March 27, 2017

"What you call the 'Abortion Party' I call the only party that protects and defends women's rights."

"Government has no place in the wombs of women, period. As a woman, the only parties I will ever vote for are those that recognize I'm a fully functioning human being with an autonomous right to choose what I do with my own body. Anything else would be stupid and self-defeating. (And it has nothing, really, to do with abortion, which I've never had and don't plan on having either.)"

That is — by a very wide margin — the top-voted comment at a NYT op-ed "To Win Again, Democrats Must Stop Being the Abortion Party." The op-ed, by Thomas Groome, a theology and religion education professor, is not as unsubtle as the headline makes it sound. Here's the last line: "If Democrats want to regain the Catholic vote, they must treat abortion as a moral issue, work for its continued reduction and articulate a more nuanced message than, 'We support Roe v. Wade.'"

The headline is the NYT's responsibility, and it actually is very weird. Groome never uses the expression "the Abortion Party," and his main topic is the Catholic vote, not pro-life voters in general. He uses the word "Catholic" 21 times. Why isn't "Catholic" in the headline?!

142 comments:

AlbertAnonymous said...

But the ACA and all of federally required health and insurance mandates is fine...

I swear I think the democrats have been reduced to "government stay out of my uterus, but get into everything else in our lives"

Humperdink said...

With the advent of ultra sound, the Democrats have solidified their position as the party of child sacrifice. Moloch reigns in their party.

sparrow said...

People who identify as Catholic already support Dems over Repubs, not overwhelmingly but in the main. However this idea is ridiculous the Dems can't be on both sides of this issue, after years of vigourously supporting abortion, Planned Parenthood etc Dems cant just pivot credibly. Those who vote against Dems due to their stand on abortion, aren't that likely to trust such a switch and those on board due to their stance (many more ) might be lost.

You can't kill your baby and raise it too.

Rick said...

"Government has no place in the wombs of women, period.

So according to her abortion should be legal until a second before birth. Remember this when Dems claim Republicans or conservatives are abortion extremists.

Please please please make her the head of the DNC.

Amadeus 48 said...

NYT: He/she that must not be named: Catholic.

I think they have some real emotional problems at that newspaper.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The Democrat party is less the abortion party and more the anti-Christian party. At least the radicals that are taking over the party are anti-Christian. Not that the Republican party is necessarily pro-Christian. But the people who run the GOP realize that antagonizing Christians is not in their interest, yet. For the moment that is no longer true for the Democrats.

Ron said...


I tend to think men should stay out of the whole abortion debate. They have no credibility in the matter.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

"his main topic is the Catholic vote, not pro-life voters in general. He uses the word "Catholic" 21 times. Why isn't "Catholic" in the headline?!"

Like: "To win again, Ds must stop being the anti-Catholic party."

Happy now?

Fernandinande said...

As a woman, the only parties I will ever vote for are those that recognize I'm a fully functioning human being with an autonomous right to choose what I do with my own body.

And someone else's body. But let's not mention that.

To be consistent she's also against the War on any Drugs, prescription drugs, and in favor of legal euthanasia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.

chickelit said...

Pope Francis may pivot and become less hostile to abortion in his political fight against Trump. It's not very pretty.

Goldenpause said...

Could the reason that the word "Catholic" is not in headline be that the NYT's editors and reporters (and most of the NYT's readers) despise all things Catholic, so the NYT only uses the word "Catholic" in a headline to bash the Catholic Church?

buwaya said...

Amadeus is right, the NYT and its milieu is anti-Catholic by reflex. I dont know if that is a leftover cultural meme from the old WASP (leftover from the weekend!) attitude, which itself is a leftover from British religious conflicts of the 16th-19th century, or if it is the well known Jewish one, dating to the middle ages.

The Cracker Emcee said...

The commenter missed the point entirely. Support abortion all you want, just don't make a freakin' sacrament out of it. The GOP is generally supportive of 2nd Amendment rights, but even the MSM hasn't successfully labeled it the Evil Black Rifle Party.

Rae said...

The democrats must be the only political party in history that favors murdering one group of their constituents to favor another.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

"Pope Francis may pivot and become less hostile to abortion in his political fight against Trump. It's not very pretty."

Nah, according to Althouse abortion is the whole meaning of being Catholic. F folks post utero. Thinking that Catholics (incl Pope) may not be defined (e.g. in the voting booth) by abortion opposition is an error. Didn't ya see how many times the word "Catholic" was written in this piece?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Ron said...

I tend to think men should stay out of the whole abortion debate. They have no credibility in the matter.

Agreed. I also tend to think that non-slave-holders should stay out of the whole slavery debate. They have no credibility in the matter.

sojerofgod said...

Narrative uber alles.
Rush Limbaugh has opined that Liberalism is a religion and abortion is it's sacrament.
I don't know if hyperbole is helpful in this instance, but I see so many people's uncritical acceptance of the story line that it has to be a belief rather than a judgment.

The arms of Moloch angled down over the fire pit, so the infants placed in his embrace tumbled into the fire unless the god willed the stone to bend, saving them.
No recorded instance of the stone bending has yet to be discovered.

AprilApple said...

"Government has no place in the wombs of women, period. Except when we gals demand a tax payer funded abortion."


*fixed*

Kevin said...

"I tend to think men should stay out of the whole abortion debate. They have no credibility in the matter."

Only the Germans could decide to stop Hitler. Everyone else had no credibility in the matter.

Paco Wové said...

"The headline is the NYT's responsibility, and it actually is very weird. "

I think it's called, "We don't want to bother rebutting a subtle and nuanced argument so we'll just caricature it as something else and let our readers rage against that."

LarsPorsena said...

You must partake of the sacrament of abortion to be in communion with the one, holy,and apostolic DNC.

Kevin said...

"the only party that (inset purposely misleading statement here)..."

Oh please.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I tend to think men should stay out of the whole abortion debate. They have no credibility in the matter.

Sure, the man who gets no input into a woman's decision to either murder his child or confiscate his earnings for 18 years.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I am tired of trying to find common ground with people who convince themselves of the obvious falsehood that the child growing inside a woman is not a human being.

I'm also tired of trying to find common ground with people who convince themselves of the obvious falsehood that a woman is only free if she is legally and socially allowed to murder her child in utero.

Ann Althouse said...

"I tend to think men should stay out of the whole abortion debate. They have no credibility in the matter."

To say that IS to participate in the abortion debate. That is the argument that it is the woman's body and she has autonomy over it. I think that's a good argument, but it is an argument. Don't pretend it's not.

How many of your children have been killed by someone who had sovereignty over the territory where they were sojourning temporarily?

LarsPorsena said...

"I tend to think men should stay out of the whole abortion debate. They have no credibility in the matter."

As soon as Planned Parenthood gets its snout out of the public trough I will shut my man-hole on this subject.

AlbertAnonymous said...

There's a great quote about the Catholic Church, often attributed to Father Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, that has been resonating with me recently:

"The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes, she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe, they are intolerant in practice because they do not love."

Plenty of Catholics fail in their efforts to live the faith (to be sure - myself included), but I see this all over the place lately from the left. You can be or say or believe anything you want (or nothing at all) - aren't we tolerant - but don't you dare be or say or believe anything contrary to our PC lefty dogma or you will be shamed, hounded, forced to comply, etc., you deplorables ! - very intolerant-

Kevin said...

"work for its continued reduction"

But that's problematic for the "stay out of my womb" crowd. We had "safe, legal and rare" but rare was jettisoned out of political necessity.

And then they doubled down by calling this position "women's rights". So they're going to tell women they're adding morality without taking away their rights?

We'll bring the popcorn.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

"How many of your children have been killed by someone who had sovereignty over the territory where they were sojourning temporarily?"

That lawprof logic/brilliance is really shining today.

sojerofgod said...

Rights with no responsibilities.
Actions with no consequence.
Free Love.
Turn on, Tune in, Drop out.
Keep your laws off my body.
It's a child, not a choice.


One of these things is not like the other.

John said...

Adult men and women have an absolute right to choose what we do with our bodies. MY body, MY choice.

The problem is that there is another person, or life, or soul, involved that is unable to have any say in the matter of whether they live or die.

Who speaks for them? Who speaks for their right to live?

Men have ever right, even a duty, to speak for them. As do women. Women can just STFU about how men have no right to defend the defenseless.

John Henry

Matthew Sablan said...

"Why isn't "Catholic" in the headline?!"

-- Because the NYT is not very smart.

I feel like I'm giving that answer a lot lately.

Big Mike said...

The modern Left is hostile to Christians, especially evangelicals and Catholics (strange bedfellows) and they've recruited young Jews to support their hard core anti-Semitism. You'd think that for consistency's sake mafter they've had a good look at shariah they'd be anti-Muslim too. You'd be wrong.

damikesc said...

Nah, according to Althouse abortion is the whole meaning of being Catholic. F folks post utero. Thinking that Catholics (incl Pope) may not be defined (e.g. in the voting booth) by abortion opposition is an error. Didn't ya see how many times the word "Catholic" was written in this piece?

Yeah, what kind of a crazy cult would come out OPPOSED to murder? Don't worry, those same cultists also opposed slavery when Democrats fervently supported it.

Clearly, they have been on the wrong side of history...

And nice to see somebody unfamiliar with the width and depth of Christian charity. I bet you live near no Christian hospitals...

I tend to think men should stay out of the whole abortion debate. They have no credibility in the matter.

Men are ALSO the parent and, financially, on the hook for the woman's decision. Take away child support requirements and you might have an argument.

Fernandinande said...

Matthew Sablan said...
-- Because the NYT is not very smart.
I feel like I'm giving that answer a lot lately.


I think the NYT does what it does because the NYT is very dishonest. Lame, yes, but mostly dishonest.

NYT Exaggerates "Trump Effect" on Foreign College Recruitment by an Order of Magnitude

PB said...

There you go again; reading the NY Times expecting journalism.

Lipperman said...

Here's a really neat abortion conversation starter that pro-choice women love:
"Do you think it's okay to abort a 7 pound baby?"

buwaya said...

The NYT was a bit sympathetic to the IRA because it was communist, and not actually Catholic.

PB said...

It's not an abortion. It's merely another form of birth control.

Owen said...

Quite apart from the immorality of abortion, I question the logic of claiming bodily autonomy --get the State out of my womb!-- while demanding that others pay for and perform this most drastic intervention.

I am increasingly sickened by the whole mess, and the most sickening part is the effort by the pro-death hard-liners to persuade the world that they hold the moral high ground. I think their stridency is proof that at some deep level they know how very wrong they are, and they think that by bullying and silencing the rest of us, the wrong will be abolished.

It won't.

exiledonmainstreet said...

sparrow said...
People who identify as Catholic already support Dems over Repubs, not overwhelmingly but in the main."

The majority of Catholics voted for Trump in November. It is a strange situation though - most practicing Catholics are considerably more conservative than most of the clergy and the church hierarchy.

As others have pointed out, the Dems want the government to stay out of women's uteruses, but liberals demand that we pay for abortions, contraceptives, sex change operations for people in prison (Richard Speck thanks the taxpayers of Illinois) and some even want their tampons paid for by Daddy Government.

GAHCindy said...

Ron said...

I tend to think men should stay out of the whole abortion debate. They have no credibility in the matter.
3/27/17, 9:14 AM

Anybody who has been in a womb has credibility in the matter.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"The problem is that there is another person, or life, or soul, involved that is unable to have any say in the matter of whether they live or die.

Who speaks for them? Who speaks for their right to live?"

Fetuses can't vote, so the Dems say to hell with them.

gspencer said...

Even the word "abortion" sets up a distance.

Better, "We're the party for killing the future."

Ron Winkleheimer said...

How many of your children have been killed by someone who had sovereignty over the territory where they were sojourning temporarily?

Sorry Professor, but I'm not understanding this analogy.

I think most pro-choice people would be ok with an exception for the health of the mother. True, that could be abused, and would be by the rich at least.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

"I think most pro-choice people would be ok with an exception for the health of the mother."

That's self defense.

BrianE said...

"I'm a fully functioning human being with an autonomous right to choose what I do with my own body"

Every person alive today needs to drop everything and give their mother a hug. You are only here because of you're mother's choice.

Is that really how it should be?

mockturtle said...

I think their stridency is proof that at some deep level they know how very wrong they are, and they think that by bullying and silencing the rest of us, the wrong will be abolished.

Owen, I've often applied this reasoning to other social issues, as well. They are saying, "We know this is wrong and unnatural but, if we can force the public--at least the law--to accept it, then we are absolved. After all, it's legal."

MadisonMan said...

The headline is the NYT's responsibility, and it actually is very weird.

The headline was written to drive clicks. Abortion? It drives money to the Republican Party and it causes Democrats to click on an article. If the headline has used 'Catholic' instead -- all the open-minded readers of the NYTimes would've known there was nothing in the article for them.

mockturtle said...

I think I've posted this before but it bears repeating. In my senior year of high school, I became pregnant. Because abortion was illegal, my mother wanted to arrange for me to fly to Japan for an abortion. I protested and my father, in a rare move, sided with me.

My older daughter is such a joy and I thank God every day for her. My mother meant well. She was only thinking of me and my future. But she was wrong.

JHapp said...

Thomas Groome is a former priest, that's like Caitlyn Jenner weird.

Owen said...

Mockturtle: thanks for putting a very human perspective on this.

Bob Ellison said...

Are there any *new* arguments to be made about abortion that don't rely on the advance of fetal care? The rest of it is ground so well trodden that it's a pit.

This column is not about abortion itself. It's about the political affect of the Dem's adherence to the pro-abortion tenet. The author is correct, I think, to observe that the Dems would do better politically if they appeared willing to consider the abortion questions, even as much as your average Catholic priest considers his own and his parishioners' questions of faith.

Kate said...

The first "autonomous right" this woman chose to do with her own body was to let a penis inside of it. Pregnancy is an effect, not an originating cause.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"I think their stridency is proof that at some deep level they know how very wrong they are, and they think that by bullying and silencing the rest of us, the wrong will be abolished."

Of course they know it. Why all the screaming about ultrasound requirements? Because viewing ultrasounds might lead a woman to think there's something else there besides a lump of cells.

I thought high tech prenatal images would change people's hearts - after all, in 1973, parents couldn't see their babies smiling in the womb. But, if you are determined to see a person as a thing when it suits you, nothing will change your mind I guess.

Real American said...

Some think it's ok to kill unborn babies if the mother thinks they're inconvenient to her. And they don't want to be judged as sick, evil fucks! Oh, and taxpayers should pay for the slaughter​...But after that, stay out of the womb!

exiledonmainstreet said...

mockturtle said...
I think I've posted this before but it bears repeating. In my senior year of high school, I became pregnant. Because abortion was illegal, my mother wanted to arrange for me to fly to Japan for an abortion. I protested and my father, in a rare move, sided with me."

We have had the same experience. Ran out of an abortion clinic at age 19. Gave my daughter up for adoption. That was the hardest thing I have ever done in my life.

She is now married and has 3 children of her own.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Very few of them live at "poverty level" either. (much travel, tax-free land ownership, car leases every few years, independent housing provided, good food and drink, etc.)

3/27/17, 10:38 AM

True of the upper hierarchy perhaps, but not of the average parish priest. The ones I know do not get free housing in a rectory anymore, they live in apartments and often have to travel quite a bit because they are the sole priest for 3 or 4 parishes.

Owen said...

Crazy theory #34643: the Progs need enemies as a way to focus the energies and loyalties of their constituents and potential recruits. The Catholic Church has its faults but whatever they were, are and will be, is almost irrelevant compared to what the Progs have depicted it to be. That twisting of fact and emotional cattle-driving is for me a powerful source of my skepticism, not to say disgust, for the Progs' offerings.

Roger Sweeny said...

As a woman, the only parties I will ever vote for are those that recognize I'm a fully functioning human being with an autonomous right to choose what I do with my own body.

If you truly believe that, you are a libertarian.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I think the thing that upsets me the most is how dishonest the debate is. I can understand how desperate women in earlier times, fearful of a ruined reputation or terrified of childbirth, would resort to abortion. In this day and age there is no stigma attached to being pregnant outside of wedlock. Childbirth is safer than it ever has been. What it boils down to is most often not about "health" at all, but inconvenience. It is inconvenient and onerous to be pregnant. It might interfere with one's schooling or career. It is exceptionally painful to give a child up for abortion. So, to avoid the inconvenience and the pain, it's better to just kill the baby?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"The clergy does not. Thus, they don't really "see" the tax implications, and the cost of living realities, for workers. Hence they are free to advocate higher taxes on workers, to pay for the ... impoverished."

Well, that's probably true. They do not seem to have a very good grasp of economic realities.

Roger Sweeny said...

The GOP is generally supportive of 2nd Amendment rights, but even the MSM hasn't successfully labeled it the Evil Black Rifle Party.

Not that they haven't tried :) And there are a lot of people who do think the Republican Party is the Big Evil Gun Party. After all, they don't even support a "common sense ban on assault weapons."

exiledonmainstreet said...

"It is exceptionally painful to give a child up for abortion"

Typo. I meant "adoption."

I am sure that for many women it becomes extraordinarily painful to give a child up for abortion as well, although at the time it seems like the easy way out.

The feminists never consider that many women might suffer long-term effects from that choice, especially if they have problems conceiving later in life.

Todd said...

Fernandinande said...

To be consistent she's also against the War on any Drugs, prescription drugs, and in favor of legal euthanasia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.

3/27/17, 9:15 AM


Well to be fare, I am also mostly against the war on drugs and in favor, support legal prostitution, and polygamy. I think all adults should be free to do what they want as long as it does not impact the rights of others. I do oppose abortion though as it ends the life of an innocent. Just as you don't have sex with a six year old, you don't kill an unborn child. I would wish for zero abortions but I can understand whereas it is currently legal so we should be able to compromise on "reasonable" restrictions like parental notification and not after 20 weeks unless the life of the mother is threatened.

sojerofgod said...

Exiledonmainst said:
"Fetuses can't vote, so the Dems say to hell with them."

...And in an unbelievable case of irony, the Democrat/leftist party is now desperate to import third-world illegal immigrants to replace all those missing children who, if you do a little math, would be voting far more for Democrats than repubs.

The math:

Roughly 30% of abortions are of whites Who vote about 50-50 for dem/rep.
Blacks are 30% but vote 94%+ for Dems
Hispanics are about 25% - 60% Dem voters.
Other = who knows.
SO:
52 million abortions (about) since Roe.
Whites: call it a wash.
Blacks: 14.6 million dem voters lost, compared to about 1 million for Rep.
Hispanic: 15 million dem voters lost compared to 10 million for Rep.
keeping to rough figures, the dems lost near enough 30 million prospective voters.
The Reps lost 11.
Almost 3 to 1.

Like I said, this is rough "fuzzy" math, but you cannot see this without wondering why the Democrat party is so pro abortion, -they should have been paying a premium for those extra babies. It seems like abortion is mostly used as a sop to neurotic upper class white women, who drive much of the politics of the Democrat party.


All this leads me to the point, that each and every abortion that happens is a travesty. I don't give a damn about their race etc, etc. These lives lost are a waste of human potential that we will regret for generations.

Gahrie said...

"I tend to think men should stay out of the whole abortion debate. They have no credibility in the matter."

To say that IS to participate in the abortion debate. That is the argument that it is the woman's body and she has autonomy over it. I think that's a good argument, but it is an argument. Don't pretend it's not.


Remember guys we are all just splooge stooges with wallets.

Women have rights and no responsibilities

Men have responsibilities and no rights

Althouse approves of this.

buwaya puti said...

Older women are much less likely to have babies at all if they have put off the job. And they are rather less likely to have high quality babies than their younger selves. Biology is cruel.

Inga said...

Althouse said...
"How many of your children have been killed by someone who had sovereignty over the territory where they were sojourning temporarily?"

PB Good Person said...
"That lawprof logic/brilliance is really shining today."
-------

Yes. Yesterday too. I adore this side of Althouse.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Yes. Yesterday too. I adore this side of Althouse.

3/27/17, 11:53 AM

I assume you have much less adoration for the side that calls you out for misrepresenting her words.

Inga said...

Feminists also live in the real world, in which they make decisions based on all sort of variables. They don't all act according to one set of criteria, standards or beliefs. I recognize that abortion will always be with us and for the sake of the woman it should be legal up until the point of viability. I wasn't ever tempted to have an abortion or give up my child for adoption. No one was going to part me from my child. Not all of my children were planned or convienient, but my situation wasn't dire either.

Sebastian said...

"The headline is the NYT's responsibility, and it actually is very weird. Groome never uses the expression "the Abortion Party," and his main topic is the Catholic vote, not pro-life voters in general. He uses the word "Catholic" 21 times. Why isn't "Catholic" in the headline?!" Weird! Why, oh why? It couldn't be, could it, that they were serving this up as bait to their prog readers? That the "Abortion Party" business is a handy red flag for donkeys fighting the culture war?

jimbino said...

Regardless of Roe v. Wade, a woman still has the right in self-defense to kill a fetus that is threatening her health and life or even merely continuing to touch her without permission ("No" means "No"). Killing in self-defense cannot be termed "murder." Thank Darwin, and in the interest of children and Life the world over, the Catholic Church, along with most all others, is dying out.

sparrow said...

You're right exiled I had forgotten about the Trump vote. I was remembering that most Catholics supported Obama, twice. So I think it's fair to say, the Catholic label does not mean much to many. The best marker I've seen is attendance at mass. If it's 1 time or greater per week the person is truly Catholic. That makes the real number of Catholics about 20% of those who casually self-identify. I'm in that ~20% BTW

n.n said...

Perhaps a recorded testimony, certifying soundness of mind, and premeditated will to terminate a [wholly innocent] life unworthy.

The choice comes before conception. After that, it's evolution of a human life, dependent on the mother, and father, for nearly two decades.

johns said...

The Dems actually can moderate their "abortion party" stance by opposing late term abortions, which they already tell us are very rare. They could take a principled stance against abortion of babies that are viable outside the mother. They could take a strong stand against state funding of abortion. They would still be the party that supported the "right to choose", while injecting some sanity and responsibility. But they won't do this. I don't exactly know why they won't, but my feeling is that it is because middle class women are too hung up on abortion rights.

sparrow said...

If adoption is considered the minimum commitment is nine months.

n.n said...

The New York Times is trying to paint people as pro-life, pro-science, and anti-Nazi. It's succeeding, and the effort is appreciated by human rights advocates, and others who make an effort to reconcile moral, natural, and personal imperatives. Pro-Choice is a selective, unprincipled, opportunistic quasi-religious doctrine adopted by people, and established by judges, with a sincerely held twilight faith.

sparrow said...

"twilight faith"? n n I don't take your meaning care to expand a bit?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"I wasn't ever tempted to have an abortion or give up my child for adoption."

Do you think women are "tempted" to give a child up for adoption? Jesus, you are stupid. It's not about you and what you want - it's about what is best for the child. What a selfish woman you are. A home with a financially stable and loving mom and dad was what was best for my daughter. She thrived and did well and has a good life.

mockturtle chose life, but made a different decision. Her daughter also turned out to be a blessing.

Bottom line: There are 4 people who are alive and breathing right now because I ran out of that clinic. mockturtle has a daughter she loves.

You side has ended up with a mountain of tiny body parts to their name. Good going, Inga.

n.n said...

The Dems... They would still be the party that supported the "right to choose", while injecting some sanity and responsibility. But they won't do this.

Of course not. They are the Party of social justice adventurism, wars of aggression, elective regime changes, extrajudicial trials, catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform, [class] diversity, and central authority. They -- dominant factions -- thrive and profit from conflict. The Republicans are, it seems, the Party of cruel neutrality, that goes along to get along. At least until members start reconciling moral, natural, and personal imperatives.

principled stance against abortion of babies that are viable outside the mother

That's not a principle that can be mutually reconciled. It may be society's choice, but it is Pro-Choice as in selective-child.

That said, elective abortion is one issue. Another is the conflict of interest by Planned Parenthood corporation and others in the abortion industry that are providers for clinical cannibalism.

n.n said...

Penumbra = Twilight, or perhaps twilight fringe. The evolution and value of human life is established and determined independent of natural and moral principles.

Jane the Actuary said...

What's appalling is how uniformly one-sided NYT comments are. There's virtually never an actual discussion, just the repetition of the same talking points.

My favorite: "if we had ready distribution of condoms and other contraceptives pills, there would be virtually no abortions" (paraphrased). Written by someone who, apparently, doesn't know that contraceptives all have failure rates, and that pro-choice-ists vigorously defend the right to use abortion as a form of back-up contraception.

Bruce Hayden said...

The next election is going to be interesting in regards to Roman Catholic party affiliation and voting. One of my father's law partners was Dem county chairman in1960, and had a photo of him sitting on his front porch with JFK in rocking chairs - two Irish Democrats who made good. In his later years he commented that while he retained his Dem party registration, he hadn't voted for one in years. A lot of inertia there, esp when ethnicity is tied closely to political affiliation. But, the Irish, the Italians, the Polish now, have gone mainstream. Maybe 150 years ago, there were signs that said "no Irish need apply" for jobs. Now, they are the ones hiring, and WASPs readily marry them. The Trump election may finally bring a number of working class white European origin Catholics into the GOP, as their better off relatives did a decade or so ago. We shall see. I would suggest that the reason that this may not be that noticeable is that the fastest growing, and likely largest, group of Roman Catholics here are the Hispanics, who tend to vote Democrat, and their increases in numbers hide the movement of white European Catholics to the GOP. We shall see.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Depends on how you define "cruel".
Older women who bear a child are much less likely to need the taxpayer's help in bearing and raising that child. The child is less likely to be raised in poverty, or by an absentee father."

Female fertility rates drop greatly by the time women reach 30 and much more so by the time women reach 40. Who do you think are going through all those fertility treatments? And the older women are, the more likely they are to have a baby with Down syndrome. Not that a pro-abortion women would ever actually have a Down syndrome baby....

Biology is indeed cruel.

Inga said...

Exiled, yes there are women who are tempted, or coerced may be a better word, to have an abortion or give up a child by very strict parents or boyfriend perhaps, who knows? Some make the choice due to the realization that they aren't able to care for that child on their own. I'm quite certain the choice they make is an incredibly difficult and painful one. Some might carry that pain for years afterwards lashing out at others throughout their adult lives. Some make the choice and go on to live normal happy lives having more children, or adopting. It's not I who would take any choice away from them, unlike you.

I was also 19 when I became pregnant with my first child. I married the father, took a year off of school and had my daughter. I went on to have three more children in the years after and I'm a grandmother of 5. I don't know where your antagonism and aggression comes from. Maybe you have guilt about your choice? Something eats you Gilbert Grape.

pacwest said...

My apologies for sticking this in this thread, but in a previous thread that evolved into a discussion about controlling healthcare costs I was called disingenuous and unimpressive when I asked about end of life costs. By all accounts it is the largest single healthcare cost out there. 200B a year in medicosts alone. Not sure why this shouldn't be a part of any discussion on controlling the cost of healthcare.

Two stories I've seen personally:
Family with no insurance or resources with a 30something son terminally I'll with liver injury compounded by alcoholism. Last 5 days in the hospital at a cost of 150K. Taxpayers had to pick up the tab on that one.
Insured family with a teenage son with terminal brain injury. 11 days in the hospital at (I'm guessing here) 500K.

In both cases there was zero chance of survival before entering the hospital.

How is it disingenuous to discuss the largest bite out of the healthcare apple when you are talking about how to control costs?

Again, sorry about the threadjack. Unimpressive or stupid I can handle, but disingenuous rankles a bit.

Static Ping said...

The headline is the NYT's responsibility, and it actually is very weird.

Bad headlines are a common problem. It happens all the time. You get the idea that the headline writers are the employees that were hired, proven to be incompetent, could not be fired for whatever reason, and shoved into this job where acting like a fool can sometimes drive traffic. It appears that the job's requirements are laziness, hysteria, and poor reading comprehension.

If it surprises you that the New York Times has this problem, all I can ask is "Why?"

mockturtle said...

Pacwest, I apologize for calling your remarks disingenuous. Keeping terminally ill people in the hospital long-term is not the usual practice here in the West. There are other options, like Hospice [which is also expensive but doesn't aim to prolong life] but I hope you don't think euthanasia is the answer. That would be worse than disingenuous.

Rick said...

johns said...
They could take a strong stand against state funding of abortion. They would still be the party that supported the "right to choose", while injecting some sanity and responsibility. But they won't do this. I don't exactly know why they won't, but my feeling is that it is because middle class women are too hung up on abortion rights.


It's because moderation greatly reduces their political effectiveness. Opposition to late term abortions is inconsistent with the "government out of my body" framework. After all if you support government in their body at 35 weeks and someone else at 20 weeks we're only arguing about where to draw the line. This is not satisfying to the activist extremists who are their core supporters. Further that faux-philosophical rhetoric convinces many of the tangentially engaged so admitting that's a red herring risks those supporters.

Most Democrats don't support late abortions but they must use political rhetoric which supports them..

Inga said...

"My apologies for sticking this in this thread, but in a previous thread that evolved into a discussion about controlling healthcare costs I was called disingenuous and unimpressive when I asked about end of life costs."

Yes, I saw that pacwest. That was an unfair characterization. It's a good question and one we'll all have to wrestle with, be it ourselves or our loved ones. Living Wills and Advanced Directives are a start in the right direction.

Rick said...

Jane the Actuary said...

Not to mention that we do have ready distribution of condoms and other contraceptives pills.

Renee said...

" I wasn't ever tempted to have an abortion or give up my child for adoption. No one was going to part me from my child. Not all of my children were planned or convienient, but my situation wasn't dire either."

Yep... As long as mom isn't on drug or mentally ill, we shouldn't ever coerce a mother 9or father) to think she isn't good enough for her own child.

The whole adoption industry is just that. Rich infertile/gay/single people who lots of cash to convince a poor pregnant women she isn't good enough.

Want to help a child in need, there are plenty of kids in need through foster care.

If a parent really wants to give up a child through adoption, then go through the foster care and not lawyer trying to broker a deal.

pacwest said...

Thank you mockturtle. I'm not advocating euthanasia, at least the forced variety (although I'm not sure Laslo and others wouldn't prefer that option for the boomers:). All I was trying to point out was the huge strain it places on the system.

exiledonmainstreet said...

If a parent really wants to give up a child through adoption, then go through the foster care and not lawyer trying to broker a deal.


3/27/17, 12:59 PM

I went though Catholic Charities. They were exceptionally helpful and compassionate.

pacwest said...

Inga,
Something I had not thought of before your comment. Is it possible to make people fill out an advanced directive before they can get insurance? Might bend the cost curve a bit.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I don't know where your antagonism and aggression comes from. Maybe you have guilt about your choice? Something eats you Gilbert Grape.

3/27/17, 12:42 PM

Why would I have guilt about my choice? I didn't murder my baby.

I do love how you presume you can play amateur shrink on the Internet.

The stupidity of liberals irritates me. The murder of babies appalls me. Do not mistake that for being generally angry.

Renee said...

Off subject...

I keep seeing these ads at TV series based off The Handmaid's Tale. I know the book was written decades ago, but in the comments in social media there are woman who are convinced that this is something is so real and occurring right now.

I'm pro-life, but I get how people can be 'pro-choice' even if they know that it is a killing of an unborn human being. Fear is powerful.

I don't think we are as civilize as we think we are, when the scariest thing in a world to a woman is pregnancy. We shouldn't fear pregnancy. We shouldn't fear our bodies. We shouldn't fear our own children.

But we do. We fear it. We based our entire socio-economic way of life based on the fear of pregnancy and children. Our bodies have to always be on something to prevent it, at all costs.

The same party that says it wants to help families, is also the one that puts us in fear of having one to begin with.



Anyways in regards to the Handmaid's Tale, we already have it through surrogacy. Rich people who want babies.

buwaya said...

There wasn't much demand for adoptions in the old days.
That's why there were orphanages, that raised infants to adulthood. Or not.

Some of these were pretty infamous -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon_Secours_Mother_and_Baby_Home

Healthy white infants are snapped up immediately these days, such is the demand. I think this comes as a result of low fertility among women who have put off childbearing.

Inga said...

Exiled, are you going to tell me that there aren't women out there that feel guilt about giving up a child for adoption? While I agree that the guilt some might feel is less than the guilt that might be associated with abortion, it's unrealistic to think none of these women feel guilt for not keeping the child and raising it themselves. I would've felt terrible guilt. But as I said my situation was not dire.

I don't need to be a psychologist to see that you are a very aggressive and antagonistic person, at least that's your persona online here. I'm not mistaken in reading you.

Inga said...

"But we do. We fear it. We based our entire socio-economic way of life based on the fear of pregnancy and children."

Renee, I couldn't agree with you more. Years ago there were very strict parents and society itself that placed a terrible stigma on having a baby out of wedlock. Some of these poor young women were indeed coerced into giving up their child so as not to bring shame on the family. Gladly my family was very supportive and gave us a beautiful wedding and helped with childcare while I finished my education.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Exiled, are you going to tell me that there aren't women out there that feel guilt about giving up a child for adoption?"

As compared to having a baby chopped up and tossed in a pail? I was afraid that maybe the parents weren't good ones, that maybe she wasn't happy - which is why I was very happy and relieved when she contacted me and I was able to see that her parents had been good to her, and that she had grown up happy and loved.

I'm not antagonistic or aggressive to most of the people on this forum, nor are they to me. And I am far from being the only person on this forum who has been antagonistic to you. Perhaps you should ask yourself why that is rather than psychoanalyzing me.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

I've always found it, well, odd hearing pro-choice absolutists say that Roe must not be overturned. It's a super precedent (whatever that means) that cannot be challenged.

Of course, Roe placed all sorts of limits on the right of a female to abort the fetus. So, defenders of Roe are actually saying, although they clearly don't know it, that they support such limits. But if they say the right is absolute then they must oppose Roe as well.

Granted, the Doe decision - which is hardly ever discussed - effectively overturned Roe since the Court rule that the health of the female - including mental health - overrode any rights of the fetus.

But even Doe said there were some limits to the right of abortion.

Inga said...

"I'm not antagonistic or aggressive to most of the people on this forum, nor are they to me. And I am far from being the only person on this forum who has been antagonistic to you."

True. However your vitriol and persistent aggression exceeds any other commenter here. I'm a liberal on a 90% conservative comments section, I'm not surprised at the aggression and disrespect, but lady, your are in a class of your own. It's human nature to wonder why there are certain people who seem so over the top angry and hostile 90% of the time. If you behaved offline to others as you do here, most everyone, even my conservative friends and relatives might think you were odd at the very least.

There comes a time that one needs to drop the club and treat others, even if you hate them with the respect they deserve as human beings. Push back is fine, abuse isn't. You say you're in your mid fifties, haven't you learned this yet?

Now I suggest we get back on topic, as it's a very good one.

Inga said...

"Inga,
Something I had not thought of before your comment. Is it possible to make people fill out an advanced directive before they can get insurance? Might bend the cost curve a bit."

Pacwest,
No I can't agree with this. It's a choice that should be made freely without any pressure from anyone or any entity. Society has already moved away from keeping their loved ones alive on artificial means for at least 20 years now. It's been a natural occurance and I don't see it as being pushed on anyone by any political or religious entity.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I am civil to people who are civil to me. I am not if they are not. You spent a lot of time as Unknown deliberately provoking conservatives on this site (while denying you were Inga) and now you are acting as if you have never tossed gasoline on the flames and everyone just decided to pick on you.


Actually, I would say the most antagonistic and disrespectful commenter here is Ritmo - by a long shot. Since he is a leftist too, and perhaps because he is a male, you ignore him. That's fine, I don't expect you to call him out. But it's a bit rich to say I'm somehow uniquely hostile.

Inga said...

Jesus, give it a rest Exiled. Don't take away from the good discussion that could be occurring here.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Inga said...
Jesus, give it a rest Exiled. Don't take away from the good discussion that could be occurring here.

3/27/17, 1:52 PM

I'm just saying that it's more than a bit disingenuous of you to call others out for being antagonistic while pretending your comments and behavior had absolutely nothing to do with that and you have no idea why others are so angry.

Rick said...

I'm a liberal on a 90% conservative comments section, I'm not surprised at the aggression and disrespect,

It's not because you're liberal as you imply, it's because you are disrespectful to those who disagree with your paranoia. Dominionists are still not around the corner trying to enforce The Handmaid's Tale no matter how many Hollywood progressives share your obsession.

I can't believe she's lecturing others on behavior. She who cheered when Althouse closed comments because her only goal was disrupting others' conversation. This was in addition to threatening to contact a commenters workplace and also making negative Amazon comments on a book by another commenter's wife. Not to mention calling another commenter a C among other nastiness.

But now she'll lecture others on manners. Good grief.

Inga said...

Exiled, I take full responsibility for my words and comments here. While pushback was and is warranted, abuse never is. "Others" never struck me as being "so angry". Only you. I do wonder what eats you, what drives your over the top aggression. And yes it is over the top, uncalled for and unwarranted. I'm a big girl, I can defend myself and I do, but I won't be abused by you or anyone. Now this is the end of this sidebar discussion with you.

mockturtle said...

Mary, if I'm not mistaken, you snidely called Ann's boots post 'Thick Ankle Cafe'.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Would your offspring be proud to see you attack another woman this way?"

So says the woman who attacks the owner of this blog continually.

No lectures from you ma'am.

Inga said...

LOL! Mary, I know this will be deleted, but I'm so old, there was no Sex Ed in my day. My daughter was meant to be and she is a joy, so no regrets at all.

exiledonmainstreet said...


"I can't believe she's lecturing others on behavior. She who cheered when Althouse closed comments because her only goal was disrupting others' conversation. This was in addition to threatening to contact a commenters workplace and also making negative Amazon comments on a book by another commenter's wife. Not to mention calling another commenter a C among other nastiness.

But now she'll lecture others on manners. Good grief. "

Exactly. "Why, oh why, is exiled so mean to me?"

Since she's behaving herself now, I'll let it drop.

exiledonmainstreet said...

What would she do, Inga? Beat me up? Shoot me?

Jesus, as Rick pointed out, you've behaved in a crazy way on this forum, even threatening to contact someone's employer and now you and Mary (who is not even welcome on this blog and comes back in defiance of the owner's wishes) are behaving like Emily Post, tsking tsking over bad behavior.

If you're willing to act civil, I will too. But again, don't pretend you haven't been disruptive and vile in ways I would never dream of being. As much as Ritmo gets on my nerves, I would never try to get him fired, nor would I post negative reviews on Amazon just to get back at a commenter.

So cut the sanctimonious lectures, ladies and I'll do my best to ignore you.

exiledonmainstreet said...

What a way to blow up a good thread. Nice work Exiled.

3/27/17, 2:15 PM

Just calling you out on your hypocrisy, Inga.

Inga said...

Ah Rick, I just saw your comment. Am I supposed to know you and you know me? I don't know who you think you are talking about, but it isn't me. Why do some conservatives here try so hard, even to the point of making up lies about strangers online to disrupt discourse?

Inga said...

And exiled, I will call you on your behavior. It's abnormal.

Inga said...

Yup, I'm done here for today.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"YOu want to spit out your personal story here, and then have a conniption when someone asks you if you thanked the adoptive parents for doing a job that you as a little girl were unable to do for your own..."

They are dead now. And I didn't know their names when I gave her up for adoption. How am I supposed to thank them? They wanted a child and got one.

As it so happens I have two adopted nephews (born much later than my baby.) My brother and his wife considered their sons gifts and thanked God for him. They were happy that the mothers did not abort, but didn't expect the mothers to call them up and thank them. Getting sons to call their own was the reward - what they had waited for when they first put their names on the waiting list.

I told my story because this thread is about abortion. I told a story about how happy I am that I didn't have an abortion and you have turned that into something ugly in your mind. Because you have an ugly mind.

And you obsessively haunt a blog where you are an unwelcome guest and insult Althouse at every turn and then call others immature.



exiledonmainstreet said...


"Most teenage girls who find themselves pregnant with no earthly idea of how they got that way"

Oh, Christ, do you live in 1875? I understood full well how I got that way. Did you enter your teen years thinking your parents found you in a cabbage patch?


"Your brothers understand biology, right?"

Uh, yeah, since the world is not as clueless as you were. My brother understand compassion and have the largeness of heart to love children that is not biologically theirs. Many, many people do - people with kinder, more generous hearts than you can conceive of. Adoption isn't that uncommon you know. Well, maybe it is in your tiny, loveless little world.


"some of us were taught to use our minds from the get go..."

Some of us were. Not you apparently.

mockturtle said...

Time to leave these Gorgons to their own thread.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"You read what I wrote."

Not really. I skimmed over some of it and then my eyes started to glaze over from the sheer stupidity of it.

So I scrolled down instead.

Cheers, see ya!

n.n said...

Only the abortion industry realizes nearly 100% kill rates or collateral damage, depending on individual perspective, with near uniform backing from mainline human and civil rights corporations. Establishing a Pro-Choice cult based on a twilight faith (halfway between faith, fantasy, and delusion), denying science, and denying human life in civilized societies is a remarkable achievement for the oldest industry and profession.

glenn said...

If you look at the abortion demographic the only conclusion to which you can come is abortion supporters are racist pigs. 62% of the abortions performed are done on women of color. Racist liberals I salute you.

Gahrie said...

If you look at the abortion demographic the only conclusion to which you can come is abortion supporters are racist pigs. 62% of the abortions performed are done on women of color. Racist liberals I salute you.

This was the goal from the beginning...Margaret Sanger who created Planned parenthood and pushed birth control and abortion was quite open about her desire to reduce the population of minorities and the poor.

Rick said...

Inga said...
I don't know who you think you are talking about, but it isn't me.


Sure, it was some other Grandma Inga who brags about her daughter in the military and posts at Althouse - and just happens to exactly share your political opinions.

exiledonmainstreet said...


Sure, it was some other Grandma Inga who brags about her daughter in the military and posts at Althouse - and just happens to exactly share your political opinions.

3/27/17, 4:39 PM

Inga thinks we have as short a memory as she evidently does. I remember she delighted in derailing every thread and did indeed issue personal threats to people, although she went into a complete tizzy when Shouting Thomas (I think it was him) posted her full name, which was up for maybe 5 minutes before it was deleted. It's only wrong when it's done to her.

I remember noticing it, but since I have absolutely no interest in having anything to do with Inga offline (although Inga evidently hopes for a face off with her daughter, who will beat me up or something), I didn't care so much.

I also like the trick of, after showing up as Unknown and MadameTrollou and other nics expressly to hurl abuse at "Trumpies" and stir shit she decides to show up as Inga, pretends to be nice and reasonable and then starts berating me for being such a mean meanie when, gee, she's trying to have a conversation!

Civility bullshit.

Inga said...

What the hell? I guess it's stalker day on Althouse. As Unknown, I used the term "Trumpists", never "Trumpies". That is another Unknown. There are several. I changed my handle to Inga as I'd like to be differentiated from the other Unknowns and everyone was calling me Inga anyway. I know it's a feature of political blogs to have certain commenters who become obsessed by others, but it makes you look like you're more interested in stalking liberal commenters than expressing your opinion and even discourse when possible.

Exiled your own odd behavior singles you out, I don't have to. As for Rick I have no idea who he is or why he addressed me.

exiledonmainstreet said...


"Exiled your own odd behavior singles you out"

Like threatening to contact employers and going after an book on Amazon because the husband of the author said something that offended you?

No, that's your "odd behavior." Although I wouldn't describe it as "odd." More like "vengeful" and "immature."

"As for Rick I have no idea who he is or why he addressed me."

He's another commenter who sees your hypocrisy and has called you out on it. Most people here know exactly what he's talking about, your fake Miss Innocent poor-me-I'm-a-victim act nothwithstanding.



Saint Croix said...

As long as the New York Times continues to censor abortion photographs

and hide this violence

for 40 years now

we Republicans should dismiss that newspaper as state media

Pravda

and if this criticism stings

it should

although I grant you a brave soul on one of the NYT blogs

did this journalism

so props for that

but by and large

you are a propaganda outfit

on this issue

and your failure to show the truth to the people of New York

is shameful

Inga said...

Exiled, you are certifiable. I have no earthly idea what you are babbling about. Go stalk some other liberal.

exiledonmainstreet said...

My "odd behavior" consists of calling you on your horseshit.

But then you think Drago must be working for the Russians - so your perceptions of people are a just a wee bit off the wall, I'd say..

Inga said...

You are a humorless nut case, Exiled. Drago and I both knew it was a joke. Wow, you weirdo stalker.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"I have no earthly idea what you are babbling about"

Senility must be setting in then. But we've seen the signs already. Hell, you've sometimes contradicted yourself in comments you've written an hour apart, so your memory isn't that good.

Given the number of times you have dishonestly posted here, changed nics thinking you were fooling everyone and lied about being Inga, your credibility on this site is utterly shot. It's a bit late in the day to think you can retrieve it.

And I'll "stalk" ie, call you out on your lies and hypocrisy whenever I feel like it. Because you are a liar and a hypocrite.

Inga said...


Exiledinonthepsychward ,
You're back on full ignore.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Fine by me, you senile old harridan.

wildswan said...

When women choose life or death for their children, they have to realize as part of their choice that they are forming the demography of their times. By that I mean that young women of today, Millennials, will not be able to collect Social Security unless they have children. You should know that before you choose not to have children because you are "fully autonomous" right now.

The entire welfare state depends on a growing population. Don't assume that because those who retired from the Fifties to the Nineties collected Social Security whether they had children or not that the same thing will happen to Late Boomers and Millennials. The demographic regime has changed for them because almost a third of women are being so autonomous that they are having one child or none. But when Fully Autonomous Woman reaches old age and is not Fully Autonomous any more, will she say: "Hi, I was fully autonomous but now I'm not and I expect some other woman's children to support me. That's the choice I made- to not raise children, to make a lot of money, and to expect 5 or six children from some other woman to support me expensively in the way I autonomously chose that they would. No one told me that that wouldn't happen so my great expectations must be met." But they won't be- see Greece, for example.

The statists simply are not explaining to young women the demographic consequences of what is seen as a private cultural choice. In 2017 children are a choice but in 2057 having had children will be a necessity. You will not, however, be able to choose to have had them.

And if women were really fully functioning adults they would look ahead at the world they are building and make choices based on reality. But they are behaving as if Big State-Daddy will be there when they need him whereas Big State-Daddy is bankrupt right now and hiding it from His Little Girly. And she is hiding from knowing that he is bankrupt.

Ann Althouse said...

Please resist the personal back and forth. Stick to substance. I will use deletion to try to rein in this problem, which anyone reading this thread can see. It suggests at least one person here is in bad faith.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I apologize Ann. I should not have let myself be drawn into a catfight. It's an emotional subject for me.

Jeff said...

I noticed this from the linked piece:

The abortion rate dropped 21 percent from 2009 to 2014. That downward trend would most likely end if Republicans eliminate contraception services provided through the Affordable Care Act.

Evidently, either the writer doesn't know, or he doesn't want his readers to know, that the Catholic Church also opposes every form of contraception except "Natural Family Planning" which comes down to not having sex at times when it could result in a pregnancy. (The actual requirement is that every sex act be open to the creation of life, which also rules out masturbation (mutual or not) and/or oral sex, except as foreplay.) But even aside from this, the assertion makes little sense, as for most insurance plans contraceptive coverage did not become mandatory under the ACA until plan year 2013.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Ann Althouse said...

How many of your children have been killed by someone who had sovereignty over the territory where they were sojourning temporarily?

3/27/17, 9:38 AM

Two. Your point?