were about 800K abortions. I have a feeling there is not much education or counseling going on here.

Inga said...

Smilin' Jack, better yet, by neighborhood!

bagoh20 said...

R/V Planned Parenthood is the opposite of "rarechoice".

Pick one.

BTW "rarechoice" is a cool new word you invented. I don't think there are any synonyms.

Lem said...

Abortion on demand was came out of an era when rights and equality was thought to be the solution for most if not all out ills.

Why should it be fair that women get to carry a baby and men dont?

Abortion on demand is a desperate attempt at undoing a biological mistake.

I dont know that we still think like that.

Inga said...

A Gallup poll says abortion a top issue in swing states for women, by 39 %. The economy was down at 19%!

Lem said...

Abortion is a difficult moral decision...

Bullshit.

If it was the person would have made a choice out of a number of choices available so as to avoid a pregnancy.

Abortion is like binge eating and then trowing up so as to avoid getting fat or whatever.

Is like getting behind the wheel drunk and then fixing it to avoid the consequences.

Inga said...

Women in swing states have gender specific priorities

Tank said...

Inga said...

A Gallup poll says abortion a top issue in swing states for women, by 39 %. The economy was down at 19%!


Reason 42 why women should not be allowed to vote.

Killing fetuses a "top issue."

Renee said...

Abortion is a difficult moral decision and one that needs to be a rarechoice, which I why I support family planning, reproductive education and PLanned Parenthood, therefore I will not vote for Romney.


But Planned parenthood makes most of its revenue off abortions. Come on' it not rare at all.

No one goes to a Planned Parenthood for a pap smear or a mammogram, and we don't for to Planned Parenthood for pre-natal care. They don't offer those services. You go to PP for an abortion or an STD you are too embarrassed about to see your REAL GYNECOLOGIST.

Everyone is for family planning and reproductive education, what that means to people is different. I never learned how ovulation worked, or how really a woman is only fertile a few days out of the cycle. It was just a push from condoms (90s) and eventually contraception. I never saw fetal development. Now that I practice Natural Family Planning, I pretty pissed at all the knowledge I was denied.

Lem said...

Abortion on demand is the art of responsibility avoidance.

furious_a said...

Human rights advocates didn't end slavery.

The Union Army and Navy ended slavery (here).

bagoh20 said...

Inga, I gotta say if that statistic is true, it's embarrassing.

Even if you gals didn't have cooties, I'd still avoid you all. You're scary silly.

Darcy said...

I think that all the women whose top or even near top issue is abortion are voting for Obama already. Solidly.

I think the rest of us are sick of the political football.

Non-issue. Say hello to President Romney.

slarrow said...

Not to speak for Lyssa, but I'd disagree that abortion is a "religious issue" as such. Here's how I'd frame this: there are many questions on which there are political positions rooted in a moral framework grounded in religious worldviews.

Three things, at least, flow from this: (1) agreement can come on the political position without sharing the same moral framework and/or the same religious views, (2) disagreement can come on the political position while sharing the same moral framework and/or the same religious views, and (3) there's nothing inherently superior or inferior to the political positions rooted in a moral framework grounded in secular worldviews.

But that's typically how it goes. Your arguments for your position (political) come from your principles (morality) which have something to make you believe they're correct (religious/secular worldviews.) Confusion on how this works makes for a lot of off-target criticisms and bad, unnecessarily heated arguments.

chickelit said...

@Lem: I don't mean to pick on you today like the Good Father did last week, but your 2:21 is pretty harsh. Do you have kids? Do you have a daughter?

MayBee said...

Abortion being a top issue doesn't say pro- or con-. We don't know what those women want.

angie h said...

Funny, I thought Obama was the one who claimed that Romney was always taking him out of context.

If this is the kind of cheap intellectual dishonesty Obama needs to practice to attract voters, his internals must be really dismal. Of course, his voters also believe the US Tax Code *actually* provides "tax breaks" to companies for shipping jobs overseas and that gas is *cheaper* when the economy is about to collapse. So, they'll pretty much fall for anything.

Browndog said...

It seems at one time it was the norm to view pregnancy as the continuation of life.

Of late, liberals have convinced a large segment of the population that pregnancy is a disease. Abortion is a very effective tool in the practice of eugenics; as noted by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.

As a man I deferred to women on the abortion issue. I was wrong.

How did I know it was wrong? It hit me like a ton of bricks.

That ton of bricks was Silent Scream

Darcy said...

@MayBee

True. I automatically assumed pro.

Dixie_Sugarbaker said...

The idea that abortion would be illegal in any state if RvW was overturned is ridiculous

I live in MS where the infamous personhood amendment was soundly defeated last year. Everyone thought it went too far. Even in this very conservative state abortion would be legal in cases of rape, incest or the mother's health if RvW was overturned.

In 2012, why is abortion even necessary to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Birth control is cheap ( and in some cases free), morning after pills can be obtained at a Pharmacy without a prescription, or a person could control their urges and not have sex. It infuriates me as a woman that pro-choice people seem to act like women are too stupid to take responsibility for their actions and avoid pregnancy. I have a choice to act reckless or responsible. If I act reckless, I should not condemn an innocent child to death.

Lem said...

...your 2:21 is pretty harsh. Do you have kids? Do you have a daughter?

No.. I realise that may make it easier for me to get up on a soap box and preach.. but.. its such a blunt instrument and everybody seem so nonchalant about it.

MayBee said...

Also, I'd say women can use "Abortion" as their reason to support Obama because there is so little else.
We know unmarried women support Obama over Romney. You ask *them* their main issue, and they'll say "abortion" rather than "economy", because there's no way an Obama supporter would say their main issue is the economy. There, he's really failed.

Eustace Chilke said...

So what? Congress isn't going to pass that law any more than they're going to pass a ban on all firearms, which Obama would first pinch his self to be sure he was awake and then sign with a gleeful whinny.

MadisonMan said...

Predictable. When nothing else works, scare the womenfolk.

Fr Martin Fox said...

I don't think the ad is unfair to Mr. Romney. It's unfair to pro-lifers; it gives them false hope.

The fuller context just shows how dodgy his position on abortion really is.

Combined with so many other ways he's shaded his answers, this way and that, depending on his target audience, it just fills out the picture of a man who is a contortionist when it comes to "nuancing" his stance on key issues.

Pro-gun-control; then anti; then hinting, two nights ago, he was open to more of it, maybe. Flip-flop-flip on abortion too.

His answer on contraceptives the other night I translate as, when talking to the undecided women voters, I want to sound not too different from Obama on this. But that's not what he says when talking to Catholics voters, is it? And so it goes.

One of the reasons some of the commenters here insist I am absolutely morally obliged to vote for Romney--and if I don't, that means I am for Obama--is precisely because he's supposed to be trustworthy on the abortion issue. I'm told I can count on it.

That's a lot of "stuff."

Dustin said...

I don't think Romney is nearly as anti-abortion or pro-life as some in this thread do. I think he's solidly in the dead center on this issue, a true moderate.

My basis is Romneycare's provisions that subsidized planned parenthood, Mitt Romney attending a planned parenthood fundraiser, and the donation from his wife to planned parenthood (that aspect is much weaker evidence).

I think he is a typical north eastern politician who is more like a blue dog democrat from years back than much else.

Of course, pro lifers have great reason to prefer Romney to Obama anyway, but I think pro choicers don't have anything to fear from Romney.

Levi Starks said...

I guess he'd just do it incrementally... you know, the same way Obama does everything by executive order, since he refuses to acknowledge the Republican congress even exists. Well except that is to trash them.

MayBee said...

Ha, Darcy! I actually agree with your post, although I babbled when I was trying to say it and you were succinct.

If I had to guess, I'd agree the majority are pro-choice, pro-Obama.

Darcy said...

@Browndog

Wow. I've never heard of that. I don't need to see it. I'm crying just reading the description.

But thank you for linking it.

Fr Martin Fox said...

By the way, Congress can overturn Roe, by declaring the unborn persons under the 14th Amendment. The Roe Court specifically said it couldn't answer whether unborn children are persons under the 14th Amendment--but if they were, the appellant's case, quote, "would collapse."

So there's the roadmap: declare the unborn child a person under the 14th Amendment. And, for good measure, the Congress could also deny the Court jurisdiction over the matter.

Yes, I realize that's a hard bill to pass. But it is within Congress's power.

Meanwhile, we keep waiting for Republican Presidents to give us all these anti-Roe justices. It's always just around the corner.

Lem said...

..but your 2:21 is pretty harsh.

Not as harsh as an abortion... but I believe you already know that.

Sue D'Nhym said...

In which one-issue voter Althouse comes home.

Darcy said...

Hi, MayBee! You are missed on Twitter. :)

edutcher said...

Romney's answer is correct Constitutionally, but it would still have to get past SCOTUS.

Inga said...

A Gallup poll says abortion a top issue in swing states for women, by 39 %. The economy was down at 19%!

Suure it was.

That poll was from when, '84?

David said...

Meanwhile:

“I can’t stand whining,” Clinton told Marie Claire. “I can’t stand the kind of paralysis that some people fall into because they’re not happy with the choices they’ve made. You live in a time when there are endless choices … Money certainly helps, and having that kind of financial privilege goes a long way, but you don’t even have to have money for it. But you have to work on yourself … Do something!”
Clinton added, “Some women are not comfortable working at the pace and intensity you have to work at in these jobs … Other women don’t break a sweat…They have four or five, six kids. They’re highly organized, they have very supportive networks.”


Oceans boil, the dead rising, magnetic poles reverse and Hillary slaps down whining women.

Hot damn!




Teri said...

Obama voted TWICE to deny medical treatment to babies that survive abortion. Since almost everyone agrees that it really is a baby if it can live outside the mother, this amounts to infanticide. This is way outside what most people support. I'm surprised that there is so little attention paid to this.

Inga said...

Precisely, Personhood Laws, will he sign or not?

MayBee said...

Dr. Tiller was such a hero to the left, President Obama released a statement about his murder. Obama does not release a statement about every murder in America, and in fact only gave a local statement to an Arkansas paper when Private William Long was shot by a Yemen-trained jihadist at the same time.
That tells you a lot about Obama's stance on abortion, and it happened more recently than the 2008 debate.

I don't agree with the left on abortion, either.

That's the view of a moderate woman.

Inga said...

Edutcher, did you click on the link I provided? I'd say no you didn't.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Also, speaking of the "Life at Conception Act"--which would declare unborn children persons under the 14th Amendment...

Even if a bill is hard to enact, there are lots of good reasons to advance it. Good things come from just having the battle and getting votes on it, well before you ever pass it.

One of the reasons prolifers should be alarmed at the prospect of a Romney presidency is that he may well--I think it's all but certain--work to prevent anything controversial like that from being voted on.

The bill only reaches the House floor if a Republican is Speaker. Lots of GOP members will pressure him not to bring it for a vote. The counter-leverage comes from prolifers who demand action on it.

One of the things those GOP members can do is tell the President, if you want my vote on X, tell Speaker Boehner to block that personhood bill.

A Democratic president can't play that card on a Republican speaker nearly so well as a GOP President can. And they do. And Romney, I believe, will.

All that sets aside the question of whether the Republicans can even keep control of Congress if he's elected.

garage mahal said...

Run to the middle Mitt! Your base doesn't care about any of this stuff anyways. You need votes!

Darcy said...

What would be wrong in showing that Silent Scream video Browndog to the same students we teach sex education to? It'll never happen, but it should.

dreams said...

Romney doesn't need Althouse's vote but he is going to get Wisconsin's ten electoral votes and that is the bottom line.

Teri said...

couple of links if you want to track down how he voted as a state senator:
link1
link2

David said...

Overturning Roe v. Wade other than by constitutional amendment would be a bad idea. And I do not think a constitutional amendment would be adopted.

Allowing states to place reasonable limits on abortion would not. Think parental notification, first trimester only for most abortions, meaningful waiting periods, compulsory explanation of adoption alternatives, etc.

If we really want to make abortion rare but legal we should stop treating all limitations and restrictions as improper.

You might even consider a government lead education campaign against abortion. Smoking is legal but the government has campaigned against that. Why not abortion?

Seeing Red said...

Lynn Meadows - what did you think HillaryCare did to mammograms?

Pushed the age to 50.

There are articles supporting that as well.

Darcy said...

Sorry. That should be "Browndog linked to"

Seeing Red said...

There are states which already tried to enact severe restrictions and the voters turned them down.

Inga said...

David, I agree with you! That is quite reasonable and I would add to that, free birth control for at risk girls and young women.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Teri:

Obama's vote was horrific, but I can think of three reasons you don't hear about it:

1) It's so horrific, a reasonable person immediately asks, really? Are you sure? It's not so easy to convince people the charge is even true.

2) Other than revealing his character, how does it bear on any legislation he's likely to face? Corresponding federal legislation was enacted in 2002, and there is no prospect of a repeal reaching Mr. Obama's desk.

3) It feels good to enact a law like that, and it's good we passed it. It does demonstrate who the real extremists are, it doesn't make a huge difference, either politically or on actual results.

After all, every abortionist in America knows well enough how to kill babies; so they make doubly sure they do it.

When the federal bill reached the Senate, it passed by unanimous consent (I couldn't quickly find the House vote). What does that tell you?

David said...

So Althouse, after four years of messing up by Obama, are you going to become a single issue voter? If so, you probably were never undecided at all. You just thought you were.

Seeing Red said...

Free birth control, don't the schools provide that already?

What about PP?

David said...

I'm with you on that one Inga! The oceans are boiling.

edutcher said...

Inga said...

Edutcher, did you click on the link I provided? I'd say no you didn't.

Should have put it in the post where you cited the poll, but, fair enough, my bad.

No mention of skew and registered, not likely, voters.

Very weird, if true. Particularly the way women are breaking for the Romster.

PS and OT:

A couple of very funnyPhotoshops inspired by the debate.

Alex said...

Romney ahead on RCP electoral college map

Eat it libtards, Bambi is fading fast!

Seeing Red said...

I can't wait when it dawns on the ladyparts we're broke and the state won't be able to provide the free stuff.

Then what will they do?

Seeing Red said...

Talk about a "Hail Mary" pass. Those numbers must be really bad.

Alex said...

It's only an issue if female swing voters believe there is any nuance to this. If they buy the Democrat spin, Romney is toast.

Kirk Parker said...

Renee,

"I personally hate teen pregnancy shaming"

Why? Lower the stigma, get more of it. (I of course presume you mean unwed teen pregnancy here...)

Saint Croix,

Nothing like this subject to reveal all the fair-weather federalists...


Alex said...

Notice Bambi is doing exactly what I'd said he do in the final weeks. Divide America on:

class, gender, race.

Watch for a "Mitt is racist" ad next.

David said...

"Seeing Red said...
There are states which already tried to enact severe restrictions and the voters turned them down."

Not sure I agree with your facts, but if that's true, so be it. I think the climate is shifting towards greater restriction on abortion. The proponents of this can always try again. The point is, let the democratic process have a role here.

Alex said...

I'm know also to be a strong supporter marriage/fathers, but also I don't believe any young woman should be forced to give her baby up for adoption, just because she is young.

It's better for her to be on welfare because she can't support the baby then to give the baby to a loving family who can financially support it?

What kind of fucked up thinking is that?

chickelit said...

FF wrote One of the reasons some of the commenters here insist I am absolutely morally obliged to vote for Romney--and if I don't, that means I am for Obama--is precisely because he's supposed to be trustworthy on the abortion issue. I'm told I can count on it.

Abortion is not a litmus test for me so I don't share your doubts, Father Fox. Romney cares more about what I care about and that's why I'm voting for him for President in 2012. Besides, the alternative, Obama, is much worse on many counts.

elkh1 said...

Hypothetical.
Roe v Wade will never be overturned.
Congress will never pass a law to ban all abortions.
President Romney will sign a bill banning all late term abortions, and banning dumping survivors of botched abortions to the trash bins.

Inga said...

Father Fox said,

"When the federal bill reached the Senate, it passed by unanimous consent (I couldn't quickly find the House vote). What does that tell you?"

10/18/12 2:57 PM

Tells me that politicians have no real convictions, despite what they say publically to their constituents.

Chip Ahoy said...

Oh man, I just now had a profound insight thing happen again. Shut up everybody, whoooah, I just got incrementally smarter all by myself, you dumbasses didn't have anything to do with it, sorry I didn't mean that, in a way you did start it so thanks.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Chickelit:

I get you.

By the way, to be crystal-clear, I am not faulting those who choose the "lesser of two evils" approach. I don't agree with it, but I think the, "Romney is slightly less terrible" is a plausible argument.

My point is that I reject the notion, advanced by some here, that I am somehow obliged to vote for Romney as a necessary and inescapable corollary to recognizing the depravity of President Obama's policies. And that is dumb.

There are lots of reasonable responses to the terrible policies of Mr. Obama, one of which is voting for a reincarnation of Nelson Rockefeller, who occasionally dresses up as Barry Goldwater. I have a different view.

Chip Ahoy said...

I realized why this is so important.

Renee said...

Alex, So the man has all the control, if he doesn't man up as a father, we can force the mother to give up her child? Wow, that's cruel. By nature, moms bond with their babies.

Many woman can 'support' their children, just with a little help from family. Like I said, I'm grateful for a supportive family, I have a wonderful husband, but if he bailed on me I hope to God they wouldn't force me to adopt out my child.

If I was a pregnant teen, why doesn't this 'loving family' take teenager in with the baby. Why take my baby and throw me out on the streets?

Sorry, but adoption just looks like taking advantage of a young woman with no support.





Cedarford said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Conversely, those who are considering voting against Romney ought to understand how utterly miniscule is the chance of any bill overturning RvW reaching his desk."

Right. The concern is that he'll appoint Supreme Court justices who will vote to overrule it. It's not something Congress can do.

If the Court ever does, the GOP is going to have a hell of a time, I think

=================

Maybe so, Althouse. But Romney's position is not that different than Reagan's - appoint conservative SCOTUS Justices ("Ooops, sorry about Sandra Day O'Connor, my Souter!")
Overturn Roe v. Wade. And then decide abortion legislatively like every other democratic nation managed to do without being cursed with 40 years of controversy about judicial overreach.

As for the "big fight" I think most states would reject the Right to Life Zealots and chop the baby's head off at birth if the Mother CHOOSES to want it done factions.
The RTL nutballs effort to assign Personhood and full legal rights at conception went down in flames in Mississippi. If it failed there, it will fail anywhere.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Inga:

Not disagreeing, but it also suggests that the pro-abortion die-hards in Congress didn't see this law as making much of a difference.

BTW, I found a House vote for the bill, from 2000: it was something like 385-15. The 15 who voted against it, I'm betting, were from districts where the corpse of Fiorella LaGuardia could win election, just because he's a D.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Chip:

I can't wait to see what insight you had.

Cedarford said...

As for the ad, it is as dishonest as the one Team Axelrod devised accusing Mitt Romney of causing a woman's death from cancer.

Synova said...

"I don't think that changes my point. Religious advocates are often supporters of human rights. My point is that abortion is not wrong because God told us don't do it (the way, say, eating shellfish might be to some), but it is wrong because it takes away the rights of innocent human beings, like slavery."

I think that most dietary rules are related to food safety. Pre-refrigeration.

Saying that abortion is religious is like saying murder is religious, or because most abolitionists were chrisitian that the issue of slavery is religious.

These things dont just take away human rights they take away human status.

Synova said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Renee said...

Biological Parents still have rights, even if they are minors. And children have rights to their parents, even if their parents are poor.

Court Denies Foster Parent’s Right to Intervene in DCF Proceeding



In a parallel case, the child’s biological father was also committed to the Department, and ultimately placed in foster care himself. The Court found that the father was fully compliant with all DCF requirements, including attendance at school, and was also showing appropriate parenting skills. When the Department indicated it intended to reunify the child with her father in his new home, the child’s foster mother filed a motion seeking intervenor status to oppose the removal.
The Court further explained, “These proceedings affect the rights of [the child] and her parents, not the rights of the foster mother. Foster parents are entrusted with foster children on a temporary basis only. Clearly the foster mother will be emotionally affected by the court’s decision; however the court’s judgment affects the rights of [the child] and her parents, particularly the father. It does not affect any direct or personal right that the foster mother may hold by law.”

MayBee said...

My point is that I reject the notion, advanced by some here, that I am somehow obliged to vote for Romney as a necessary and inescapable corollary to recognizing the depravity of President Obama's policies. And that is dumb.

Join the club, Father.
As a woman, I get told every day by other women that I should be ashamed to vote for Romney.

Saint Croix said...

It sounded like Romney was saying he wished there was consensus and nobody wanted to get an abortion. I wish it too.

Yeah, it's fantasy rhetoric, the right's version of Clinton's "safe, legal and rare."

The problem is a lack of honesty (and discussion) about homicide and our rules in regard to when people die. That's an ugly discussion (more in the style of Newt Gingrich) and upsets people. There's a huge amount of repression over this issue.

Also, there's a lot of evidence that abortion leads to breast cancer in women, 20 or 30 years after the fact.

See, for instance, this article.

Estrogen-only birth control pills also likely leads to an increase in breast cancer.

The abortion lobby is censoring a lot of this research. For instance the Komen-Planned Parenthood flap was probably in regard to this dispute. The science has been politicized.

MayBee said...

Men are never told they should be ashamed, as men, to vote for someone.

Cedarford said...

My own sense is that 40-45 of the 50 states will be OK with a law that allows morning after pills, 1st trimester abortions on an elective basis, and no abortions after that save rape, incest, life OR physical health of the mother (no mental psychology schlock), and in cases of severe fetal abnormality.

The feminists and RTL goobers will fight for more, or less than that, but they will thankfully be marginalized.

dreams said...

I'm not worried about abortion ever being outlawed and I don't think those who are pro-abortion should be worried either but losing our gun rights is a real concern because of future liberal Supreme Court justices.

Fr Martin Fox said...

The pro-abortion forces, and their allies in the media, love to turn abortion-opposition into merely a religious impulse. Pro-abortion Catholics like Vice President Biden go along with that, to justify their sellout.

But it is obviously false; there are folks of all manner of religions--and of none--who oppose abortion.

Nat Hentoff, whose courageous and persistent advocacy of the rights of the unborn got him run out of the Village Voice, used to say, I'm an atheist; so I believe this life is all we get. That gives me a lot more reason to oppose abortion than those who believe in life after this one.

That was one good moment in the VP debate, when Mr. Ryan made that very point: there are reasons to oppose abortion having nothing to do with religion.

Heck, even the "life begins at conception" point is not a religious one, but a question of science.

The question isn't, when does life begin--we already know that; but what value does our society place on life at this point, or this one, or that one.

Saint Croix said...

Nothing like this subject to reveal all the fair-weather federalists...

14th Amendment specifies that Congress can enforce human equality from state discrimination. If states allow abortions that are homicides under state law, that violates equal protection.

Same reason Voting Rights Act is constitutional.

Lyssa said...

Inga said: Abortion most certainly IS a religious issue as well as a societal one. The first protesters outside abortion clinics were members of the religious right. It's their religious conviction, I'm not blaming them for having one.

You're missing the point. The question is not whether or not there are, additionally, religious arguments against abortion, but whether, completely absent religious justifications, abortion is still wrong.

The answer is clearly yes - it robs a human of life. Even the most ardent atheist can see that, should he or she remove the ideological blinders.

Your argument is akin to saying that, because of the Commandment against it, murder is a religious issue.

MayBee said...

Ha! I remember when Obama was going to bring both sides together to discuss the abortion debate in respectful terms.

Do you all remember that?

Inga said...

Yes Lyssa, I read that argument upthread by Synova, you both have a point.

Chip Ahoy said...

A woman told me in 1972 she had an abortion. She was a girl not ready for parenthood. The pregnancy destroyed her. She was sleep-all-day depressed. Destroyed her family. Her relationship with her father. It was horrible. Her mother wore the pants in that family. Louisiana. The mother took the daughter to a clinic in California. So they had money to do that. That was my realization just now. Sounds stupid now, but it was holding me back from getting it, the one thing I knew about hinged on having cash. To ease the pain, and double-duty the long trip, the mother chose a clinic in Anaheim. The son, a year older than the girl, and another friend accompanied, but not the father. Her description of that is what I understood as ordinary.

It's all so perverse now that I see it. This issue I kept dismissing is important because not everybody can go traipsing off to another state and combine an elective surgery with a stay at Disney Hotel with family and a friend. Goddamnit I'm thick.

Lyssa said...

May Bee: Abortion being a top issue doesn't say pro- or con-. We don't know what those women want.

I may be overrepresenting my mother, but I know that she's not alone amoung her friends/peers, in that she's a hardline, 100% anti-abortion voter.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Synova:

A lot of folks do try to explain the dietary rules included in the Mosaic covenant as being about food safety, or on other practical grounds. While I'm not claiming to be totally conversant with that area of scholarship, I don't recall that being well established by scholars. I.e., it tends to be a speculation by those who aren't sure how else to explain these aspects of the Mosaic Law.

The thing is, the Mosaic Law was part and parcel of God's People being, in all that they did, distinctive both to themselves and others, as a sign of holiness. That was the key: they were and are to be a people set apart, a sign to the nations.

Saint Paul would say that that role carries through, but in a different way, without the ritual aspects of the Mosaic Law.

Also, it's important to read Leviticus as a didactic presentation of the Covenant; the actual living of the covenant was worked out beyond just the texts of Leviticus, in which some of the harsher provisions were softened.

Alex said...

Renee - so the government should support teen mothers just because you don't like the optics of forced adoption.

SteveR said...

Romney flip flops, Obama just flops

Shanna said...

@Browndog

Wow. I've never heard of that. I don't need to see it. I'm crying just reading the description.


Me too, Darcy. It just sounds awful. And terribly sad.

Seeing Red said...

SD and MS tried to pass very restrictive bills, IIRC.

Synova said...

Alex. We either have government "help" or we don't have government "help" but at what point do we decide who to help based on either sending the expensive problem to a death panel or steal people's children?

Renee said...

Alex, No charity and love should help teen moms, or any mom or dad of any age. Yes, sometimes that may come in a form of a social program sponsored by the taxpayer.

Lyssa said...

Re: the silent scream post - yeah, I got through about the first 2 sentences of that. Horrific, and definitely not the sort of thing that I need to read as I feel my 30week unborn boy flipping around in my belly.

Renee said...

Bush and Obama supported Responsible Fatherhood/Healthy Marriage Programs.

Not sure about Obama now, but back in 06', as Senator he co-sponsored a bill.

S. 3607 (109th): Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2006

Unknown said...

Lem said "Why should it be fair that women get to carry a baby and men dont?"

Yes, pregnancy should be outlawed to provide equal protection to males and females! This action should slow human generated climate change as well.

Unknown said...

Lem said "Why should it be fair that women get to carry a baby and men dont?"

Yes, pregnancy should be outlawed to provide equal protection to males and females! This action should slow human generated climate change as well.

Alex Ignatiev said...

Remember, ladies, only Barry cares about your lady parts like you do. He's for your lady parts, so you're in his bag. Obama has bought your vote.

Carville's strategies are alive and well in today's Democrat party.

roesch/voltaire said...

Renee you make claims not based on facts about Planned Parenthood, I cite these:
• Estimated number of abortions averted by Planned Parenthood contraceptive services each year: 277,000
• Percentage of all Planned Parenthood health services that are contraceptive services: 34 •
And finally--Percentage of all Planned Parenthood health services that are abortion services: 3-- yes 3%--

Cedarford said...

Friar Fox:

Heck, even the "life begins at conception" point is not a religious one, but a question of science.

The issue is not that simple. Life or potential life can happen naturally from cloning AFTER conception. That is how you get identical twins, as well as red delicious apples.
Then there is artifical cloning.
Then there is parthenogenis, which is rare in mammals but common in other lifeforms.

And there is life beginning not at conception when egg meets sperm, but by outside stimulus - a chemical, an electric current applied to a clump of infertile frogs eggs.

And when we try and make sense of it all, we sort of reach an intuitive understanding that given lots of zygotes are naturally discarded by mammals, including human ones with a no never mind - efforts to assign full legal rights of personhood to each zygote is a little ridiculous.

We sort of get that fetuses are not people, and may be valued differently by different people as well as cultures.
We intuitively value the process of pregnancy, because human survival rests on each generation reproducing and all cultures according extra care of and protection of pregnant women as vessels containing the future. But at the same time, from cave tribes onwards, no culture has thought a miscarried fetus was a full human that must be mourned and named like a baby delivered would be.



Cedarford said...

Friar Fox:

Heck, even the "life begins at conception" point is not a religious one, but a question of science.

The issue is not that simple. Life or potential life can happen naturally from cloning AFTER conception. That is how you get identical twins, as well as red delicious apples.
Then there is artifical cloning.
Then there is parthenogenis, which is rare in mammals but common in other lifeforms.

And there is life beginning not at conception when egg meets sperm, but by outside stimulus - a chemical, an electric current applied to a clump of infertile frogs eggs.

And when we try and make sense of it all, we sort of reach an intuitive understanding that given lots of zygotes are naturally discarded by mammals, including human ones with a no never mind - efforts to assign full legal rights of personhood to each zygote is a little ridiculous.

We sort of get that fetuses are not people, and may be valued differently by different people as well as cultures.
We intuitively value the process of pregnancy, because human survival rests on each generation reproducing and all cultures according extra care of and protection of pregnant women as vessels containing the future. But at the same time, from cave tribes onwards, no culture has thought a miscarried fetus was a full human that must be mourned and named like a baby delivered would be.



Inga said...

R/V, true. I've cited those PP statistics before, just to be deluged with comments denying the reality.

Patrick said...

I remember when the Silent Scream came out. The left went nuts. Specifically, I remember Doonesbury making fun of it.

Patrick said...

And finally--Percentage of all Planned Parenthood health services that are abortion services: 3-- yes 3%--

The 3% figure is a ruse. That applies to the actual abortion alone. It does not account for all of the other "services" that go with every abortion they perform. PP knows this, and they report it that way for a variety of reasons, one of which is to dupe suckers into thinking that P is not an abortion factory.

chickelit said...

Cedarford's twin posts above appear to be identical except for the time stamp. Were their two acts of conception or two reductions to practice, i.e., two mouse clicks.

Pogo said...

The abortion squirrel.

We're broke, the economy is barely scraping by, and more and more people are out of jobs, but ABORTION!!!

ABORTION!!!
FREE CONTRACEPTIVES!!!
BIG BIRD!!!

Patrick said...

BINDERS!!

Cedarford said...

Screenlock, chicklit. On the 1st click.
Text stayed, so I clicked again and it (Blogger) responded.

Michael said...

Roe V. Wade is with us to stay. What began as a mechanism to protect women from illegal and amateur abortions has become a backup to contraception or, for many, an alternative and a core belief, religious belief, of the progressives.

I find it doubtful that the SC would overturn it inasmuch as the SC judges and their staffs want to continue to get laid as well as invited out. If a wand can be waived to create a tax by a "conservative" we might anticipate that abortions would not only be ruled allowable but would become mandatory given the correct cultural winds.

The worm has turned. We are fucked as a culture.

Renee said...

Dispensing free condoms is considered "a service" in that figure, so add up the dispensing of contraception, and STD testing/treatment it is easy to get to the 3% number. 3 Million women served, and 300,000 abortions each year. That sounds more like 10%.


From Wiki..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

Planned Parenthood is the largest U.S. provider of reproductive health services, including cancer screening, HIV screening and counseling, contraception, and abortion.[3][4][5] Contraception accounts for 35% of PPFA's total services and abortions account for 3%; PPFA conducts roughly 300,000 abortions each year, among 3 million people served.[6][7][8]

Renee said...

Michael, Abortion was pretty common pre-RvW.

It will not be 'turned over', it would require a constitutional amendment, which means the country would have be overwhelmingly pro-life and not just talk the talk, but walk the walk in loving 'surprises'.The mere fact I love my 'unplanned' baby, vs being resentful changes everything in how I parent the child and how my family supports me emotionally. My family has never used my children in contempt, that well my career is non-existent and I volunteer my skills one day a week instead.

Michael K said...

"He will put his finger in the air and see which way the wind is blowing, if the wind is blowing in the right direction, he will sign. I don't think he has a sincere moral conviction regarding abortion, either way."

You did understand that that was an unlikely hypothetical. Did you ? I know Obama voters are easily fooled.

I think he should have been more careful of his phrases but he is not the professional politician Biden is, for example.

Abortion was legal in California before Roe V Wade and I did some. Didn't like it much but nobody I met liked it.

I also quite a few illegal abortions as a medical student, which influenced my position on this.

Curious George said...

"Inga said...
Wyo Sis, hard to know where he stands because he flip flopped so dramatically on abortion. He has no credibility on this issue at all."

This from someone that is "100% Roe v Wade" but wants to outlaw abortion for gender selection reasons.

That kind of stupidity leads to buying this lock, stock, an dbarrell:

"Inga said...
Edutcher, did you click on the link I provided? I'd say no you didn't."

39% Well, that represents liberal women in swing states. Other morons like you. Of course they are going with abortion.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Outlawing abortion for sex-selection is, like the born-alive act, an emotionally satisfying thing to do, but not terribly meaningful policy.

Abortionist: I'll be happy to schedule this abortion for you. However, be aware that under Public Law 4-3-445, I have to refuse to perform it were you to disclose to me you wanted it for reasons of sex selection. On the other hand, there are any number of other reasons which, if you have them, won't prevent me from doing it.

So...are you asking for this abortion for reasons that would prevent me from doing it, or for legal reasons?

Patient: oh, for legal reasons of course!

Abortionist: Of course. Just had to ask!

Inga said...

I don't know of anyone besides Curious George from a Western country that is in favor of sex selection-ultrasound abortion mills, and he a conservative!!

Inga said...

Perhaps he would be happier living in China or India.

Seeing Red said...

-- including cancer screening--

We know they don't screen for breast cancer.

gutless said...

What Congress passed a bill outlawing infanticide of children born after unsuccessful abortions would you sign it? "No, if the intent was to kill the child then the mere act of birth should not act as a road block to accomplishing the "aborter's" will." Who said that?

Sigivald said...

That boils down to: "I'd sign a bill banning abortion if we had a national consensus saying that was good".

That monster!

Inga said...

No it doesn't make him a monster, it just proves what a hypocritical lying flip flopper he is.

Saint Croix said...

I find it doubtful that the SC would overturn it inasmuch as the SC judges and their staffs want to continue to get laid as well as invited out

You know the people on the Supreme Court aren't actually 20, right?

Saint Croix said...

The fuller context just shows how dodgy his position on abortion really is.

Romney's position on abortion is the typical pro-life position. Outlaw all abortions, with the exception of the mother's life, rape, and incest.

He misspoke once and named "health" as an exception, but his campaign corrected it. I think he's as reliably pro-life as Bush, Bush or Reagan.

Ginsburg is 79, Scalia is 76, Kennedy is 76. They've been teetering at 5-4 on abortion for 30 years.

Saint Croix said...

20 years, I can't count.

Michael K said...

" Ann Althouse said...
"Conversely, those who are considering voting against Romney ought to understand how utterly miniscule is the chance of any bill overturning RvW reaching his desk."

Right. The concern is that he'll appoint Supreme Court justices who will vote to overrule it. It's not something Congress can do.

If the Court ever does, the GOP is going to have a hell of a time, I think."

The decision to overturn Roe would have to come in a time when the public is better prepared. I don't see them overturning it but nibbling away at it.

Obama is the most pro-abortion person in the US. He supports legislation to allow babies that survive botched abortions to be neglected and discarded when they die. There are some adults who fit that description having survived abortions. I've seen one and know of another. I expect, if Romney gets two appointments in his first term, we will see something about that as a first step.

These people are not stupid, no matter what the Planned Parenthood folks say.

Michael K said...

" Ann Althouse said...
"Conversely, those who are considering voting against Romney ought to understand how utterly miniscule is the chance of any bill overturning RvW reaching his desk."

Right. The concern is that he'll appoint Supreme Court justices who will vote to overrule it. It's not something Congress can do.

If the Court ever does, the GOP is going to have a hell of a time, I think."

The decision to overturn Roe would have to come in a time when the public is better prepared. I don't see them overturning it but nibbling away at it.

Obama is the most pro-abortion person in the US. He supports legislation to allow babies that survive botched abortions to be neglected and discarded when they die. There are some adults who fit that description having survived abortions. I've seen one and know of another. I expect, if Romney gets two appointments in his first term, we will see something about that as a first step.

These people are not stupid, no matter what the Planned Parenthood folks say.

Rustling Leaves said...

I don't think anyone on Earth is against "abortion" if the life of the mother is at risk. I believe even the Catholic church is ok with any medical procedure intended to save a life (correct me if I am wrong). But the difference is that an ethical person would probably not think of it as an abortion, rather as a premature induction and if the possibility existed would try to save the baby rather than leaving it on a table to die and tossing it in the trash. A person with a heart would mourn the loss of their unborn child rather than ruthlessly killing it.

Michael K said...

"Lynn Meadows said...
Sencho said...
"...Obamacare WILL cut out mammograms and other screening from women below 40 - with indications it'll be pushed back further - for cost reasons."

WTF? Are you crazy? There is nothing anywhere that indicates that other than your imagination and Rush Limbaugh."

And the Independent Review Board. The professional organizations, like the OBGYN society have already sold their souls and will come up with reasons why it isn't necessary.

The American College of Physicians has already come out with a new set of ethical standards that support "parsimonious care."

Many medical schools have dispensed with the Hippocratic Oath or deleted parts that conflict with "modern" values. Such as abortion.

Bob_R said...

To me the issue isn't the position on abortion, but the position on federalism. As long as there is a majority, he is willing to use federal power to enforce the will of the majority on those states that disagree. The nationalization of our entire legal system is evil, and states should start seceding. Does the US do more harm or good as a federal power. Why should my state be governed by the other 49 on a whole host of matters. Why should a President's views on abortion, drugs, alcohol, sodomy, the speed limit, right turn on red, the length of a school day mean a damned thing to me. I'm with Ron Swanson: the President's only function should be to sit in a room with a button and decide if today is the day to nuke someone.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 246   Newer› Newest»