[B]oth pro- and anti-abortion groups are focusing on the “legitimate rape” part because it distracts from the very issue Akin himself was trying to hide from: What about pregnancy that results from rape. Akin doesn’t want to confront that this happens, which is why he put forth his dumb rape-doesn’t-cause-pregnancy theory. Pro-choicers, for the most part, don’t want to confront that an abortion that happens after a rape is still just as much an abortion as one that happens because nobody bothered with birth control.Rush Limbaugh had a similar theme on his show today:
I think both sides should own it. Stand in your truth and be straightforward about what you really believe.
The Democrats are gonna try to go to town on this Akin thing as much as they can. Their convention is gonna be the pro-abortion convention. They're gonna end up celebrating abortion at their convention. And, folks, psst, let me tell you something. I don't want you to tell anybody. Let them do it. Let them turn over their convention to Planned Parenthood and to NARAL and every other feminazi out there, you let them do it. Let them go right ahead and turn their convention into pro-abortion. If that's what they think is gonna win the election for them, if they really think this War on Women thing, that they can play it out, let them do it...
"The Democrat Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." Well, this includes now partial-birth abortion and taxpayer-funded abortion. The Democrats are making it plain they support all of that. The American people don't support taxpayer-funded abortion. The American people don't support partial-birth abortion.Swing voters — including me — think both parties, if they say what they really believe, are too extreme on abortion. Therefore, whichever party is clearest and most emphatic about abortion is the one that will lose votes. That's why Rush is saying let the Democrats have their big celebration of abortion and why Republicans are hot to rid themselves of Akin. It's better for each party to have its message be only about its general tendency — the Democrats toward access to abortions and the Republicans toward valuing the life of the unborn child.
Rush knows this too, because he stresses that Republicans shouldn't answer probing questions about abortion and rape. They should respond by demanding that the Democrats be asked "why they have blanket support for partial-birth abortion and taxpayer-funded abortion... why they think it's permissible for the government to tell the Catholic Church and other organizations they must make abortion available against their religious beliefs?"
Abortion politics is a strange game of displaying principles without showing how those principles would apply in the hard cases. We swing voters might warm up to your big principle, but will be horrified to hear about its principled application. Partial-birth abortion is to pro-choice as rape is to pro-life. The trick is to talk about the other side's details and your own big idea.
पोस्ट्स
२०२ टिप्पण्या:
202 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Whatever,
So tell me again who's fighting the culture wars
How divisive that SCOTUS decision became. It moved us not forward but locked us in, forever circling that same battleground.
The GOP should refuse to discuss this stupid question at all. We face a fiscal cliff; all else pales before that.
Therefore Akin needs to quit, or he's a traitor.
Is valuing the life of her unborn child something the government can make a woman do?
I think the Democrats should celebrate abortion rights whole the GOP focuses on why unemployment is 8.5% and how we are heading off the fiscal cliff.
"Is valuing the life of her unborn child something the government can make a woman do?"
Why stop there? Is valuing the life of her born children something the government can make a woman do?
In related news, the Democrats have decided to replace the old, 19th century 'donkey' mascot with an animated GIF of a dog rolling in feces.
and the Republicans toward valuing the life of the unborn child.
Weird that it's a given that people don't think of Republicans "valuing the life of a child", only "unborn child".
As someone who is hoping Obama loses in November, I must say I'm entirely in favor of the Democrats' plan to ignore boring subjects like "jobs", "economics", "immigration", and "foreign policy" at their national convention this year.
30 years ago, I thought there was just so damn much dishonesty and disingenuousness over both abortion and the issue of abortion from both sides (and that was 10 years after Roe v. Wade, which decision I do know and did experience in real time) that it was sick-making. I think that that still.
And you bet your ass that I know everyone hates the "both sides" thing. I do. I know it. And yet, in terms of this particular issue, especially, I do not care about that and I have no problem standing by both "dishonest" and "disingenuous," as well as the sick-making thing, still, to this very day. It's why I have precisely zero problem standing firm against the "if-you-have-a-problem-with-both-sides-you-must-by-defnition-be-a-squish" canard, most particularly on this issue. I think that canard is bullshit. And also unuseful.
In related news, the Democrats have decided to replace the old, 19th century 'donkey' mascot with an animated GIF of a dog rolling in feces.
Or maybe an animated coathanger, like that paperclip thing Microsoft used to have.
Weird that it's a given that people don't think of Republicans "valuing the life of a child", only "unborn child".
Actually they value both. Republicans also value personal responsibility and expect parents of children to act accordingly. I'm not sure why Democrats feel that the responsible segments of society have to be financially obligated to pay for the poor decisions of the irresponsible. There was a time when such dependence was a mark of shame. Now its an achievement to strive for.
In a socially responsible society there would be no need for Democrats.
I seem to remember in the distant past some Dem advisor saying "It's the economy, stupid."
Not sure "It's abortion, stupid" has the same cachet.
Have Vagino-Americans no greater concern in these latter days than the right to kill their unborn children and force others to pay for act?
Weird that it's a given that people don't think of Republicans "valuing the life of a child", only "unborn child".
Garage, if the libs start killing off born children, we'll value them, too.
If the libs start killing off "the incompetent elderly," we'll value them, too.
When Republcians say we "value life," what we mean is that it should be illegal to kill innocent people.
When liberals say they "value life," what they mean is they have put a price tag on life, and they want us to pay it.
I saw Instapundit's post. Never heard Rush, though, and my take was close to his... it won't necessarily hurt Republicans.
What I don't have the first clue of, is if either of them are actually right about what the Democrats will do.
Yeh, abortion rights are pretty small potatoes. Unless of course you're carrying a downs syndrome fetus you can't care for, or are 14 year old girl that made a mistake one night, or the victim of a gang bang, or what all, or are a rape victim. Just ask that legitimate asshole Ted Akin.
Yeh, abortion rights are pretty small potatoes. Unless of course you're carrying a downs syndrome fetus you can't care for, or are 14 year old girl that made a mistake one night, or the victim of a gang bang, or what all, or are a rape victim. Just ask that legitimate asshole Ted Akin.
Right, there are sometimes perfectly legitimate reasons to kill an innocent human being.
Yep Ken, 40 years of right to life in the Republican platform and surely one day Roe v Wade will be overturned or they will get that constitutional amendment. Or it could be that it is a treasured article of hysteria for the Democrats to trot out once every four years to weep and gnash their teeth over. You can pretty much cue it up now for 2016.
The "watch-what-was-done-not-what-was-said [watch-what-people-do-not-what-they-say] " maxim applies so profoundly to this issue. From my POV, it's one of the 2-3 issues with regard to which that particular weighing is so very, very important, not to mention critical.
Things to ask a strong abortion defender:
1. Should the state pay for a minor's elective 3rd trimester abortion?
2, If a nurse were to inform the child's parents that the procedure occurred, should the nurse be sanctioned?
Anyone who answers both yes is at least as extreme as the lamented Mr. Akin.
That is to say: a game-changer in the weighing of what people say and what they do, and the gap.
The party passing off the national debt to future generations is doing its best to reduce the numbers of future generations.
I hope they have time for other stuff, like that plan I suggested to the kid in the stupid hat to get a plank inserted in the platform saying Christianity is a bunch of fairy tales believed by nobody but dumb hateful bigots.
he put forth his dumb rape-doesn’t-cause-pregnancy theory.
He never really said this, but there's a narrative to uphold, I guess, even if it is coming from Glenn Reynolds.
There are, roughly, zero votes on the Supreme Court to overturn the basic abortion right. In Casey, back in 1992, a majority found stare decisis. Twenty more years have gone by. The most you'd get would be Thomas, Alito and Scalia, and I'd bet all three of them have better things to do.
As a political issue, this is moot court.
Unless of course you're carrying a downs syndrome fetus you can't care for, or are 14 year old girl that made a mistake one night, or the victim of a gang bang
You realize that none of those things you cited have anything in common with each other....except that there is another innocent human being involved that you want to kill. Right?
Therefore, whichever party is clearest and most emphatic about abortion is the one that will lose votes.
I get the Obama campaign emails. It is the Democrats who will be centering their upcoming convention on their abortion message, not Republicans. They will lose votes, especially with Catholics.
If Democrats could campaign on Obama's accomplishments, they would. Since they can't, all they have are personal smears and the culture wars.
Everything I read reinforces my sense that Obama and the Democrats are desperate.
Yeh, abortion rights are pretty small potatoes. Unless of course you're carrying a downs syndrome fetus you can't care for, or are 14 year old girl that made a mistake one night, or the victim of a gang bang, or what all, or are a rape victim.
A few observations:
1. Teen moms aren't old enough to vote, and swing voters oppose birth-control abortions 6 to 4.
2. Among women of reproductive age, the yearly rate of abortion for reasons OTHER than birth control is 0.14%.
In other words, so far as elections are concerned you could have stopped after "small potatoes". :)
There's a reason that I'm a strong supporter of within-scant-days, prevention-of-implantation intervention. Actually, there are more like three or four reasons.
Oso,
The cynical hypocrites in the establishment GOP have been milking that cow since 1973 to no effect whatever. How many justices have the GOP put on SCOTUS since Roe and yet they just can't get it overturned. Cui bono? (Denouement: GOP and Dem fundraisers, the abortion mills (PP, NARAL, etc.) and fertile women all over America who can do what they need to without fear, danger, or violence.)
Yep, you are so right. Both sides should own it.
I say I want a woman to have complete control of her body. VOTE OBAMA LADIES! Whay are we doing this all over again? I forget.
I must admit that, on this topic, I'm somewhere in the squish spectrum, with rcommal and Althouse.
It's an uncomfortable place to be.
For me, a convention devoted in large part to the subject of abortion, whether from a pro-life or pro-choice perspective, sounds excruciating and alienating to me. I imagine most on the squish spectrum would feel the same, whether they're right or left of center.
After we get another couple weeks of joining Ryan and Akin at the hip, the election will be moot anyway.
This is just a mess of the GOPs making and democrats for once will throttle them with the issue.
The idea that the added inconvenience of a child having Down syndrome makes it perfectly reasonable to slit its throat and dump its body in the trash is one of the most despicable things you will ever hear someone say with a straight face.
Democrats exist because we don't have enough abortion.
wing voters oppose birth-control abortions 6 to 4.
I'm terrible at math, myself, but isn't that similar to 3 to 2?
I think it's a dumb thing to be talking about in 2012, and it will seem even stupider in the future that we were.
But, if
"Abortion politics is a strange game of displaying principles without showing how those principles would apply in the hard cases.
Then show the truth of it for all to see. Show us a partial birth abortion, and then show us a rape victim forced to give birth.
Then we can decide what is within our values. Who will blink first on that test of the truth?
Poor Lindsey *puff* doesn't see the handwriting, let's see, cannot quite make *puff* it out ...
mene mene tekel u-pharsin
nevermind, nothing a'toll.
Remind me of the distinction between after-birth abortion and infanticide again?
And I don't mean placenta...
wing voters oppose birth-control abortions 6 to 4.
I'm terrible at math, myself, but isn't that similar to 3 to 2?
And 18 to 12!
bagoh20
It doesn't matter what does or doesn't make you cry, applaud, face palm, or barf. Their bodies, their choice. You don't get to make that call for the woman of this country.
There are, roughly, zero votes on the Supreme Court to overturn the basic abortion right.
Yep. I have a well-informed Catholic lawyer friend who says as much. He is anti-abortion, but he doesn't want to keep fighting Roe v. Wade. Even he is reluctant to enforce his views on the rest of America.
He does hope that the new Archbishop of San Francisco will have a serious chat with Nancy Pelosi so she understands the Church's teachings on abortion and reconsiders her moral obligations as a Catholic -- at least to stop saying that supporting abortion rights does not conflict with the Catholic faith.
Ken, perhaps my sarcasm was too subtle as you make my point for me. You can put 15 conservative Catholics on the Supreme Court and that baby still is not getting overturned. Nor will there be a constitutional amendment. American Kabuki. We all know how it ends.
So, Ken, you're OK with an 8 month, 29th day abortion?
Ann is right (again). Another contributing factor is that the media is pro abortion and always structures the debate in pro abortion terms. Like the witless Andrea Mitchell immediately describing the Ryan pick as not one for women.
Two pooints:
1. Dick Morris on TV tonight said this Akin issue has been very beneficial to Romney because it stamps him in a moderate position allowing abortion in the case of rape to all the independent/swing voters.
2. I have never understood why pro life republicans don't confront opponents with the fact that they support abortion law that allows abortions based on the baby being a girl. There is probably not 5% of the persons who vote democrat who understand that fact. A similar argument is that the dem supports abortion of a baby because the mother has a vacation planned. The media again plays a role here. A few months back, the house voted on a bill to prohibit abortion based on gender (opposed by most democrats and the Obama administration) and network news said not one word about it.
After we get another couple weeks of joining Ryan and Akin at the hip, the election will be moot anyway.
This is just a mess of the GOPs making and democrats for once will throttle them with the issue.
I think you underestimate how much that kind of overreaching will repel people, not from Ryan, but those "throttling" Romney/Ryan with such an unfair equivalence. Especially after the entire GOP (and vast majority of conservatives) have manifestly repudiated Akin.
So that "throttling" is likely to be as offputting to a swing voter as if high profile Republicans, Romney campaign surrogates, went around accusing Obama of being a Muslim! terrorist sympathizer! traitor! communist! Kenyan!
Especially after months of Romney being called a vulture, vampire, felon, murderer.
"Their bodies, their choice. You don't get to make that call for the woman of this country."
It's not their body that gets stabbed in the brain with scissors that are then opened inside the skull, who then get carved into pieces and sucked up like waste in slaughterhouse, a full term child, or shouldn't we mention that?
Like I said, let's see it, and see if you want to stand by your values in front of your fellow citizens.
"After we get another couple weeks of joining Ryan and Akin at the hip, the election will be moot anyway."
Well, you can TRY to join Ryan and Akin at the hip.
"This is just a mess of the GOPs making and democrats for once will throttle them with the issue."
Do you actually bother to check if your arguments are coherent past the two sentence mark?
The Democrats are trying to join Ryan and Akin at the hip but this is a mess of the GOPs making? Really, that follows?
Who is the mofo ugly model wearing the tshirt I had an abortion I doubt that thing did and if it did who actually fucked it?
But I digress, and I wish I would not of looked at that link of that extremely unattractive thing wearing a tshirt. No tshirts for that thing. Baggy sweatshirts only.
The 2012 election is the election and year of the vagina. Congratulations vagina you finally made it! I believe the vagina should have a platform, actually be on the ballot, have a speaking role at each convention, have a space in the convention halls with other hardcore vaginas and have a good time. I want to see Vagina's aborting and giving birth and will add much needed drama and excitement. Every now and then the camera will zoom in on the vagina section to see their reaction to whatever some stupid speaker (who 95% of the country doesn't give a shit about)says.
What I am saying is party Vaginas! Show us your diversity. I want interviews with Vaginas by all the major newscasts. I want to see Vaginas mingling at all the great parties. Vaginas with ridiculous hats on, vaginas with pompons, vaginas with whistles, vaginas saying the pledge of the allegiance, vaginas in military garb, vaginas praying, vaginas singing.
All Vaginas All the time.
It will be so much more fun and less boring.
Vaginas in a Hurricane! Possibly a new movie!
Kenk--you're a one note Johnny.
The fact of the matter is that the people in the US are deeply divided on the issue of abortion. I've known adult women who had them in the 1960's. I've known parents who wrestle with the news that their young daughter is pregnant at an "inconvenient time" as a result of an encounter with a "less than appropriate partner".
Difficult choices then have to be made. And it can go either way.
I've got a couple od daughters, stuanch feminists etc. For one of them there's a one issue litmus test. If the candidate is pro choice, he or she can barbecue dogs, raid the treasury and be a mouth breathing moron--but will get her vote. She's a single issue voter. I like to think that otherwise she is an intelligent, rational woman. But that single issue voter bit makes me question that judgment.
Lindsey Meadows said...
After we get another couple weeks of joining Ryan and Akin at the hip, the election will be moot anyway.
Like Siamese twins or the unfortunate victims in "The Human Centipede"? By that I mean will it be a natural fusion or an artificial one? People are quite sensitive to realism these days you know. Seamly is out.
bagoh20 said...
Then show the truth of it for all to see. Show us a partial birth abortion, and then show us a rape victim forced to give birth.
Or, another way to frame this, if forced to choose, would you choose that your daughter after being raped is then forced to carry the rapist's child to term or, alternatively, she decides to have an abortion, even if only as a form of birth control.
Their bodies, their choice. You don't get to make that call for the woman of this country.
If they don't get to make that decision, why are you obsessing over this issue? :)
"Yeh, abortion rights are pretty small potatoes. Unless of course you're carrying a downs syndrome fetus you can't care for, or are a 14 year old girl whose boyfriend perpetrated a statutory rape one night, or the victim of a gang bang, or what all, or are a rape victim."
FIFY. But rape is rape. No qualifiers needed.
I'm not stuck at either end of the spectrum here, but if it came down to deciding between late term abortion for anything other than saving the mother's life, or forcing a rape victim to give birth, I would find the choice easy.
Just like forcing your child to go to the dentist or a needed surgery and suffer in front of your eyes, I could do that, but I could not stand by and watch a helpless full term child murdered brutally, or worse yet, sign off on it, or worse than that, fight for the right to do it.
Hey, why stop at Down's syndrome as a reason to abort?
Autism?
Autism-spectrum?
Homosexuality (assuming it's genetic)?
Won't happen? Well, it already does. The more prenatal tests we have, the more people will abort because of the results.
We have sex-selective abortions, which, it turns out, mean girls being aborted for being girls.
Interesting how abortion=feminism when so many girls aren't born because of it.
Notice that the default assumption is that fetuses are male?
Synova - are you that clueless? The GOP is dead, dead, dead.
I think 80% of GOPers are fundie Jeebus freaks.
I loved Human Centipede Chick.
So fucked up but so enthralling to me.
I also love anything by Lars Von Trier and David Lynch though too.
bagoh20
As revolting as the procedures are they are gonna happen whatever you think or say. Abortion is as old as human civilization. The only real question is this: Is the procedure gonna be done by a physician in hospital or clinic or by all manner of opportunists of unknown qualification, who do it only cuz they need the money and do it in a garage or basement somewhere. If you wanna add to your exhibition of grotesqueries then please add a few back alley abortions done by some idiot who cares about the money. Add in a hospital ER visit to some girl who put drano or worse up her hoo-ha or cut her wrists too. Fair is fair eh?
Titus said: All Vaginas All the time.
A queef motif! Me likey!
"Or, another way to frame this, if forced to choose, would you choose that your daughter after being raped is then forced to carry the rapist's child to term or, alternatively, she decides to have an abortion, even if only as a form of birth control."
I have little problem with an abortion immediately after the rape, but if she hides it and goes into the third trimester, I'm gonna say "sorry Honey, but it's too late to kill what is a small human now. You need to help her have a chance, and you can adopt her out to a fine family that will raise her to be happy and make this all a positive thing you can be proud of, rather than a horror with the blood on your hands.
"Or, another way to frame this, if forced to choose, would you choose that your daughter after being raped is then forced to carry the rapist's child to term or, alternatively, she decides to have an abortion, even if only as a form of birth control."
Again...
If the issue is rape, then lets just outlaw all abortion except in the case of rape (or threat to the mother's life).
If you're not *good* with that, then your "other way to frame this" is dishonest. You never meant it.
Because the choice is NOT between legal late term partial birth abortions for any reason whatsoever and with forcing underage rape victims to carry their rapists baby to term.
In several elections the people of NY made known their wish to reinstate the death penaly. I believe that the death penalty is on the books here. Nonetheless, there has not been an execution or even a death penalty case in several generations. And there won't be. Same deal with abortion. Abortion will never be made illegal in NY. I just don't understand the theatrics among the pro abortion people. Abortion will never be made illegal in a blue state......I can understand the problems a woman faces with post partum depression. Still, the push by the feminists here to legalize post natal abortions for infants up to the age of one year seems to me to be ill advised. Can't we all find common ground here. Rape victims have the right to an abortion, and viable foetuses (i.e. babies) have a right to a life.
Jeebus freaks who support fetuses should also support the single moms after the birth till the child is 18. Errr no?
Romney's dog-on-roof turned into Obama ate dog,
Ryan's Medicare "liability" turned into treating Medicare as a piggy bank for Obamacare,
Akin's legit-rape will turn into Obama's 3rd term abortion, and killing botched abortion survivors.
On top of that, only 41%, down from47%, of Americans are pro-choice. A majority are against late term abortion, even the IL legislature voted to save abortion survivors.
Paraphrase the Cowboy President: bring it on!
Alex said...
Jeebus freaks who support fetuses should also support the single moms after the birth till the child is 18. Errr no?
Just the other day you insisted they needed a comfortable lifestyle too. Recession?
Oh and what about adoption?
KenK, those horrors would be very rare in this country today. They happened before because the technology even for doing it right was lame. Today, illegal abortions would be performed with modern technology in clandestine operations. Nobody would have to use a coathanger. That was a result of the shame of being pregnant, which is long gone.
If late term abortion was not an option, they would nearly never happen with modern pregnancy tests that work so well early on.
But if need be, yes show that too, and explain why a woman would be forced to choose it. I have nothing to fear from the truth of all of it being shown. I think many people hide behind the fact that nobody ever sees what they agree with. Imagine if the German people toured Auschwitz before VE day instead of after.
I always have to laugh when middle aged men think they can talk about women's fetuses.
William:"post natal abortions for infants up to the age of one year" is infanticide, is repulsive, is morally wrong, has nothing to do with a woman's choice.
How about post natal abortions for infants up to 18 months? What's wrong with up to 19 months? 24 months? 36 months? How about any "infants" who need their mothers who happen to be tired of them?
Alex said...
I always have to laugh when middle aged men think they can talk about women's fetuses
Are you looking in a mirror or is your name really Alexis?
"I always have to laugh when middle aged men think they can talk about women's fetuses."
Trust me. I really wish it was none of our business.
So if we go back to the days of illegal abortions, how can we be so sure modern clean equipment will be in use? Who would make sure the illegal abortionists would be professional?
I think the people who look forward to this do no have a clue as to what would and could happen. Reality will be women coming into ERs hemmorhaging, or septic, or worse. But hey they sinned, so they maybe deserve it, huh? After all they tried to kill their babies.
So if we go back to the days of illegal abortions, how can we be so sure modern clean equipment will be in use? Who would make sure the illegal abortionists would be professional?
When the Martians land, when will they park their spaceships?
"Democratic Convention To Become Celebration of Abortion Rights."
I don't know Revenant, maybe on your roof, since you have that nice big welcome alien friends sign on it?
The whole subject is kind of sad. The only redeeming feature is that the argument is odd. As William says, 'Same deal with abortion. Abortion will never be made illegal in NY. I just don't understand the theatrics among the pro abortion people. Abortion will never be made illegal in a blue state...'
The goal should be universal human rights which, according to objective standards, is endowed from conception to grave. Elective abortion serves to devalue human life and corrupt the integrity of a society. The only reasonable exception could be in cases of involuntary or superior exploitation, where there is legitimate concern to preserve the mother's dignity. However, even then, there is only one innocent human life at stake, and every effort should be undertaken in order to preserve it. Whatever our society decides to do, it would be exceptionally stupid to set policy in order to accommodate exceptional circumstances.
We need to reject dreams (e.g. physical, material, ego) of instant gratification. If we want sustainable liberty, then we must be capable of self-moderating behavior. If we want a viable society, then we must respect individual dignity, but we must also recognize the inviolable principles of evolutionary fitness.
Here's a secret that people like KenK don't know because they don't have love in their hearts. The infant that is the result of a rape is the only innocent victim in your mad abortion argument. No one else wealking this Earth is as pure, not even the mother. The mother is a victim, why would you victimize the baby too.
It's not an easy place to get too. For a father to hate the rapist of his child is perfectly understandable. But to kill the baby for the sins of the father?
And while my wife and I haven't had to walk that road with my step-daughters, my daughter-in-law ran off, and got pregnant by a jail bird who has 4 kids by other women. When she returned, we convinced my son-in-law to allow the baby to be born. That was 3 years ago, and my grandson, the child with no blood relation to anyone in the family, is the light of our lives.
So no, it's not about wanting to make women keep, or dispose of inconvienences. It's about doing the right thing. Loving each child as if it were your own. Because as my wife says "Pappaws' are made in the heart"
So keep your self righteous hatred to yourself. I hope you never have to make the choice, because truthfully, I think you'd fail.
That is what being anti-abortion is about
The "It's scary to be a woman" commercials are annoying.
I was searching the NARAL site to reseach Republicans, to find many local Democrats had 50% or 0% ratings in approval.
Gas and heating prices are still high, food costs increasing, couples postponing having children, forgeting we're still in a military conflict, student debt, how to cover social security and medicare, and everything else.
So if we go back to the days of illegal abortions, how can we be so sure modern clean equipment will be in use? Who would make sure the illegal abortionists would be professional?
AllieOop: My Catholic friend would happily settle for abortion to be turned over to the states.
Which is to say that there is possible middle ground between all one way or the other.
Both sides are too extreme??
Again with the extreme relativism that Althouse is so famous for. But let's leave that aside.
What is the moderate position on killing innocent human beings?
Last time I was able to visit their house(before my surgery) we brought them some cereal. My grandson has one of those powerwheel tractors that my wifes father had bought him. He came driving up to our van, towing his little trailor. We give him the 5 boxes of cereal, he loads it up in the trailor, and drove off to the house with it, so he could unload it.
And last year, I was building him a bunk bed. He would grab a piece of wood and hand it too me. "Here Pappaw"...another piece of wood "Here Pappaw". Of course they were not any dood at the time, but he was helping Pappaw, and that's all either of us cared about.
Creely, better yet, how about we incentivize a woman not having an abortion in the first place? Free or cheap birth control, tax money to facilitate adoptions on a much bigger scale, just to name a couple.
I don't know Revenant, maybe on your roof, since you have that nice big welcome alien friends sign on it?
Sweet!
Seriously, though, asking what we will do when "abortions are illegal" is pretty dumb. Making abortion completely illegal is politically impossible, even in the red states.
Is the moderate position on rape-caused pregnancy to oppose capital punishment for the rapist, but to advocate for capital punishment of someon who is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, the other victim of the rape, the child who is conceived thereby?
A woman who has been brutally violated by rape deserves care and support and compassion, she deserves better than to further victimizing her by telling her to go become a killer, to turn her violent wrath on, not the rapist, but an innocent human being who, like the woman, did not ask to be placed in that position.
Carnifex, grandchildren are amazing and a wonderful blessing. I have three of my own, two granddaughters, age 12 and 3 and my grandson age 9. They are a joy.
So if we go back to the days of illegal abortions, how can we be so sure modern clean equipment will be in use? Who would make sure the illegal abortionists would be professional?
And just yesterday the death nurse was trying to tell people that she was actually opposed to abortion.
how about we incentivize a woman not having an abortion in the first place?
Aren't you the same person who, less than 24 hours ago, was claiming most women view abortion as a horrible experience? How about a government ad campaign: "Warning: horrible experiences are horrible".
Free or cheap birth control
The myth that people fail to use birth control because they can't afford it never stops being funny. Especially since these same people who couldn't afford birth control somehow manage to find the much larger sum of money required to pay for an abortion.
Half of all abortion-seekers are repeat customers. The problem isn't money -- the problem is stupid people fucking.
Bender, you blow all your arguments all to hell when you display what a hateful jerk you are, repeating that death nurse line. You are not the Christian you profess to be, that is evident.
Creely, better yet, how about we incentivize a woman not having an abortion in the first place? Free or cheap birth control, tax money to facilitate adoptions on a much bigger scale, just to name a couple.
AllieOop: Sure, why not. I'm more of a both/and kind of guy than either/or.
However, I hope you are aware that the problem really is not the availability of birth control or adoption. Both are plenty available. Overwhelmingly people use abortion as an alternate, convenient form of birth control.
Yeah, yeah. I also know it's not that simple.
I participated in my younger sister's abortion. I'm more conservative and anti-abortion today than I was then, but I don't feel bad about a situation I still consider impossible -- an older guy moving in and terrorizing my suicidal mother and not-too-bright younger sister.
Ultimately I don't think the solution to abortion is a bright line law allowing/disallowing all abortions, but much more awareness and responsibility at all levels.
The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime
Donohue & Leavitt, 2000 (pdf)
"We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime."
Yes Creely I'm with you on people being more responsible, but as you saw with your own family situation, some folks just aren't, for various reasons.
I know from my experience working with women from the inner city, when I was a nurse, that irresponsibility was a way of life. I do know when BC was cheap or free and easy to get, it was used.
"We swing voters might warm up to your big principle, but will be horrified to hear about its principled application."
Too many dog whistles out there ;)
KenK: That's great but ... if infanticide were allowed and then shown to reduce crime by X% a couple decades later, would that be cool with you?
BTW infanticide is still relatively common on our blue spinning planet.
I do know when BC was cheap or free and easy to get, it was used.
AllieOop: Really? From what I can tell, condoms are cheap and available in just about all drug stores as well as bus stations. Pace Sandra Fluke, it's not all that expensive or hard to get scripts for BC pills or IUDs.
What is your threshold for "cheap or free and easy to get"? Admittedly it's not easy as buying a half-gallon of milk or renting a DVD, but it's not like obtaining medical marijuana either.
"The inner city" what does that mean?
I live in an inner city, and basically your saying your judging women as being irresponsible.
I may be one of the good little girls, who got and education, married, then had children. But those 'irresponsible' women are my nieghbors and my friends.
They're moms, and they may not have the same socio-economic resources I have, but I find some dignity, social support, and charity does a lot of good.
Throwing birth control at poor people doesn't work.
That death nurse label stings doesn't it?
Well, it should. It should sting to be confronted with the truth of so often promoting a culture of death.
Perhaps use of the label is not very charitable, or perhaps it would be less charitable to pretend that promoting such a culture of death is not the odious and repugnant thing it is.
Perhaps the sting of the label is the result, not of my being a jerk or my lack of charity or civility in language in speaking truth, but due to a wounding of your conscience. That your conscience hurts to hear such a label directed to you is a good thing, it means that there is still hope for you.
Renee, I am not judging, I am making an observation, there is a difference. I don't know what inner city you live in, but your experience is not the one I saw everyday, with the women I worked with. I don't think you know what you are talking about when you say throwing BC At poor people doesn't work. It worked very well in preventing pregnancies in the MANY women I dealt with for 35 years, as a nurse.
I'm glad that your situation is a stable happy one.
Bender, no it doesn't sting, because it's not true. If you insist on being a liar and hypocrite that is a sin you choose to commit.
And Bender, if you want to be credible as a spokesperson for pro life, take some lessons from Saint Croix.
The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime
"Dead people don't commit crimes" is a dangerous line of reasoning to delve into, especially when you're killing them before they commit those crimes.
E.g., half the murders in this country are committed by black people. A means of halving the murder rate via selective abortion suggests itself...
Can the pro-choicers not at least figure out the point that if children born as early as 22 weeks can survive and grow up healthy, then after that point it's hard to justify a difference between a developing fetus and a newborn (which you hopefully would not condone killing for any reason).
We can talk about viability, not just conception and birth -- the two extremes that Prof. Althouse referred to above.
For instance, there is the point against life-at-conception that upwards of 70% of fertilized eggs never become babies, which by that standard would mean every adult woman is carrying around her own miniature Auschwitz in her tummy, which murders innocent human beings all the time.
Or you can recognize that as the absurdity it is, but note that while most fertilized eggs are aborted naturally, most third-trimester fetuses are not, and ask yourself what the difference is between killing an infant that could survive if born now, and killing it after it's born.
Seriously... I want to know if there are pro-choicers who actually don't have a problem with late-term abortion as a "choice".
Careful, Revenant. Some people have been skewered by highly respected watchdog organizations just for presenting that concept for the purpose of condemning it.
Hunter, yesterday in a different thread, I stated that I felt abortions should be limited to the first trimester, and was lambasted by conservatives, because they had a problem with the all or nothing concept.
I watched the movie Margaret (2011) last night.. it reminded me of David Mamet's play Oleana.
If you liked Oleana watch this movie.. the movie also reminded me of something Chip commented about a little while ago.
Its a little long but most of the characters were well played I thought.. the main character is younger updated version of the college student in Oleana.
btw.. the trailer misses the substance of the movie.. as most trailers do.. so I'm not linking to it.
How stupid are we?
My entire life, definitely my entire voting life, I've been asked to vote **this election more than ever before!!!*** because I'm about to lose my right to abortion.
How many years can we be sold this story, while the economy struggles and our tax code gets more complicated and our Congress people become millionaires and college gets more unaffordable?
Seriously... I want to know if there are pro-choicers who actually don't have a problem with late-term abortion as a "choice".
Pro-choicers who do not have a problem with late term abortion as choice?
Sure there are. Joan Walsh and many others considered Dr Tiller a hero. President Obama actually made public notice of his shooting, he was that important to the left. Sebilius did a lot to protect him. Tiller was pretty much the embodiment of late-term abortion as choice.
I stated that I felt abortions should be limited to the first trimester, and was lambasted by conservatives, because they had a problem with the all or nothing concept.
You were lambasted by liberals, moderates, conservatives, and libertarians simply because you couldn't come up with a rational defense of your position.
There are good defenses for believing first trimester abortions should be allowed and later ones shouldn't. You just couldn't think of any. :)
Revenant, wrong, I did mention one, did you forget what was? No Revenant, sometimes it is simply just a feeding frenzy. As for that liberal, well that person can go fuck himself, there was far more to that exchange than met the eye.
There are a number of reasons for limiting abortions to the first trimester, but now I'm going to sleep, tomorrow is another day.
In several elections the people of NY made known their wish to reinstate the death penalty. I believe that the death penalty is on the books here. Nonetheless, there has not been an execution or even a death penalty case in several generations
Not that anyone will ever see this, but the last execution in New York was in 1963. After the Supreme Court declared all existing state capital punishment statutes unconstitutional in 1972, the state legislature repeatedly passed bills to reinstate it; their attempts were blocked by gubernatorial veto between 1978 and 1994. A bill authorizing lethal injection was signed into law in 1995.
In 2004, the New York Court of Appeals held that law violated the state constitution. New York does not have a death penalty statute at the present time.
The most recent death sentence imposed (though not carried out) in the state had been in November 2002.
Revenant, wrong, I did mention one, did you forget what was?
I wouldn't care to guess which of your melodrama-laden comments was supposed to be "the good reason". Was it when you told me you didn't need to offer a coherent explanation because I'm a man? :)
"At the Washington Examiner, Paul Bedard headlines: “Dem Convention becomes anti-Akin affair.” That is a serious mistake. The Democratic convention should be an anti-Romney affair."
John Hinderaker of Powerline
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/are-the-democrats-delusional-on-abortion.php
I feeling very confident in a Romney-Ryan win this November.
"CU-Boulder study predicts win for Mitt Romney in general election
Study takes into account state-by-state economic data"
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_21372873/cu-boulder-study-predicts-win-mitt-romney-general
It seems that there are a majority of American voters who want to abort the Obama presidency.
Brian said...
Yeh, abortion rights are pretty small potatoes. Unless of course you're carrying a downs syndrome fetus you can't care for, or are 14 year old girl that made a mistake one night, or the victim of a gang bang, or what all, or are a rape victim. Just ask that legitimate asshole Ted Akin.
Right, there are sometimes perfectly legitimate reasons to kill an innocent human being.
=================
Religious assholes like you are the cancers running around the Muslim world and a tumor within the Republican Party.
Just because you came up with the unscientific, completely sectarian belief that ensoulment happens at conception...ergo each blastocyst and above in fetal development is "An innocent human being" ...doesn't make it so or obligate society to act on your extreme beliefs and force women to accept Downs Babys and Rape Babies.
No more than a fertilized egg makes for "an innocent chicken".
"If undecided viewers tune into the Democratic convention and hear all about abortion, and tune into the Republican convention and hear all about the economy, Romney will win in a landslide."
Romney in a landslide works for me.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/are-the-democrats-delusional-on-abortion.php
"doesn't make it so or obligate society to act on your extreme beliefs and force women to accept Downs Babys and Rape Babies."
That isn't happening and its the Dems who are trying to make abortion an issue in this election. A little perspective can help.
John Lynch said...
Hey, why stop at Down's syndrome as a reason to abort?.....etc. etc...Notice that the default assumption is that fetuses are male?"
With strident and pathetic comments like that,...one would conclude.....
One would conclude what? Could you at least try to make your insult attempts a little more coherent?
Because when struggling Americans are paying their bills and have a financial triage at the kitchen table the thing on their minds is abortion. They are so very worried about that they can hardly concentrate on who not to pay this month.
To whom it may concern.
"Oh my. Did Brooks just make the argument for himself and other like-minded, diligent middle-of-the-roaders to get off the Obama bandwagon? I think so."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/david-brooks-sorry-mr-president-its-me-not-you/2012/08/22/c69e7dee-ec09-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_blog.html
Paco, I thought it was subtle...one need not always be obvious to get the point across.
It was noticing a comment that started silly and went sillier as he put one non-starter sentence after another in his post.
It is sad that some can't keep to the issue and have to draw in little flashpoint cliches in an effort to win the day. That is what is discouraging about this thread.
Someone calls for an honest debate that comes to at least an uneasy truce and is met by absolutism in the most unbending fashion.
NO ONE wants abortions. Rare would be ideal of course. HOWEVER, the choice is the woman's and you can pile on all the "what if's" you want but it boils down to the GOP taking an absolute position with no compromise and the Democratic Party having an opening to hang them with their own rope.
"Republicans approved platform language on Tuesday calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion with no explicit exceptions for cases of rape or incest.
The anti-abortion plank, approved by the Republican platform committee Tuesday morning in Tampa, Fla., was similar to the planks Republicans have included in their recent party platforms, which also called for a constitutional ban on abortions. The full convention is set to vote on the party’s platform on Monday."
What is not happening dreams? Looks like someone else has a big agenda for the big A.
So if we go back to the days of illegal abortions, how can we be so sure modern clean equipment will be in use? Who would make sure the illegal abortionists would be professional?
If the reason we need abortion to be legal is so that abortionists are professional with modern, clean equipment, then what is your explanation for the abortion mill in Mississippi:
The documents also cite health and safety concerns at the clinic and note that its owner, Diane Derzis, has been previously charged with violations at another clinic in Birmingham, Alabama. The violations include evidence that the clinic staff failed to respond to complaints of post-surgical complications. It also cites a lawsuit filed by an abortion doctor who sued Jackson Women's Health Organization alleging that Derizis jeopardised the heath and safety of patients by not using a doctor with admitting privileges when administering a drug which carries risk of haemorrhage and ectopic pregnancy.
So legal abortion doesn't ensure clean, modern, professional abortionists.
It encourages shoddy profit seekers who exploit women for cash.
...better yet, how about we incentivize a woman not having an abortion in the first place? Free or cheap birth control, tax money to facilitate adoptions on a much bigger scale, just to name a couple.
This makes no sense. If having the baby is so horrible that a woman must seek dangerous medical intervention to kill it, then isn't that enough incentive to use birth control in the first place?
Why should we have to offer cash or in-kind payments to do something that is in the woman's best interest already?
Your arguments attempt to sound reasonable, but even a little consideration reveals how nonsensical your rationalizations are.
"But I think we can agree on a rule in American politics: The party that wants to talk social issues is the party that is losing the debate on everything else."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/ho-hum-another-democratic-shiny-object/2012/08/22/8eeb6834-ec50-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_blog.html
I think the Dems are losing. Romney-Ryan in a ... .
"What is not happening dreams?"
I think his point is that the R's have had this platform plank for the past 3 decades or so, and yet somehow it never manages to get enacted. It's almost like they can't just do whatever is in the party platform when they get a president elected.
Not that I am defending the platform. I think it's wrong, and ceteris paribus it would be a huge disincentive for me to vote for the R's.
But ceteris ain't paribus.
This election cannot be about what matters to voters: The economy. This election cannot be about what the democrats have destroyed: The economy. This election must be about abortion and rape and any social issue the left can exploit. The pro-democrat, led by the nose hack media, nod in gleeful agreement.
Free or cheap birth control, tax money to facilitate adoptions on a much bigger scale, just to name a couple
How would this help? In my neck of the woods--Texas, mind you, deep in oooga-boooga-we-want-to-control-your-woman-parts territory--you can stroll into the county health department and walk out with any birth control method you want, few questions asked and no money changing hands. If you're the mildly self-sufficient type you can also pay your $5.99 and get a big old pack of condoms at Walgreens, or for shorter-duration relationships there's always the quarter machine in gas station bathrooms. I know this is not news to you, Ms. Allie.
Regarding adoption tax incentives, well I don't think this helps potential adoptive parents get off the fence as there are already thousands of them on waiting lists for too few babies, and we already have an adoption tax credit up to $13,500. I know this because we claimed it when we adopted our son.
If you are referring to adoption tax incentives for the pregnant women, are you suggesting the public buy their babies from them and turn them over to nice middle class families? That sounds positively Atwoodian!
There's nothing wrong with wanting to reduce the number of women who turn to abortion as a solution to their problems, but the thing is that most of those solutions have been thought of, applied, and have reached the limit of their effectiveness.
But ceteris ain't paribus.
Quod dixit.
N.A.
Honestly, it doesn't matter that you think it's irrational. Deal with it, you have to, because you cannot change the law, not yet anyway. And there are millions of people who will make sure men like you have no say over a woman's body.
In the meantime ethical men like Saint Croix will help further the pro life movement far more than men like you and Bender. For many of you men it's merely control , way more than a honest concern for the fetus.
When I mention ways in which I saw many unwanted pregnancies prevented , hence avoiding an abortion all together, with the women I worked with, there is an irrational rejection of the fact that cheap, free, easy to obtain BC actually works. Dumb , dumb, dumb.
Yes, the political party that elected a President who would not support a version of the born alive infant protection act is going to lecture the country that the Republicans are "extreme"
That message will go swell.
Just watch.
AllieOop said...
And there are millions of people who will make sure men like you have no say over a woman's body.
You seem to have missed the fact that the guy in the Oval Office & his HHS Secretary now have a say over a woman's body via ObamaCare.
So you can stop with the silly slogans now. Nobody believes them.
Lindsey Meadows said...
NO ONE wants abortions. Rare would be ideal of course.
You're either ill-informed, delusional, or stupid.
There are plenty of people who want abortions for various reasons.
@KenK - I normally avoid wading into such discussions. I am frankly tired of the issue. But bad/sloppy thinking is difficult to ignore.
"Their bodies, their choice". That's not an argument. That's a slogan. It completely avoids the issue of whether it's a choice that people should make. "My yard, my choice", but I don't think you should be free to choose to dump toxic waste in your back yard. "My rental property, my choice", but you are not free to choose to discriminate against potential tenants because of race/religion. "My business, my choice", and so on.
You focus on hard cases. Those are hard cases. And there are hard cases that make it difficult to apply laws against theft, even murder. I wonder how many hard cases there are where people are suffering because of federal agencies or regulations, and whether "progressives" are moved by such.
"Cynical hypocritical" Republicans. As opposed to? I agree that appeals to SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade are a bit silly, so I will give you cynical. But hypocritical? "Progressives" throw that word around a lot, but it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. I don't see how it applies here. Hypocrisy isn't about "failing to live up to one's own standards", otherwise the best way to avoid it is to have no standards. The social-political Left often seems to think so. But hypocrisy is about *pretense*, about *pretending* to believe in something you don't. Time and time again, the Left shows it doesn't really believe in the arguments and principles it spouts. What was true yesterday isn't true today, because it no longer helps their Cause. "My body, my choice", but "your life, not your choice", and so on.
For the record, I no longer believe the way to deal with abortion - which is an evil, which is not to say those who do it are evil - is laws against it. The pseudo-logic of prohibitionism is seductive and misleading.
Re the whole abortion debate: there is no horse that so dead it cant be dragged out and beaten again. (apologies to PETA)
Yashu - Quod dixit dixit.
When I mention ways in which I saw many unwanted pregnancies prevented , hence avoiding an abortion all together, with the women I worked with, there is an irrational rejection of the fact that cheap, free, easy to obtain BC actually works. Dumb , dumb, dumb.
Again, literally no stats back this assumption of yours up.
Irresponsible women aren't responsible. They won't suddenly take BC pills consistently. If they cannot be trusted to close their legs, how in the world can they be trusted to take a pill every single day?
If they're responsible enough to take a pill, CLEARLY, they are responsible enough to not have sex constantly with a string of men.
And, again, why is it MY job to subsidize THEIR sex lives?
Can you name what percentage of women have NO access to birth control?
NO ONE wants abortions.
The DNC is set to be ALL about abortions. So, clearly, DEMOCRATS want abortion.
HOWEVER, the choice is the woman's and you can pile on all the "what if's" you want but it boils down to the GOP taking an absolute position with no compromise
As opposed to the Democrats and their noted support of procedures like partial birth abortions and Obama noted opposition to a bill outlawing the murder of babies who survive abortions?
That, apparently, isn't absolute or something.
There are a number of reasons for limiting abortions to the first trimester
Shame you fail to provide any.
And let's say a woman wants an abortion one week after her first trimester? You're going to tell her no? How would you justify that?
Funny, those who are commenting that they can't wait for the Democratic Convention to be all-abortion, no-economy. I don't see anywhere that the Dems will be pure-abortion focused, except perhaps an intimation from Rush, who obviously is not tasked with laying out the Democratic Convention agenda. Abortion is just one issue, one issue that is particularly loud right now because, well, because people are listening.
tionRicDudes, and I do mean dudes here-
you do not want to go here with American women.
Try to hear that. Please.
and Thanks.
" Jay said...
AllieOop said...
And there are millions of people who will make sure men like you have no say over a woman's body."
That sounds like rejection of child support from an unwilling father. Sounds popular for 1/2 the population.
"I am woman, hear me roar," right up to the family court where she demands the guy's income.
She sure sounds powerful.
Bah! Should have started with just Dudes.
er cylinder said...
tionRicDudes, and I do mean dudes here-
you do not want to go here with American women.
Hysterical.
the political party that elected a President who would not support a version of the born alive infant protection act is going to lecture the country that the Republicans are "extreme"
You are under the bizarre delusion that the R's are going to lose this debate.
You probably though Obama was going to be successful in saying the Republicans want to cut Medicare.
Of course based on your comments, you're obviously an emotional voter and not interested in facts.
Joining Ryan and Akin at the hip: Legitimate electoral strategy.
Pointing out that Obama was part of Rev. Wright's church and was under Ayers' tutelage: The destructive politics of damnation by association.
Interesting how that works. It's almost like... I dunno, there's no cohesive, logical reasoning behind it.
I love watching the left pretend that all women support abortion.
Of course if it weren't for lies, the left wouldn't be able to get through the day.
Rush knows this too, because he stresses that Republicans shouldn't answer probing questions about abortion and rape.
He's wrong. Of course you should answer it. It's a legitimate question. Emphasize emergency contraception.
both parties, if they say what they really believe, are too extreme on abortion.
You could say the same thing about the slavery debate. Those abolitionists are too extreme! And those pro-slavery people are too extreme, too! I'm in the mushy middle. I say we don't import any more slaves, but we let slave-owners decide if they want to keep their slaves or not. It's up to the individual white man to decide.
Did that resolve it?
I think the mushy middle is filled with people who aren't paying attention, who are really ignorant about what's going on, and are not intellectually engaged.
@Cedarford - Besides the general ineffectiveness of your "religious assholes" comment, I find it tiresome how often defenders of abortion "rights" (trying to use neutral language here) harp on about religion and "ensoulment".
No.
That is a caricature of why people think it is wrong to destroy preborn humans. The embryo/fetus is a "human being". That is scientifically inarguable. Sorry. And I have read/heard plenty of people who have no problem with abortion "rights" who concede that. See next paragraph.
This is where opponents of abortion make the same mistake from the opposite direction. "It's a human being, abortion is wrong, QED". But is this a human being who (a) deserves legal protection and (b) her mother cannot be allowed to destroy? Congress figured this out in the early 80's (if I recall) in a series of hearings. Scientific facts do not in and of themselves settle a legal/ethical issue.
Do atheists believe humans have souls? Presumably not. So do atheists think I can be killed by anyone at any time? Unless they say "well yes" then we can conclude "souls" and "ensoulment" are not what determines whether one is human or has a "right" to exist/live, at whatever age.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a "religious" person argue against abortion on the basis of "souls". Therefore it's a straw man argument brought up by others.
And what is a "soul"? Here, you have a speck of a legitimate complaint, because too many "religious" believers (which religion did you have in mind? Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism?) think of the body as a vessel that holds this "soul". Platonism is hard to shake.
There are atheists who oppose unrestricted abortion. Why? You should ask them. I do think it's still worth considering why in *general* the more "religious" are more inclined to support restrictions. But is it really about religion? about "souls"? or something else? I would say it has to do with evil as the movement toward death/non-existence/non-being. Ask Tolkien about Melkor/Morgoth. He understood.
"I think the mushy middle is filled with people who aren't paying attention, who are really ignorant about what's going on, and are not intellectually engaged."
Have fun insulting people into voting for you, St. Croix.
Also, as Powerline pointed out --- it wasn't REPUBLICANS who financially supported Akin's campaign.
It was DEMOCRATS who did so.
They funded his run. And will be the only ones funding it if he remains in the campaign.
I think the mushy middle is filled with people who aren't paying attention, who are really ignorant about what's going on, and are not intellectually engaged.
It would be more accurate to say the mushy middle is filled with people who believe the evidence isn't sufficient to support the conclusions of either absolute.
In an ideal world, no one would ever get pregnant except when they were healthy and able enough to take the baby to term.
This isn't an ideal world, so now we have to work backwards from the ideal to deal with the fact our world's imperfect. Drawing lines sucks, but we need to find them. Most people agree that killing a baby that's been born is wrong; so how far backwards should we work from "Born?" Contraception is available and accepted by a large portion of the population (if not an overwhelming majority).
So, we slowly work forwards from one end and backwards from another until we find a balancing point. It'll be messy, loud and unpleasant, but we could do it if everyone stopped assuming the other side always argued in bad faith. It would also help if so many of the loudest did stop arguing in bad faith.
btw - Every debate question to Romney/Ryan will include Akin's name. Watch.
"So Governor Romney, Congressman Akin said_____ and you must be_____ and do you support the______"
There won't be any questions for Obama that ask him about his past support for late term abortion.
There won't be any questions asking why the public should pay for Sandra Fluke's contraception.
Partial-birth abortion is to pro-choice as rape is to pro-life.
That's a little sloppy. Republicans agree that rape is evil and ought to be illegal. We believe in birth control, and emergency contraception for victims of rape. The "war on women" meme is utterly bogus.
The Democrats do not agree that partial-birth abortion is evil and ought to be illegal. Republicans are too nice to start a "war on babies" meme, but that's what liberals are actually doing. We could also start a "war on the handicapped" meme as well, since liberals believe in removing the handicapped from our society.
I think the Republican platform should have something in there about emergency contraception in cases of rape. I think an overwhelming number of Republicans would support that.
What I don't understand is why liberals don't fight for the born/unborn distinction.
It's the basis of Roe, that a "fetus" is not a baby and thus it's not a homicide.
If you are enforcing a born/unborn distinction, enforce it!
Which means you should be horrifed by partial-birth abortion, since that violates the sacred born/unborn line created by your fetus rhetoric in Roe.
Now she's a half a baby and half a fetus. She's half-citizen, half-property.
And since you don't care about the baby/fetus, people who have read or know about Carhart are horrified by the left's callous disregard for a baby's life.
You can't actually say Republicans have a callous disregard for rape victims. Akin's comment suggested a disregard. He was jumped on by every Republican in the world. And he apologized, in a way that I think was quite sincere.
When do liberals apologize for the dehumanization of babies, or the handicapped?
Way back at the beginning of this thread, Col. Angus said:
``I think the Democrats should celebrate abortion rights whole the GOP focuses on why unemployment is 8.5% and how we are heading off the fiscal cliff."
I hereby second the motion.
Gas prices are going up, Walmart is bringing back layaway a month early, and half of the baby boomers doubt they'll ever retire.
"In California, nearly 930,000 people have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks, roughly 45 percent of the total who are unemployed..."
"the portion of consumers that expect the economy will get worse rose to more than half for the first time this year–up 4 percentage points at 53%..."
And, "the latest data (from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia) indicates, contrary to what the experts keep telling us, that we are in or entering an economic downturn."
So what?
"Now is ze time on Democrets vhen ve do abortion dance!"
Have fun insulting people into voting for you, St. Croix.
I'm not running for office! And I'm not suggesting Romney insult the people who are not paying attention.
I just object to the idea that the mushy middle is where all the wise people are. I think apathy describes the mushy middle as well as anything.
I think most the "mushy middle" is trying to find a workable compromise that can give everyone some of what they want, instead of the current screeching hysteria we deal with every two to four years.
"Democratic Convention To Become Celebration of Abortion Rights."
♪ Ceeeeelll-e-brate good times
Come on!! ♫
It would be more accurate to say the mushy middle is filled with people who believe the evidence isn't sufficient to support the conclusions of either absolute.
Any position you take on abortion is absolute. That's the problem the mushy people have run into. They think they can spout mushy rhetoric in Casey, and they end up with the horrifying abortions of Carhart
Law needs clarity far more than it needs vague generalities.
And there is clarity to be found. For instance, our death statutes say that brain activity is the relevant biological criteria for human life. So enforce that!
This is a bright-line test, a hard and fast rule. I find most people are oblivious to our death statutes. They have no idea that we have consensus in regard to when people die.
"You have no job, can't pay your mortgage or car payment but Democrats will guarantee free abortions!"
Sounds like a winning platform to me.
Honestly, it doesn't matter that you think it's irrational. Deal with it, you have to, because you cannot change the law, not yet anyway. And there are millions of people who will make sure men like you have no say over a woman's body.
In the meantime ethical men like Saint Croix will help further the pro life movement far more than men like you and Bender. For many of you men it's merely control , way more than a honest concern for the fetus.
When I mention ways in which I saw many unwanted pregnancies prevented , hence avoiding an abortion all together, with the women I worked with, there is an irrational rejection of the fact that cheap, free, easy to obtain BC actually works. Dumb , dumb, dumb.
You complain about someone alienating you by being a jerk in explaining their views, and then you go and do the exact same thing!
I'm not trying to control anyone's body, and I'm actually mostly in favor of RU-486, and absolutely in favor of the "morning after" high dosage of birth control pills.
But you have utterly failed to support your position, because you have asserted that we must keep abortion legal to keep it clean/professional, and that we need to incentivize women to use birth control.
I have shown that even with legal abortion, there are too many providers that are not clean/professional, and that women already have plenty of incentive to use the free/cheap and ubiquitously available birth control that was already available before the HHS mandate.
And your response is to get huffy and sling insults, rather than addressing the issues.
You are an extremely appropriate advocate for your movement.
I think most the "mushy middle" is trying to find a workable compromise that can give everyone some of what they want, instead of the current screeching hysteria we deal with every two to four years.
That's what Kennedy said in Casey.
In Carhart he was jumping up and down and screaming about the infanticides.
You can't be mushy and vague. You have to be clear and precise. You have to work your way through the issues. You have to follow the law. Equal protection is a wonderful guide through most of this.
Defining the baby as property was stupid and barbaric.
The Supreme Court should be protecting human life, working its way through the infanticide issue, defining homicide under our laws and enforcing it.
Being mushy and vague about abortion hasn't resolved anything. Has it?
Croix: Scroll on up to my post before hand where I talk about working forwards and backwards to find and draw lines. We're on roughly the same page on the how.
Let's dispense with a couple of fallacies so there can be a lucid discussion.
BC is cheap and already free for the asking if you still can't afford it. Assuming that use of pre-sexual congress BC will drop the abortion rate is a lie enthusiastically swallowed by and then propagated further by ignorant people. You can't legislate it's use.
The governments role in adoption is one of regulation to keep the process on the up and up. It also offers tax incentives to the adopting couple to defray the costs of the adoption process. There is no shortage of hopeful adoptive parents. The idea that not directly supporting adoption with tax money is one of the reasons women choose to abort is another lie enthusiastically swallowed by and then propagated further by ignorant people.
The longer the debate is cast in the form that it ultimately the decision of the woman to abort without regards to a potential human being's right to life and the protection of society at large the closer we'll get to involving the state directly in that decision and then on down the slope to where the state makes that decision.
Anybody who can enthusiastically brag about raising their children as progressives concedes that they will also make choices on the matter of abortion that won't include their parent(s). A reasonable assumption is that the number of grandchildren may have been reduced. That is consequential to a principled and selfless position supporting pro-choice without regard to the right to life of the potential child or grandchild.
Jay said...
"You're either ill-informed, delusional, or stupid."
really?
Please, please, please let them do this. Let them speak of nothing else. Because if they do it proves there is a God and he is certainly a Republican.
I think the Onion had a piece that the democratic convention would give out free abortions as part of a promotional give away to boost registration. Seems about right to me. Its odd to see what glee they have in aborting infants.
Carnifex: "The infant that is the result of a rape is the only innocent victim in your mad abortion argument."
Accusing women of the crime of being raped doesn't help your cause. I honestly thought we were past blaming the victim, but apparently the medieval idea that when a rape occurs the woman must be guilty in some way just won't die.
Your statement is as foolish in its way as the "legitimate rape" comment of Mr. Akin.
Matt, I agree that lines need to be drawn. Most people agree with that. After all, conception is a line, too. Birth is a line.
I don't think "compromise" is how abortion is going to be resolved.
People can't compromise on infanticide, or slavery, or rape. We can't ask them to.
You know how many compromises there were over slavery? A lot! The Constitution itself was a compromise.
And none of those compromises worked.
Sometimes you need an absolute zero tolerance policy. Slavery is wrong. Infanticide is evil. Rape is unacceptable.
The way to resolve abortion is not by "compromise" on any of those positions. The only way to resolve it is by working our way through the minefield.
It's not just important to have a clear line (a "bright-line test") but also to be able to defend that line in moral terms.
What you can do is explain why your rule is not infanticide, why it's not rape, why it's not slavery.
That's not a compromise. It's an acceptance of moral absolutes.
Laika: The problem there is you two are using "innocent" in different ways. You are associating it with the actual rape that happened, which everyone should agree the woman is innocent of. However, in the initial use, it was specifically talking about in the grand, large scheme (for example, innocent, as in, committed no wrong ever). The baby is a complete innocent in that example; it has not had the ability to commit any wrong. It's a very clumsy bit of wording, and definitely not the best way to explain the situation, but I think it is one of the many examples of how these conversations go south so quickly. Take a step back, try and understand how the other person means to use certain words, then clarify if you're still not sure.
Republicans shouldn't answer probing questions about abortion and rape. They should respond by demanding that the Democrats be asked "why they have blanket support for partial-birth abortion and taxpayer-funded abortion...
A politically stronger response is to keep the focus on the woman.
Why do Democrats refuse to protect a pregnant woman who is assaulted on the street?
Why do they refuse to say that her baby was killed?
Why do liberals make stupid analogies comparing a doctor's ultrasound to rape, and yet they see no rape analogies when there's a vicious attack on a pregnant woman?
One thing is certain. If abortion is every restricted to only in cases of rape, incest, and direct threat to the life of the mother, then the number of rape accusations will skyrocket.
Lost in all this: abortion is murder.
Hunter: ...Or you can recognize that as the absurdity it is, but note that while most fertilized eggs are aborted naturally, most third-trimester fetuses are not...
Not true. All fertilized eggs are aborted naturally, eventually. Except for those which are aborted artificially, of course.
It is circular logic to arbitrarily draw a line and then use it to justify drawing the line.
Paco Wove,
In related news, the Democrats have decided to replace the old, 19th century 'donkey' mascot with an animated GIF of a dog^^^bitch rolling in feces.
FTFY.
"Here's a secret that people like KenK don't know because they don't have love in their hearts. The infant that is the result of a rape is the only innocent victim in your mad abortion argument. No one else walking this Earth is as pure, not even the mother. The mother is a victim, why would you victimize the baby too."
Please forgive me, if I have misunderstood you. Do you claim that you are the "loving one", who has the right to judge KenK? If you believe the Bible, what does the Bible say about judging?
In my opinion, anyone who forces a woman to carry the product of a rape is just as guilty of violating the woman as the rapist himself. Both are criminals. Neither one respects the woman's God given right to control her own body! Please don't tell me this is what pro-lifers now believe? If so, I will have to reject the pro-life position, just as much as I reject the abortionists who perform late term abortions. Both are immoral.
Incidentally, many of these extremists, who present themselves as pro-lifers claim to be Christians. Perhaps, they are Christians who limit themselves to the New Testament, and ignore the lessons in the Old Testament. The Old Testament contains many instances in which innocent people die, because of the sins of others. It is not that the Hebrew God likes the death of the innocent, but sometimes, that is the best outcome in a bad situation. I agree that the fetus conceived in rape has not sinned, so is an innocent victim. It is not a victim of the woman who was violated, but of the rapist who implanted him/her into an unwilling victim. Because the woman did not make the choice to receive this fetus into her body, she has the God given right to refuse to carry the fetus after the event. If she chooses to carry the fetus, that is her right. If she decides to abort it, that is also her God given right. I certainly hope that you aren’t making the claim that it is “loving” to threaten her with violence if she decides to abort it. And yes, anyone who passes a law forcing behavior, is resorting to violence to get their way, through police action.
One thing is certain. If abortion is every restricted to only in cases of rape, incest, and direct threat to the life of the mother, then the number of rape accusations will skyrocket.
I actually prefer the Texas model of defining pregnancy as beginning at implantation.
I think rape victims have a constitutional right (under Griswold) to emergency contraception.
After brain activity starts (6 weeks after conception, 8 weeks after last menstrual period), I believe we should be defining abortions as murder or manslaughter.
By the way, I do not think a state can allow a homicide of a baby, even a baby conceived by rape.
For instance, suppose a woman is raped, goes through nine months of pregnancy, and gives birth. Two weeks after birth, she shoots the baby in the head.
That's an appalling act of revenge, yes? Even pro-choice people would object to that.
The rape exception is a very strong motivation for an abortion. But it still doesn't justify an actual homicide. Thus the law still needs to think about infanticide and enforce it.
I agree about implantation being one good "bright line".
The beginning of heartbeat or detectable brain activity are also good "bright lines".
Those are part of the reason I actually prefer for the "Morning After" dose and RU-486 to be legal.
But the problem is, if we establish "rape" as a justification for abortion, literally millions of women will make false rape accusations just retain the option of abortion.
So, yeah: I agree that the focus should be on scientifically and unambiguously defining the point that a zygote becomes a baby, and prohibiting abortion as being infanticide from that point on.
If the GOP manages to rid itself of Todd Akin then I wonder if the debacle he created doesn't redound to the benefit of the Republican ticket. The all-harridans-all-the-time lineup Democrats are putting together to capitalize on Akin playing into the "war on women" meme seems likely to play about as well as Pat Buchanan's tirade in 1992.
For that matter, even if the GOP can't shed Akin, the fact that he's been largely ostracized may make the Republican party seem like the reasonable one compared to a party that wants to make Sandra Fluke et al its public face.
I actually prefer for the "Morning After" dose and RU-486 to be legal.
Of course there's a huge difference between a day-after pill (contraception) and RU-486 (abortion).
RU-486 is a pill that induces an abortion in the first 7 weeks of the pregnancy.
It's not actually clear if RU-486 is safer for a woman than a D&C abortion (the most common first trimester abortion surgery). There can be a lot of bleeding.
Here are some adverse events from RU-486.
Also consider the horrible stories here of men using RU-486 to force women to abort, often by drugging their drinks with the pill. Really horrifying.
@Illuminati - You raise some fine points. Some regarding whether one can judge the heart of another. Some regarding whether the fetus is the only "innocent". Some regarding the death of innocents in, for example, the Hebrew Bible (aka Old Testament). You gave me something to think about.
I would respectfully push back on two points.
You say "woman's God given right to control her body". That is not an argument but rather an assertion. Are there any limits to this right? One might argue the embryo/fetus also has a body. After all, how many arms, legs, and heads does a pregnant woman have? And how do we know God (which?) gave this particular right? and to the extent that it overrides the right of a preborn human to live/exist?
That last question is, in my opinion, the second weakest point in the case against legal abortion. Even if abortion is evil/unjust (in all? most? cases) I am skeptical that trying to ban it by legal fiat is the best response.
The other is "do violence by asking her to carry the fetus to term". One can certainly object to that, even argue that should be a legal exception. But I think it's rhetorical hyperbole to argue that asking someone not destroy the life of another, even under the most difficult circumstances, constitutes "violence" that is equivalent to sexual assault. If I ask a torture victim not to torture his neighbor, I don't think that makes me morally equivalent to a torturer.
Good comments though. Thanks.
I say let them go on their deranged parade so the whole nation can see how the DNC one trick pony operates. Biden was unavailable for comment except for the little sticky on his door that read, "Awesome. I'm off the hook."
What is not happening dreams? Looks like someone else has a big agenda for the big A.
Yawn. That's the same plank Republicans have had in their platform for forty years.
Saint Croix,
I recognize and understand the difference between the morning after dosage and RU-486.
I marginally support both because they are both limited to extremely early use. I think probably restricting abortion actions to just preventing implantation will probably always be a bridge too far.
The fact that RU-486 can be used in an evil manner by the unscrupulous doesn't disqualify its use...after all, we wouldn't deny women the right to accuse someone of rape just because indications are that more than 40% of all rape accusations are false, right?
The point is, one of the bright lines (and one that I think you've advocated) is heartbeat and brainwave activity, both of which occur significantly earlier than the 3-month "limit" which seems to be the current socially-accepted go/no-go point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but RU-486 and the morning after dosage both fall within that bright line, and so there is no infanticide reason to prohibit either one.
A Reasonable Man said: Or, another way to frame this, if forced to choose, would you choose that your daughter after being raped is then forced to carry the rapist's child to term or, alternatively, she decides to have an abortion, even if only as a form of birth control.
The child is half your daughter's as well. Why should the child be punished? What if this is the only child she will ever conceive?
I thought about this if I were ever to be raped and become pregnant as a result. I decided that it's not the child's fault. This may be the only child I would ever conceive or bring to term (full disclosure: I've had 6 pregnancies, 3 miscarriages and 3 children, 1 girl, 2 boys. My daughter is special needs a 21 year old 3 year old).
Rape is a violent act. It's a horrible thing to happen to a woman. But if a child is conceived, he's reduced to a sperm donor. The man was evil, the child is not.
"Matthew Sablan: The problem there is you two are using "innocent" in different ways. You are associating it with the actual rape that happened, which everyone should agree the woman is innocent of. However, in the initial use, it was specifically talking about in the grand, large scheme ..."
So you're saying that he was saying that the woman's hypothetical misdeeds in the past diminish her status as an innocent victim of rape in the present?
An alleged victim's history is self-evidently relevant to the finding of fact of rape -- Crystal Mangum's word against yours should weigh very lightly without physical evidence -- but once the determination is made I don't see how a woman's hypothetical less-than-innocent past diminishes her status as an innocent victim of rape.
The most legitimate argument against a rape exception is the creation of an incentive to file false charges, which Duke Lacrosse revealed to be a serious and overlooked problem even without the "abortion incentive". In my view if abortion is legal before a certain stage of fetal development one need neither create a troublesome rape exception nor allow unborn children with functioning human brains to be killed.
Like Althouse said, either extreme position creates extreme scenarios.
The point is, one of the bright lines (and one that I think you've advocated) is heartbeat and brainwave activity, both of which occur significantly earlier than the 3-month "limit" which seems to be the current socially-accepted go/no-go point.
There's no limit at 3 months. 10-15% of abortions (130,000-200,000 a year) happen after that point.
Here's a brief calendar, counting from mom's last menstrual period...
Baby's heartbeat - 5 weeks
Activity in baby's brainstem - 8 weeks
Baby is viable in an NCU - 24 weeks
Baby's born - 39 weeks
Estimations of gestation can be off by 2 weeks.
1-2% (12,000-24,000) of viable babies are aborted every year.
Nothing rare about that!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but RU-486 and the morning after dosage both fall within that bright line, and so there is no infanticide reason to prohibit either one.
RU-486 would, in many cases, terminate a baby's heartbeat. That's not actually a homicide if the baby has no brain activity. But you're terminating a pre-life and it's still immoral, I think.
I would outlaw all abortions, if it were up to me.
I would firmly protect contraception, including emergency contraception for rape victims, the mini pill, the IUD, the pill, etc. Implantation is the only "line" I'm comofortable with, personally.
As a legal matter, I think a state should be free to allow or outlaw early abortions.
I also feel equal protection protects all babies, born or unborn. And they should get protected by the same death and homicide statutes that all the rest of us get.
Part 1
@Rick
Thank-you for the kind response, and your thoughtful counter arguments.
"But I think it's rhetorical hyperbole to argue that asking someone not destroy the life of another, even under the most difficult circumstances, constitutes "violence" that is equivalent to sexual assault."
It is easy to forget that laws imply force, including violence, if people refuse to comply. If you pass a law, mandating behavior, you are not "asking" someone to do anything, you are demanding they do it. If the woman doesn’t comply with your laws, the government will apply sanctions against her by force. First, the rapist has forced the woman to have sex by threatened violence, now our pro-life extremists intend to use force against her, again, to make her to carry that fetus to term. Neither the rapist nor the radical pro-lifers respect the woman's right to chose whether she wants to be impregnated and to carry the fetus.
"You say "woman's God given right to control her body". That is not an argument but rather an assertion..... After all, how many arms, legs, and heads does a pregnant woman have? And how do we know God (which?) gave this particular right? ..."
We have already established that the radical pro-lifers intend to violate the raped woman’s right to choose whether she carries the pregnancy to term or aborts. The radical pro-lifers claim that anyone who respects the woman’s wishes to terminate the pregnancy is not just a common sinner, but is a murderer. As I have already pointed out, the Bible has many stories which demonstrate that sometimes the innocent die because of the sins of the fathers (ex Exodus 20:5). When the woman chooses abortion, the innocent fetus is indeed an innocent victim of violence, but the fault does not rest with the raped woman, but with its father, who used violence to impregnate an unwilling woman.
Part 2
The radical pro-lifers are violating a fundamental moral principle in our Judeo-Christian culture. We do not use one person’s body, against his/her will, too sustain the life of someone else, even if the second person dies because the first person refuses to save him/her. If the innocent person dies because someone refuses to donate their body to sustain them, that’s their choice, we do not call the second person a murderer. For example, suppose a person needs a bone marrow transplant, we do not force someone else to donate bone marrow against his/her will. The radical pro-lifers, who want to force a woman to use her uterus to sustain a fetus against her will, violate this principle.
There are some societies, which are not based on our Judeo-Christian culture, which have a different answer. For instance, I have read that the Chinese government harvests organs from prisoners, for the use of people whom the government considers more worthy to use those organs, than the people born with those organs. Is that moral That scenario could be in our future. The American government is populated by people whose greatest virtue is “equality”. Right now, the argument is economic equality, but soon, with race based mandates in Obamacare, “equality” is already mandated in health care. In the future we might face the question, is it fair for one person to have good kidneys, while someone else has none?
In the Bible, our right to control our own bodies, is a natural outgrowth of the Biblical guarantee of freedom (John 8:32). Perhaps, one could argue that a slave is free spiritually, but, that virtual freedom is incomplete. Although the Bible doesn’t directly outlaw slavery, one reason Christians reject slavery is because slavery interferes with our God given freedom. Because Christians value freedom, in Judeo-Christian culture, each person is recognized as an individual with his/her own identity. They are not ciphers whose only value is how he/she is useful to society. As free individuals, Christians have the right to control our own bodies, although we are encouraged to voluntarily give of ourselves for the benefit of others. Once you remove anyone’s volition to control his/her own body, he/she no longer exists as an individual, he/she has been reduced to a cipher, property of the state. To reduce someone from an individual to a cipher is an attack on his/her humanity. First the rapist attacks the woman's humanity, by forcing sex on her against her will, then the radical pro-lifers continue the attack against her humanity, by using force to make her submit her body to sustain the fetus without consulting her wishes.
Laika's Last Woof: "Matthew Sablan: The problem there is you two are using "innocent" in different ways. You are associating it with the actual rape that happened, which everyone should agree the woman is innocent of. However, in the initial use, it was specifically talking about in the grand, large scheme ..."
So you're saying that he was saying that the woman's hypothetical misdeeds in the past diminish her status as an innocent victim of rape in the present?
Far be it for me to presume to speak for someone else, but I'm pretty sure it's the abortion itself that makes the woman no longer fully innocent.
For example, suppose a person needs a bone marrow transplant, we do not force someone else to donate bone marrow against his/her will. The radical pro-lifers, who want to force a woman to use her uterus to sustain a fetus against her will, violate this principle.
That's a bad analogy because mom created her baby. As creator of the baby, she is morally and ethically responsible for the baby's life.
We also hold fathers morally and ethically responsible for the baby's life. This is true even if you do not want to be a father.
Nor is there anywhere in American law an "ethical" example of people using poison or knives to free themselves of a familial obligation. One merely has to imagine children killing their old, infirm mother to be appalled at such a prospect.
It is notable in this regard that abortion clinics have no neonatal care units. And abortion law has not developed in such a way that the doctor attempts to keep the baby alive. For instance, why not a right to abort the pregnancy by inducing labor and putting the baby in a NCU? Instead they interrupt the delivery to kill the baby.
Saint Croix said:
"That's a bad analogy because mom created her baby. As creator of the baby, she is morally and ethically responsible for the baby's life."
If a woman has voluntary sex, then your argument would be valid. My discussion applies only to a woman who is the victim of rape. A rape victim has no more moral responsibility for the rape or for the resulting fetus. My analogy is somewhat weak, since it is even more immoral to force a woman to carry the fetus conceived in rape than it is to force a healthy person to donate bone marrow for a sick stranger who needs a bone marrow transplant. Not only have the radical pro-life people forced her to use her body against her will to sustain a life, but they have also multiplied the psychological damage resulting from the rape.
@Illuminati - Wow. That was an excellent response, thanks for the extra effort you put into that. I'm not quite persuaded (mainly looking at part 2) but this is one of the more rigorous attempts I have seen at relating the issue to "Judeo-Christian" (biblical) principles (if I can summarize your fine efforts that way). I don't think your reasoning can be ignored or dismissed casually.
Thanks Rick for the kind words.
As a personal choice, I support the woman who has been raped and then chooses to carry the fetus. My objection is for those who want to use the power of the state to take the choice away from her.
I'm not the first to carve out an exception for rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger. There have been some great pro-life conservatives, such as Ronald Reagan, who held the same position. Frankly, I'm a little shocked that an obscure senate candidate has decided to make this the defining issue right now.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा