The Future of Social Conservatism

There is one thing certain that can be said about young people….they grow up.

Posted by Fitz | September 19, 2007 12:11 PM

i imagine that thet the 'homosexuality issue' does in fact have staying power, possibly more than the 'life' issues. everyone now believes that a) homosexuality is inherent and b) even if it isn't, no-one is hurt by it.

under these conditions, who could possibly object to what one might be forced to call 'gay equality'?

so, the 'moral' problem of gayness is no more, but 'life' issues will surely remain contentious pretty much forever.

Posted by lucretius | September 19, 2007 12:21 PM

lucretius,

point 2) really depends on point 1). If homosexuality is not inherent, then homosexual people are contravening their own natures, and thus are hurting themselves, which we ought to stop them from doing.

Now i'm willing to accept that in most cases, homosexuality is an inherent and inescapable condition, and people can't be blamed for being homosexual. But if it were ever proven to not be inherent, and to be 'chosen', then the whole edifice of the argument for gay rights collapses, and then i think most people would view it as a sin, and a serious one.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | September 19, 2007 12:33 PM

Hector,
you wrote, "if homosexuality is not inherent, then homosexual people are contravening their own natures, and thus are hurting themselves, which we ought to stop them from doing."

So, homosexuality may not be inherent, but heterosexuality is?

Posted by Rickm | September 19, 2007 12:38 PM

lucretius

Perhaps...

But..

#1 The recent rejection of the moral claims inherent in same-sex "marriage" by the people & the courts have injected homosexuality in to a ever contentious institution.

The prevalence, importance, and consequences of family breakdown makes this particular demand more problematic than you may appreciate.

#2. The overlap with how we educate young people about human sexuality also has staying power.

Otherwise...your live & let live premise I think is generally correct as you describe.

Posted by Fitz | September 19, 2007 12:39 PM

There's a PhD thesis in trying to understand which issues people change their positions as they age, and which seem to be more fixed.

For instance, getting older does seem to affect your views on tax policy, crime, and sex/violence in pop culture. But the evidence is anecdotal. Someone ought to be able to tease this out from the data.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | September 19, 2007 12:48 PM

Hector, I don't think there's any connection there. Homosexuality could be inherent and still be harmful to society, justifying regulation of it. The tendency to steal is probably inherent too, but it doesn't follow that we shouldn't ban theft.

Conversely, homosexuality could be a choice and it would still not follow that we should keep people from acting that way. Eating unhealthy is a choice too, yet traditionally we've told people to take responsibility for the consequences of their own unhealthy eating.

I tend to believe that homosexuality is a choice, but I wouldn't change my position that marriage is between one man and one woman if scientists suddenly discovered otherwise.

Posted by John Savage | September 19, 2007 12:59 PM

Going back to Ross's original point, the interesting question that's not answered is: Are young people more or less polarized than the general population? For example, if 49% of the young support gay rights, and 45% support abortion rights, does that mean there's close to 50% that support neither? Or are there significant groups that support gay rights but not abortion rights, and vice versa? The fact that the poll doesn't give us these data makes it much less useful.

Posted by John Savage | September 19, 2007 1:04 PM

Nicholas,

The question is actually a lot harder than you think it is and many an article in journals like /Public Opinion Quarterly/, /Demography/, and /Sociological Methodology/ has been devoted to trying to figure it out. Basically the problem is that your age equals today's date minus your birthdate. If you know any two of these three, you automatically know the other and this chokes statistical analysis through a problem known specifically as the age/period/cohort problem and more generally as colinearity. For instance, is someone tolerant of homosexuality because everybody is nowadays (period), because that person is young (age), or because that person was born and had formative experiences later in history (cohort). Strictly speaking, it's impossible to solve, even with really high quality data, but you can approximate answers to the puzzle if you're willing to impose theoretical assumptions.

Posted by Gabriel | September 19, 2007 1:06 PM

Just to clarify the point in my 12:59 comment, by the same token, if scientists found proof that homosexuality was a choice (which would be tough to prove anyhow), liberals would still say it was a legitimate choice that people should have every right to make. They wouldn't suggest cracking down on homosexuality as a result.

I think Hector has the cause and effect reversed. People decide whether they think homosexuality is right or wrong first. Then if they think it's right, they tend to lean toward the view that it's natural, or if they think it's wrong, they tend to lean toward the view that it's a choice. But the reasons for having decided it's right or wrong are much deeper and more fundamental to one's ideological or religious belief system.

Posted by John Savage | September 19, 2007 1:11 PM

Re: If homosexuality is not inherent, then homosexual people are contravening their own natures, and thus are hurting themselves, which we ought to stop them from doing.

Huh? I really don't follow the logic of the above. I can think of any number of behaviors that people commonly engage in that are not inherent but are also inherently harmless*. Inherent or not, homosexuality falls into this category.

* Such behaviors may of course be accidentally harmful. Driving car is a good example. It is not innate and no one (except maybe the most dedicated Earth Firster) would argue that it's "against nature" but at times it can lead to serious injury or death. Nonetheless we do not regard driving as morally suspect because the harm that results from it is accidental not inherent to it.

Posted by JonF | September 19, 2007 1:33 PM

Inherent or not, homosexuality falls into this category.

Well, surely this is the point of contention, on the moral/religious front, if not the only one on the political front.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 2:06 PM

I think that Ross is engaging in wishful thinking on what he calls "the life issue".

Public support of abortion rights arise out of the fact that women want careers, having children is costly, and people no longer think that non-marital sex is immoral. With these being the prevalent middle-class values, abortion becomes a necessary part of the middle class toolkit.

Indeed, many people change their views from pro-life to pro-choice as they become sexually active, just as many non-sexually active teenagers hold the belief that sex should be saved for marriage and later discard that belief.

With respect to stem cells, I think the politics of this will be cemented once any cures are found using the research. At that point, nobody except the hard-core religious is going to be concerned about killing blastocysts. On the other hand, I will freely concede that if no cures are ever found using the research, the tide on this issue could turn towards social conservatives.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 19, 2007 2:10 PM

Dilan: er, are you assuming the 18-30 crowd is not thinking of careers/school, or isn't sexually active?

That seems a bit implausible. I would guess (with no data) that "to stay in college" is as big an abortion reason as "to keep my career on track" and that college kids get knocked up more than their elders.

If I had to guess, ultrasounds are a big driving factor in the opinion shift among the young folks. "It's a tomato, worthy of no protection up to just about the moment it's delivered" is hard to maintain when you grow up with those cute little high-tech womb-pictures around.

Probably not helpful for "no abortion, ever" but I bet it'll drive major shifts in favor of earlier and earlier points at which it's no longer on-demand. This is because young people, though stupid, aren't heartless ideologues, and know a baby when they see it. But, hey, you may be right -- never discount the ability of selfishness to triumph over decency.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 2:17 PM

I have every confidence that the members of the He-Men Homo-Hating Society will still be present in large numbers 50 years from now. I do hope they won't be able to pull off an election like they did in 2004, though.

I wonder if Ross considers the death penalty to be a "life issue," and it's a funny label if he does.

I suspect that 50 years from now when Dick Cheney is the Sultan of Dubai and is living on his 3rd cloned baby heart many conservatives will have adjusted their bioethics accordingly. But I could be wrong.

It could be his 4th cloned baby heart.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 19, 2007 2:30 PM

Er, why isn't the death penalty a life issue?

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 2:35 PM

TMoC writes: "But, hey, you may be right -- never discount the ability of selfishness to triumph over decency."

Of course some people continue to consider the use of birth control to be an example of this. I don't think that viewpoint has much of a future anywhere.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 19, 2007 2:42 PM

TMoC asks: "Er, why isn't the death penalty a life issue?"

I didn't say it wasn't. I said it was a funny label in that instance. "Issues of life and death" might be more complete. As you're a Catholic I assume you're anti-DP, TMoC, but I might be wrong.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 19, 2007 2:45 PM

I am. Though I don't think the death penalty is fundamentally unjust and wrong in all circumstances. I think it's not good or wise now, but that it is probably necessary (and moral) in many times and places in order to keep even the most basic order. That's the intellectually coherent "Catholic" position, I think.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 2:53 PM

Of course some people continue to consider the use of birth control to be an example of this. I don't think that viewpoint has much of a future anywhere.

Short term, probably not as a mass movement, though the return of some Protestants who'd been ok with it to opposition in recent years is interesting. Longer term, one can imagine courses for history, plausible if not probable, where this all changes quite a bit. Natalism of some sort is probably not dead at all, looking at global demographics and for instance the Russian procreation prizes.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 2:56 PM

The current issue of Mother Jones has an article, Gay by Choice?, that discusses the possibility/probability that homosexuality is a choice after all. Sample:
“. . . as crucial as this consensus [that sexual orientation is inborn and immutable] has been to the struggle for gay rights, it may not be as sound as some might wish. While scientists have found intriguing biological differences between gay and straight people, the evidence so far stops well short of proving that we are born with a sexual orientation that we will have for life. Even more important, some research shows that sexual orientation is more fluid than we have come to think, that people, especially women, can and do move across customary sexual orientation boundaries, that there are ex-straights as well as ex-gays. Much of this research has stayed below the radar of the culture warriors, but reparative therapists are hoping to use it to enter the scientific mainstream and advocate for what they call the right of self-determination in matters of sexual orientation. If they are successful, gay activists may soon find themselves scrambling to make sense of a new scientific and political landscape.”

Posted by Nell | September 19, 2007 2:57 PM

TMoC writes: "I don't think the death penalty is fundamentally unjust and wrong in all circumstances. I think it's not good or wise now, but that it is probably necessary (and moral) in many times and places in order to keep even the most basic order. That's the intellectually coherent "Catholic" position, I think."

Really? "To keep even the most basic order"? That seems a little extreme.

I don't bemoan the loss of creatures like Bundy and McVeigh or Hussein, but I'm opposed to the death penalty from the other end as well - because of what it does to society as a whole. I see no value in it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 19, 2007 3:04 PM

The issue does not go away regardless of what youth think of it. If homosexuality has real world consequences, which I think it does, it will always appear as a cultural/political issue. Youth may think homosexuality is just dandy but if it isn't as things turn out that will have effects.

Youth thought higher welfare payments to the able bodied was a good idea in the 60's. Turns out not to be true. Abortion had high youth support in the 70's. Abortion on demand has bad consequences and is not very popular now. Youth thought Frampton was great in the 70's. Not so much now.

Does this mean it will be recriminalized? Probably not. Does this mean that it will be discouraged in the future and probably never be equally respected in law and culture (especially the latter where people have more influence than on judges) probably so.

Posted by jjv | September 19, 2007 3:57 PM

jjv writes: "Youth thought higher welfare payments to the able bodied was a good idea in the 60's. Turns out not to be true. Abortion had high youth support in the 70's. Abortion on demand has bad consequences and is not very popular now. Youth thought Frampton was great in the 70's. Not so much now."

Geezers thought bombing the living hell out of Vietnam was a great idea in the 60s. Turned out not to be true. Richard Nixon had high geezer support in 1972. He turned out to be a crook. Geezers thought Lawrence Welk was great in the 70s. Not so much now.

When he was a kid jjv walked 8 miles to school and back again, uphill both ways. In the snow and without any shoes. And he liked it. He loved it!

If homosexuality were recriminalized somehow I don't think jjv would be one of the voices calling it a mistake.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 19, 2007 4:13 PM

I think societies with high crime rates and low stability probably have little ability to hold too many prisoners. Consider the state of roads in various places after the fall of the roman empire, and the like. It's debateable point, but certainly when society is weak and the technology/power gap between authority and criminal/rebellious elements is low, you essentially have something like a war, where POW capacity is not infinite.

That this is not remotely the case in first world modern societies is also true.

One could imagine a large enough terrorist supporting subpopulation in a first world society to make it more true, for some crimes -- we're not there either, but you can imagine some situation where having a prison that could hold some Islamic "hero" at acceptable cost would be very hard in some scenarios for Europe 30 years down the road.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 4:23 PM

Dilan: er, are you assuming the 18-30 crowd is not thinking of careers/school, or isn't sexually active?

That seems a bit implausible. I would guess (with no data) that "to stay in college" is as big an abortion reason as "to keep my career on track" and that college kids get knocked up more than their elders.

Marquis:

You are forgetting that a fairly significant contingent of 18-30 year olds are still virgins or abstinent. (You are also forgetting a fairly significant contingent isn't in college as well.)

We are not talking about all young adults being pro-life. We are talking about a somewhat larger percentage vs. older adults. And given there is a significant number of young adults who are sexually inactive due to moral beliefs, and that a significant number of those people revise those beliefs as they get older, it is entirely plausible that this would correlate with people moving from pro-life to pro-choice.

It is simply much easier to hold a pro-life position when you aren't worried about an unwanted pregnancy derailing your life.

And as a general matter, a lot of people discover during the course of adulthood that sexual relations aren't as mystical or mysterious as their parents and religious leaders told them. Very few sexually experienced adults believe that, for instance, having had a lot of sex makes one less desirable or sex less enjoyable and special, whereas many younger virgins believe precisely that. People grow up, they realize the moral absolutes that they were taught in this area don't really make any sense, and they take a more pragmatic position.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 19, 2007 4:42 PM

Dilan,

I just don't buy the analysis. This is when people are MOST worried about (and encounter) unplanned pregnancies. I suspect the people who make it to 18, or certainly 25 (unless you think this trend skews to the 18 year olds, which we have no evidence for) virgins are more likely to become the morally adrift pseudo-sluts of liberalism rather than, you know, get married or have one partner and keep the same POVs on abortion they had.

Clearly we're both just guessing here, but I don't buy your "explanation" for the statistic. For one thing, didn't the trend used to go another way? You think abstinence has won so many converts that it's tipped the balance, but they all will be enlightened to the joys of hedonism shortly?

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 4:53 PM

I mean, it is plausible that as people get older they discover that killing other people to make your own life easier is sometimes pretty easy and low-cost, but I'm not sure it's obvious.

As I said, I doubt this will do much for absolute anti-abortion laws, but I bet the next twenty years will see some strong moves towards greater restrictions early on. As the liberals I know personally start having babies, more and more of even the most aggressively secular admit they are growing uncomfortable with late-term abortions. I think ultrasounds are a reason. My bet is that as the 18-30 cohort starts having kids, they may get more uncomfortable (in an actionable way, if Roe falls) with abortions of anything that looks cute on the screen.

Down's kids and the like will get no traction out of this. There, precisely your pragmatic concerns will probably triumph.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 4:57 PM

Er I meant "greater restrictions later on" -- restrictions on abortions at stages starting towards the end (we already have seen this) and moving backwards slowly.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 5:06 PM

Nell

Yes...that mother Jones article was an unexpected source of enlightenment on this much politicized subject.

The truth (as always)is more complex than the gay lobby has ever led on. Evidence for homosexual imutiabilty is rare.

The most current research says otherwise

"the reality is that since 1994—for ten years—there has existed solid epidemiologic evidence, now extensively confirmed and reconfirmed, that the most common natural course for a young person who develops a “homosexual identity” is for it to spontaneously disappear unless that process is discouraged or interfered with by extraneous factors."

Findings on The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States by Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels, Chicago: University of Chicago.

Posted by Fitz | September 19, 2007 5:30 PM

TMoC replies: "One could imagine a large enough terrorist supporting subpopulation in a first world society to make it more true, for some crimes -- we're not there either, but you can imagine some situation where having a prison that could hold some Islamic "hero" at acceptable cost would be very hard in some scenarios for Europe 30 years down the road."

So the solution is to kill the "hero" and turn him into a martyr?

Kill all you want. You'll just make more. The end result of that way of thinking is genocide or Bush's moronic adventure in Iraq.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 19, 2007 5:38 PM

Dilan writes: "We are talking about a somewhat larger percentage vs. older adults. And given there is a significant number of young adults who are sexually inactive due to moral beliefs, and that a significant number of those people revise those beliefs as they get older, it is entirely plausible that this would correlate with people moving from pro-life to pro-choice.

It is simply much easier to hold a pro-life position when you aren't worried about an unwanted pregnancy derailing your life."

I will never forget my revulsion when Marilyn Quayle was asked what she would do if her (then) 13 or 14 year old daughter was raped and impregnated. Without batting an eye the harpy said, "She would carry the child to term."

I didn't believe her for a second. That kid would have been whisked off to a mum's-the-word family doctor without fail.

TMoC mentions Downs kids up above. Well, their numbers are dwindling, and that's happening across political and ideological lines. This is true for the same reason American Catholics use birth control (artificial, too) in equal numbers to non-Catholics. Real life concerns beat "pro-life" abstractions.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 19, 2007 5:45 PM

TMoC again: "As the liberals I know personally start having babies, more and more of even the most aggressively secular admit they are growing uncomfortable with late-term abortions."

I really wish conservatives would stop pretending that they see a significant difference between early and late-term abortions. Late-term abortions are a small portion of the total number of abortions performed - get rid of them entirely (and so what if you lose a few women in the process, I suppose) and the lifers will not be appeased in the slightest.

I also have to laugh at this "aggressively secular" crap - as though religious people don't get, perform, and otherwise facilitate abortions. This is simply silly.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 19, 2007 5:51 PM

I mean, it is plausible that as people get older they discover that killing other people to make your own life easier is sometimes pretty easy and low-cost

I think you are inserting your own pro-life views into the minds of other people.

A lot of people on both sides of the abortion issue have squishy beliefs. Thus, there are plenty of people who don't really think that abortion is murder (i.e., the equivalent of "killing other people"), but who also think it is morally troublesome, that it is too common, that it is done for bad reasons, that the pregnancy should have been prevented, etc.

And those people are quite susceptible to change over time as they discover that in fact, reproductive freedom is much more necessary than they had previously thought.

Further, even with respect to non-squishy pro-lifers, as I said, lots of people evolve from believing in a very mystical vision of what sex is towards a view that it is simply a fun, recreational activity. You seem to think that this evolution could not possibly correlate with a person rethinking the mystical premises of the pro-life position, i.e., that embryos have souls. In fact, I think this happens all the time.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 19, 2007 6:27 PM

Dilan -- no, no. Note that I keep saying this will do nothing for "hard pro life" positions. I'm not saying a large number of converts to my position will appear. I'm saying that ultrasounds are the like are (I suspect) going to make many of the squishy more solidly squishy with respect to later-term abortions, because "it was a cute thing I saw on the monitor." This has little to do with notions of souls (which some of these people will have, and some won't), and it won't do much about early term abortions (before there's a cute squiggle on the monitor). You don't (as far as I know) think _anyone_ has a soul, but you're pretty squeamish about killing a large number of people I suspect.

Ultrasounds are going to make more people have a gut "that's a person" about later term kids, just like they do about actual infants. Yes, convenience and the "like a handshake but messier" view of sex will balance this off in many people, but I think it will become more common.

Principled religious or philosophical pro-life positions aren't likely to grow much. The portion of the public that's squishy on more and more abortion procedures and reasons is probably going to grow, thanks to technology.

And I agree with you -- if a cure comes about, the same people will be unlikely to ever turn against all the cloning and harvesting of embryos that Mengele could dream of.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 7:17 PM

By the way, I occasionally feel guilty when I state strawmen such as that many liberals (and libertarians) feel sex is "simply a fun, recreational activity" -- but then people confirm the shallowness, infidelity, failure to understand the first thing about human emotions, and soulless lack of romance that does seem to animate many folks.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 7:20 PM

Dilan,

More to the point -- do you acknowledge that it also happens the other way. That people who had previously been quite sanguine about abortion up to the last moment become more "squishy" (though in no way principled pro-lifers or anything) about at least a large number of abortions, thanks to their own childbearing, and (particularly) the ultrasound experiences?

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 7:26 PM

"Further, even with respect to non-squishy pro-lifers, as I said, lots of people evolve from believing in a very mystical vision of what sex is towards a view that it is simply a fun, recreational activity."

If people really did think sex was simply recreational, they wouldn't get outraged when discovering a spouse or long-term girl/boyfriend cheating on them.

Also, many people change from naive youthful hedonism to a more mature moral rigorism. I don't know why that hasn't been pointed out.

Posted by Kevin Jones | September 19, 2007 7:27 PM

I'm curious -- is Dilan in a relationship? Is there any expectation of monogamy within it, if so? If so, why, since there's presumably no expectation that, say, you will never have another bowling partner.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 7:30 PM

Hmm, retract that. Overly personal.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 7:33 PM

TMoC writes: "By the way, I occasionally feel guilty when I state strawmen such as that many liberals (and libertarians) feel sex is "simply a fun, recreational activity" -- but then people confirm the shallowness, infidelity, failure to understand the first thing about human emotions, and soulless lack of romance that does seem to animate many folks."

Really? Well, I sometimes feel guilty when I accuse most conservatives who claim "pro-life" views of being vapid hypocrites - but then I watch them drooling over phrases like "Shock and Awe" and "we will be greeted with candy and flowers" as their beloved idiot president pushes a pointless war that will result in the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people who were never a threat to them.

But that's okay - the TMoCs of the world are right there to help with theories of "just war" backed by centuries of Jesoid philosophy.

That liberals and conservatives (and perhaps even libertarians) have sex for the same reasons may occur to TMoC, but until he actually has sex he may not believe it.

Let us know how it goes for you on that Big Day, dude.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 19, 2007 7:34 PM

TMoC says: "Hmm, retract that. Overly personal."

Actually you wussed out by making it an anonymous slam. It doesn't matter, anyway, since it was bullshit.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 19, 2007 7:38 PM

Marquis:

When I say people move towards a view that sex is fun and recreational, I mean in contrast to the view of many religions that it is some sort of sacred, mystical thing that may only be conducted under relatively narrow circumstances and a relatively narrow set of reasons.

These latter views are quite common among young virgins. As I indicated, you hear a lot of folks in these "True Love Waits" sorts of groups saying that sex is something that a girl should only "give up" to her husband and that to do it before marriage makes a girl less desirable and takes away from its special nature.

When people grow up, they often move away from these beliefs, partly because this simply doesn't mesh with what sexually active people actually perceive about their sex lives.

But that's not the same as saying that people become unromantic, or shallow, or tolerate infidelity. It is possible to demystify sex and yet believe in romance, creating special and deep sexual experiences, and that promising to be faithful to someone and then breaking that promise is wrong.

You seem to think that the theories of sexuality espoused by (ostensibly) celibate Church leaders are the only way one gets to romance and meaning in one's sex life. That is assuredly not the case.

But do liberals tend to believe that sex should be demystified and it is perfectly acceptible to enjoy it as a form of recreation? Sure they do.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 19, 2007 7:38 PM

That people who had previously been quite sanguine about abortion up to the last moment become more "squishy" (though in no way principled pro-lifers or anything) about at least a large number of abortions, thanks to their own childbearing, and (particularly) the ultrasound experiences?

Of course that happens. It happened to some of the foremost advocates of abortion rights in the 1970's.

But I suspect that change in the other direction happens much more often. Many people hold some really ridiculous notions of sex when they are virgins, and often grow out of them.

Posted by Dilan Esper | September 19, 2007 7:40 PM

Er, I've been married for quite some time, Moe.

I don't think all liberals think that way, but it is a strawman that does seem to actually have representatives.

I don't think the hardline traditionalist right was particularly the biggest supporters of the war, though First Things did indeed push a lot of questionable just war thinking. But they also gave Hauerwas a place to advocate hardline pacifism.

That said, the stereotype that, Daniel Larisons of the world aside, lots of us on the right fell for this disaster of a war is quite correct. If you said all conservatives had supported it, if course you should feel guilty. Saying many did and that this says something bad about the contemporary set of conservatives is fair and true.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 7:41 PM

TMoC again: "As the liberals I know personally start having babies, more and more of even the most aggressively secular admit they are growing uncomfortable with late-term abortions."

Moe: I really wish conservatives would stop pretending that they see a significant difference between early and late-term abortions. Late-term abortions are a small portion of the total number of abortions performed - get rid of them entirely (and so what if you lose a few women in the process, I suppose) and the lifers will not be appeased in the slightest.

I also have to laugh at this "aggressively secular" crap - as though religious people don't get, perform, and otherwise facilitate abortions. This is simply silly.

I actually mostly agree with you, Moe. If religious folks want to reduce the number of abortions, the first thing they should do is stop having abortions.

But as to your other point, I disagree. I would be thrilled if we got rid of late term abortions. In fact, I would be willing to compromise significantly by agreeing to, say, increase funding for some types of sex/birth control education that I'm not necessarily entirely comfortable with in order to, say, ban third trimester abortions. I know that might seem like an insignificant concession to you, but it's not to me and I think it would actually make a substantial difference in the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions.

In my mind, if pro-choice people were serious about sex ed etc., they would offer that compromise, since, as you say, late-term abortions are generally a small percentage. But the sad fact is that most pro-choice politicians are in the pocket of NARAL et. al. and would be branded as women haters or whatever if they suggested banning late term abortion. Hillary might be able to escape such claims, though.

Posted by hugo | September 19, 2007 7:43 PM

Dilan,

I think you're _agreeing_ that "SIMPLY a fun, recreational activity" is in fact not quite true? I guess your statement could be that people, after having sex, move from one (in your view) absurd view of sex towards another incorrect view, but closer to the truth -- which is somewhere in the middle?

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 7:46 PM

sorry about the formatting issues, above. I quoted Moe and my post started with "I actually mostly agree with you, Moe." Also, when I say the effect would be significant, I meant the effect of the increased funding for the education would be significant.

Posted by hugo | September 19, 2007 7:46 PM

(I actually agree that most people you see talking about "True Love Waits" and so forth have ludicrous notions of sex, but I don't think the truth is anywhere in some "middle" between that and soulless hedonism / "sex as bowling only messier, riskier, and more fun")

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 19, 2007 7:48 PM

Sadly - the "sex as recreation ethos" has not lead to simply a dearth of romance or meaning. Its very concrete manifestations are seen in the breakdown in familial bonds that have acompanied the sexual revolution.

Social harms run from abortion - fatherlessness with the acompanying crime and poverty, increased divorce, vanerial disease.....

Posted by Fitz | September 19, 2007 7:53 PM

hugo writes: "But as to your other point, I disagree. I would be thrilled if we got rid of late term abortions. In fact, I would be willing to compromise significantly by agreeing to, say, increase funding for some types of sex/birth control education that I'm not necessarily entirely comfortable with in order to, say, ban third trimester abortions. I know that might seem like an insignificant concession to you, but it's not to me and I think it would actually make a substantial difference in the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions."

Banning third trimester abortions is a charade for most lifers, hugo, since there are damned few of the procedures done in the first place. Most clinics don't do abortions outside of the first trimester. If there's an exception for life of the mother I'd happily sign off on a third trimester ban.

If you really cared about reducing the overall number of abortions you'd agree to the contraception funding, anyway. But that's not your real concern.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 19, 2007 8:00 PM

``... If homosexuality is not inherent, then homosexual people are contravening their own natures, and thus are hurting themselves, which we ought to stop them from doing.``

I don~t see how you`ve come up with such a connection. My self~observation indicates that my homosexuality is inherent, but my relationship with my husband has been nothing but an enriching comoponent of my life without a single negative ramification.
The statement you`ve made would seem to suggest that everything from believing in Christianity to getting a haircut to eating a spinach salad to marrying a redhead are all actions that contravene our natures and harm us simly because we can`t say that they are ``inherent.``

``Now i'm willing to accept that in most cases, homosexuality is an inherent and inescapable condition, and people can't be blamed for being homosexual. But if it were ever proven to not be inherent, and to be 'chosen', then the whole edifice of the argument for gay rights collapses....``
I`ve never understood why anyone thinks there should be any connection between why I am homosexual and whether I should have equal rights. No one has to prove that he was born a Methodist in order to have freedom of religion. No left~handed person has to find scientific evidence for a left~handed gene in order to be allowed to vote.
people are who they are and it should not matter to anyone else if an aspect of my own personal life would not be someone else`s cup of tea. We can stand for each other`s rights and I think that is where the general trends have been going for centuries.

Posted by GregV | September 19, 2007 8:06 PM

Fitz hates all you dirty, naughty boys: "Sadly - the "sex as recreation ethos" has not lead to simply a dearth of romance or meaning. Its very concrete manifestations are seen in the breakdown in familial bonds that have acompanied the sexual revolution.

Social harms run from abortion - fatherlessness with the acompanying crime and poverty, increased divorce, vanerial disease....."

What's interesting is that most of these problems are far more prevalent in the Buybull Belt than they are in liberal enclaves like the Northeast or the Pacific Northwest. This little irony is lost on the speechifying likes of Fitz, of course.

Maybe endless exposure to toxic nonsense about Jesus and Satan is much more deleterious to the public good than thinking sex is fun is.

By the way, Fitz, if you don't think sex is fun, you're not doing it right. May I suggest taking your shoes off and waiting until Mrs. Fitz is awake would be two good improvements to try?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 19, 2007 8:10 PM

If you really cared about reducing the overall number of abortions you'd agree to the contraception funding, anyway. But that's not your real concern.

Actually it is, but I'm not convinced that contraception funding without an associated concept of responsibility is the way to get there in the long term, although I'm open to argument that it is. The first trimester is unrealistic for legal action at the present time, I think, as many women who have unintended pregnancies don't even know about it until the first trimester is over. For example, my wife teaches is Southeast DC and one of her students (who is 14) is pregnant. Of course, neither she nor her parents knew, my wife was actually the one who noticed (she was pregnant herself so the signs were obvious enough), and by that time the student was 5 months already. By the way, I think you may have the wrong idea about some of the Catholic types around these parts. Or at least me. I'm not a republican or anything. Not that it really matters, but we might get somewhere if we're not assuming others are arguing in bad faith. It seems to me from my short time here that few are.

Posted by hugo | September 19, 2007 8:25 PM

hugo replies: "I think you may have the wrong idea about some of the Catholic types around these parts. Or at least me. I'm not a republican or anything. Not that it really matters, but we might get somewhere if we're not assuming others are arguing in bad faith. It seems to me from my short time here that few are."

I don't think you're arguing in bad faith. But you posited that contraceptive funding could (in and of itself) reduce the number of unintentional pregnancies. I think that's true, and when you offered to trade it for banning 3rd trimester abortions, I had to think you had another agenda.

Perhaps I was wrong, but it still seems that way.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 19, 2007 9:27 PM

Re: Well, surely this is the point of contention, on the moral/religious front

Only because some people insist on making a contention when there is none to be made. It's rather like those who argue in favor of Young Earth Creationism when all possible evidence is against them. There is simply no real-world evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is inherently (as opposed to accidentally) harmful. This distinguishes it entirely from, say, abortion which necessarily involves harm (a dead unborn child). There are no "necessary" victims like that in homosexuality. No broken legs or picked pockets. Sounds like the younger generation has its moral compass set right in these matters at least.

Re: Indeed, many people change their views from pro-life to pro-choice as they become sexually active

Hmm. I've never known anyone who did that. I have however known a couple of young women who found themselves pregnant at a young age (15 and 18) and did not get abortions because they did not believe it was right. (The 18 year old-- a political liberal by the way-- married the father of the child, although that eventually fizzled twelve years later- she does not regret her now 22 year old son though; The 15 year old adopted her child out)

Re: the return of some Protestants who'd been ok with it to opposition in recent years is interesting.

"Some" is very much the operative word. I know of no major Protestant Church which endorses Rome's ban. In fact, neither do the Eastern Christian churches, nor any of the world's other major religions, not even Islam at its most misogynist.

Re: If homosexuality has real world consequences, which I think it does, it will always appear as a cultural/political issue.

Allowing women to vote has "real world" consequences, to name just one of a myriad examples. Nevertheless as a political issue that one has been settled and uncontroversial for the last 80 years.

Re: The truth (as always)is more complex than the gay lobby has ever led on.

Of course: truth is always more complex than political advocates allow. But that also applies to the homophobic right.

Re: "Sadly - the "sex as recreation ethos" has not lead to simply a dearth of romance or meaning.

Believe it or not, this ethos did not come into existence with the 60s. It's been around for millennia. (See Charles II "the Merrry Monarch" and numerous other historical examples). Somehow love and romance and marriage have always survived the existence of this libertine strain in society. Sometimes I think there's just too much fretting over the fact that some people like sex and aren't as discerning as we might like them to be.

Posted by Jonf | September 19, 2007 10:20 PM

Hi JonF,

The claim about homosexuality being harmful to the participants is ultimately unprovable one way or the other. If it is bad for their soul, they (and we) will only find out conclusively in the world to come, not in this life.

I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, for most homosexuals, because I believe that it's a matter of inborn nature, not a choice, and what is not freely chosen can't be a sin. But ultimately, the question of whether it is spiritually harmful to the participants is not susceptible to proof one way or the other. Whatever we decide is a leap of faith. Surely you would agree that something need not have to have visible good or bad effects in the perceptible world, to be actually good or bad. I can't prove that trampling on a crucifix is a bad thing either, but I'm pretty sure it is.

regarding Islam, while there is no ban on birth control in a theological sense, some Muslim clerics in recent years, in countries like India, have begun discouraging birth control, and encouraging large families, as a means to conquer the world through the force of demographics. 'Our strongest weapon is the wombs of our womenfolk', etc. Quite a frightening thought.

I think there's a very simple explanation why the young are more pro-life than their elders, and it could have been predicted by anyone. the young are always more idealistic than their elders, and much as many liberals hate to admit it, the pro-life side is clearly the more idealistic and the more romantic. It talks in terms of the beauty of childbirth, the love between mother and child, the miracle of life, while the pro-choice side is reduced to burblings about blind violinists with defective kidneys, bloodless formulas about trimesters, and similar absurdities. The liberals are clearly on the wrong side of the abortion issue, and have taken a stand that contradicts their deepest ideals.

I can't believe that too many people on the Left today are resorting to the most vicious, Ayn Randian rhetoric about 'my body, my choice', 'self-ownership' and the like.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | September 19, 2007 11:32 PM

Hector writes: "I think there's a very simple explanation why the young are more pro-life than their elders, and it could have been predicted by anyone. the young are always more idealistic than their elders, and much as many liberals hate to admit it, the pro-life side is clearly the more idealistic and the more romantic. It talks in terms of the beauty of childbirth, the love between mother and child, the miracle of life, while the pro-choice side is reduced to burblings about blind violinists with defective kidneys, bloodless formulas about trimesters, and similar absurdities. The liberals are clearly on the wrong side of the abortion issue, and have taken a stand that contradicts their deepest ideals."

Being pro-choice doesn't mean being pro-abortion, Hector. The Nazis were anti-abortion, but they were not pro-life.

As for the "blind violinists with defective kidneys" arguments, I've seen them from lifers. "Congratulations, you've just aborted Beethoven," or whoever it was.

I've read your bible and it's hardly a "pro-life" document. There's the verse where Hebrews are ordered to kill all of the Amalekites, right down to the infants. I suggest that your mythical god is a moral relativist and that your ethics are a sham.

I would also ask you how you would propose to investigate each and every miscarriage as a potential homicide if your side should succeed in granting the fetus status as a full-fledged human being. Gotta be consistent, my man. They are or they aren't. You're either serious about this or you aren't. I've asked hundreds of lifers this question and they all run from it like they're being chased by drunken wasps.

Surprise me.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 20, 2007 12:15 AM

hugo,

what a sad story, about your wife's student. did your wife encourage her to keep the child? i would like to think that's what i would do, but it must be a heartbreaking thing, if it's someone you care about. your wife is doing something truly admirable my teaching in southeast dc.

perhaps one thing we can do, while we wait for the culture's view about abortion to change, is to have abortion hotlines (on the mold of suicide hotlines) where women can call in and people can try to help them and convince them not to have an abortion.

funny, that's exactly the line i use to defend myself when arguing with my pro-choice friends. 'i'm not a republican or anything.'

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | September 20, 2007 12:19 AM

Moe,

as i think i made clear in the other thread, i consider myself a heterodox Christian, and i don't place the same kind of credence in the old testament, that i do in the New. I take my stand on the New Testament, which says nothing about slaughtering amalekites. so your mentioning amalekites doesn't shake my worldview at all.

the 'blind violinist with defective kidneys' was a sarcastic allusion to the Judith Jarvis Thomson argument for abortion, which I don't remember word for word, i laughed when i read it and i haven't felt the need to revisit that pice of sophistry since. sarcasm dies when you have to explain it....

Of course I wouldn't investigate miscarriages, I would give the woman the benefit of the doubt, except in cases where there was obvious evidence of foul play. miscarriages are quite common, after all. i would crack down more on the doctors, if anyone. but even there, i think that just having a law on the books, whether it's stringently applied or not, accomplishes something towards the main goal, which is changing the culture.

i don't really like the word pro-life to describe myself. i'm not a Catholic, and i disagree with the 'culture of life' to a greater or lesser degree on many other issues. but abortion is one where it seems to me they have it right. it would be more legitimate to kill me, or you, or hugo, than it would be to kill an unborn baby. each of us has done things that could be considered criminal under the law of some society through history, none of us is truly innocent. but if there is any such thing as a truly innocent person, and one who under no circumstances can merit death, it should be an unborn baby.

do you realize how much abortion is a betrayal of everything the Left is supposed to stand for? abortion has killed a vastly disproportionate number of black babies since 1973, and the babies of poor people more generally. it could be viewed as a form of selective genocide against the poor and against black people. for some reason we don't see anything wrong with white doctors telling black mothers to destroy their children. the old-line, aristocratic republicans loved abortion. it's no accident that the country's first abortion law was singned by the greatest aristocratic republican of them all, governor rockefeller.

abortion is a way for this society to escape its responsibility for social provision, for ensuring that every child born within this nation is taken care of. If a society has vast numbers of impoverished mothers with children, and the social and economic system is not giving them what they need, then there are two options: 1) to have social reform and change the system so it takes care of everyone, 2) encourage the mothers to destroy their children so that there is no longer pressure for social justice. abortion was a fiendishly and diabolically clever way to weaken pressures for social reform. Abortion solved the problem of poverty the way G.K. Chesterton described, they solved the problem of not having enough hats to go around by chopping off some heads.

as a socialist, a man of the left, and a christian, i despise abortion and think it has dealt a terrible blow to the cause of social justice in America.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | September 20, 2007 12:37 AM

lucretius writes:

i imagine that thet the 'homosexuality issue' does in fact have staying power, possibly more than the 'life' issues. everyone now believes that a) homosexuality is inherent and b) even if it isn't, no-one is hurt by it.

Don't these statements contradict each other? Arguing that "everyone" now believes that homosexuality is innate and not harmful, would seem to be arguing that the "homosexuality issue" is in fact over, as everyone would now be on the same side.

Posted by Glaivester | September 20, 2007 2:22 AM

It is simply much easier to hold a pro-life position when you aren't worried about an unwanted pregnancy derailing your life."

I will never forget my revulsion when Marilyn Quayle was asked what she would do if her (then) 13 or 14 year old daughter was raped and impregnated. Without batting an eye the harpy said, "She would carry the child to term."

I didn't believe her for a second. That kid would have been whisked off to a mum's-the-word family doctor without fail.

TMoC mentions Downs kids up above. Well, their numbers are dwindling, and that's happening across political and ideological lines. This is true for the same reason American Catholics use birth control (artificial, too) in equal numbers to non-Catholics. Real life concerns beat "pro-life" abstractions.

I don't think this proves what you think it proves, Moe. You seem to be suggesting that because people realistically decide to have a nabortion to make their lives easier, the pro-choice position is better.

But the real issue here is that people are morally weak.

Let's say that my daughter (if I had one) were driving drunk and ran into a homeless man, and she were facing a stiff prison sentence if this were discovered. She contacts me and I drive over there. The man is still breathing and could be saved if we take him to a hospital, but it would guarantee that my daughter would be caught and go to jail. He is a vagrant without much in the way of family and friends, and if we killed him and disposed of the body we would almost certainly get away with it.

What would I do?

I know what I should do, and what the law ought to say that I should do, but I can't guarantee you that in that situation my desire to protect my daughter wouldn't win out over the abstract notion of this total stranger's right to life. This doesn't cahnge what the right decision is, though. It just makes me morally weak.

Of course, after an incident like this I might very well decide that homeless people really shouldn't have any rights and ought to be treated like animals - such a position would no doubt assuage my conscience that what my daughter and I did was not so bad, after all.

But that still wouldn't make my new position on homeless people right, it would just mean that I am a weak man who tries to self-justify.

Posted by Glaivester | September 20, 2007 2:32 AM

Damn the "every time you press return, formats disappear" editor.

The 2nd through 4th paragraphs in my previous post ought to be italicized as part of the Moe quote.

Posted by Glaivester | September 20, 2007 2:35 AM

Hector writes: "do you realize how much abortion is a betrayal of everything the Left is supposed to stand for? abortion has killed a vastly disproportionate number of black babies since 1973, and the babies of poor people more generally. it could be viewed as a form of selective genocide against the poor and against black people. for some reason we don't see anything wrong with white doctors telling black mothers to destroy their children. the old-line, aristocratic republicans loved abortion. it's no accident that the country's first abortion law was singned by the greatest aristocratic republican of them all, governor rockefeller."

Saint Reagan also signed a very liberal abortion bill when he was Terminator of California. His minions all forgot that when he ran for president.

But Hector, what is this crap about "white doctors" telling black women to get abortions? Isn't that a little condescending of you? What are you envisioning - scenarios in which women go in for checkups and are handed 20% coupons for a D&C? It's not happening, Hector.

I know you and Mother Teresa think poor women should praise god for the joy of each additional child, but it's not up to you.

I'm glad you wouldn't "crack down" on every supposed miscarriage, but you're just proving my point - rational people do not equate early-term fetuses with actual children. You would NEVER "give the benefit of the doubt" to a woman whose actual children kept disappearing, but you'll do so for a woman who has three "miscarriages." That's nice. It's also an admission on your part.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 20, 2007 9:37 AM

Glaivester writes: "Let's say that my daughter (if I had one) were driving drunk and ran into a homeless man, and she were facing a stiff prison sentence if this were discovered. She contacts me and I drive over there. The man is still breathing and could be saved if we take him to a hospital, but it would guarantee that my daughter would be caught and go to jail. He is a vagrant without much in the way of family and friends, and if we killed him and disposed of the body we would almost certainly get away with it.

What would I do?"

If you found out he was gay or a Democrat you'd beat him to death with your shoe.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 20, 2007 9:40 AM

In an 18-30 demographic, you are looking at probably a third of the respondents being married. I would think at 1/4 of the responsdents would already be raising children. In particular, the 27-30 group will share very little in common with the 18-20 group.

Abortion: We are witnessing a generation that is more nominally anti-abortion. It depends on where you take the measurement. If you asked if abortion should be legalized in cases of rape and incest, I think you would find the anti-abortion side smaller than 2 generations ago. Support for 3rd trimester abortions has decreased over all generations, and I think that primarly has to do with imaging technology.

Posted by M.Z. Forrest | September 20, 2007 11:14 AM

I’m afraid that it becomes impossible to talk about human sexuality and relationship between men and women unless we define certain things as public goods.

If long lasting marriages and enduring familial bonds between parent/child & each other are positive goods for individuals and society….then high divorce rates, out of wedlock childbearing, and serial monogamy represent real harms.

It is anti-intellectual & ill-liberal to use the common libertine tactic of reducing every human relationship to merely an interpersonal lifestyle choice barren of larger social significance and costs.

Monogamy is a social institution – its benefits and harms can be delineated and understood, as can a breakdown in monogamy.

Martin Luther King said: “all we can ultimately work for is strong families and healthy communities”

In light of the tragic breakdown of familial bonds amongst our underclass in this country: It is incumbent upon morally and intellectually serious people to engage the subject of human sexuality and stable family formation from a perspective other than that of a horny teenager.

Posted by Fitz | September 20, 2007 11:42 AM

Fitz writes: "In light of the tragic breakdown of familial bonds amongst our underclass in this country: It is incumbent upon morally and intellectually serious people to engage the subject of human sexuality and stable family formation from a perspective other than that of a horny teenager."

I had no idea Giuliani and Gingrich were members of the underclass. Thanks, Fitz.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 20, 2007 11:55 AM

You're either serious about this or you aren't. I've asked hundreds of lifers this question and they all run from it like they're being chased by drunken wasps.

Er, I've heard this one before, and I don't get it. Yes, I'd like to outlaw abortion. Like almost all anti-abortion folks I know, this primarily means not licensing clinics, taking away medical licenses from doctors who abort, and possibly jailing them. Punishment for women would be essentially nil -- as, if I recall correctly, they were in most anti-abortion localities before Roe. Abortion is murder, but the law does not treat all murders the same, for good reasons. It doesn't mean we're not "serious" about killing the sick and elderly that we don't investigate every death in nursing homes quite as aggressively as we do people gunned down on the street. Almost certainly, a significant number are murders by desperate relatives -- or the occasional psychopathic caretaker. This is life, and we have neither the resources nor the will to disrupt the innocent grieving to do much about it. Similarly, the deaths of small children in accidents sometimes aren't accidental, but society hasn't got the power or resources to check this out in detail in every circumstance unless it is already highly suspicious.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 20, 2007 12:20 PM

TMoC writes: "Like almost all anti-abortion folks I know, this primarily means not licensing clinics, taking away medical licenses from doctors who abort, and possibly jailing them. Punishment for women would be essentially nil -- as, if I recall correctly, they were in most anti-abortion localities before Roe."

You moral relativist you!

Either the fetus is a child and killing it is murder or it's something less. How a lifer can justify jailing a doctor but not a woman who seeks out and obtains the abortion makes no sense, logically, and you know it. A woman who hires someone to kill her husband gets jailed for murder - if your stated beliefs are what you claim they are, why shouldn't the woman who hires someone to scrape out a fetus face the same charges?

The actual answer is that you know people wouldn't stand for such bullshit, because our culture recognizes the vast difference between abortion and murder, and between an early-term fetus and an actual child, even if you don't.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 20, 2007 12:49 PM

Discretion isn't relativism. Just as not being vigilant about what caused an abortion - medical definition denoting fetal death prior to the 3rd trimester - isn't relativism, refusing to demand the chair for a boy who killed his parents after years of abuse isn't relativism.

Posted by M.Z. Forrest | September 20, 2007 1:11 PM

MZ replies: "Discretion isn't relativism. Just as not being vigilant about what caused an abortion - medical definition denoting fetal death prior to the 3rd trimester - isn't relativism, refusing to demand the chair for a boy who killed his parents after years of abuse isn't relativism."

I'm missing the part where the fetus abused the host/mother for years. In any event TMoC's positing a case, as I understand it, where a doctor gets jailed for performing an abortion and the woman does not, regardless of her motives for having said abortion.

Of course this amounts to relativism.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 20, 2007 1:54 PM

Er, Moe, it doesn't amount to relativism (a term you use a good bit for someone who doesn't seem to actually have a clue what it means). It's both political realism and the recognition that, unlike most women who murder their husbands, women seeking an abortion may not be very certain on what they are doing. The law takes motivations and beliefs into accounts in assigning punishment, last I checked. That's not relativism -- it's partly (as you note) paying attention to what the public would agree with, and partly a reasonable assessment of probable states of mind and duress. It may be paternalistic, but it's not relativist. The miscarriage bit is particularly silly -- see my examples. We don't investigate every death that might be a homicide, and we choose which ones to examine based on practical and sentimental criteria.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 20, 2007 2:16 PM

TMoC replies: "Er, Moe, it doesn't amount to relativism (a term you use a good bit for someone who doesn't seem to actually have a clue what it means). It's both political realism and the recognition that, unlike most women who murder their husbands, women seeking an abortion may not be very certain on what they are doing. The law takes motivations and beliefs into accounts in assigning punishment, last I checked. That's not relativism -- it's partly (as you note) paying attention to what the public would agree with, and partly a reasonable assessment of probable states of mind and duress. It may be paternalistic, but it's not relativist."

Of course it is. Spare me the bullshit. You speak approvingly of laws that jail abortionists while allowing ALL women who get abortions to skate. Never mind "may not be very certain," chuckles - no matter how certain she is or how often she's done it, you'd approve of laws that left her unpunished while jailing doctors. Period.

And now "political realism" isn't relativist? What moral planet are you from? You're so afraid of admitting you're a relativist that you'll concoct endless half-assed arguments and use weasel words all day long to avoid doing so.

A woman hires a hitman to kill her abusive husband, and the law will take that into account, but almost certainly won't absolve her without a charge. But in the abortion case, even though you think it's murder, you're willing to let them all go without even the intervening step of examining the circumstances. It's an inconsistency. It's also patronizing - the poor dears are too confused and hormonal to know any better! - but that's nothing new for you.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 20, 2007 2:51 PM

Hi Moe,

Picking up on a remark about Down's Synndrome babies made above.

It's a tragedy when a kid is born with Down's Syndrome. A tragedy for the kid, and for those who care for and love them. I would pray that it never happens to me. But can that justify ending their life before it's even begun? Without even finding out their opinion in the matter?

My anecdote: I dated a girl once in college, call her Celia, whose sister had Down's syndrome. Celia was by the account of virtually everyone who knew her, one of the purest-hearted people they had ever met, had a superlatively loving, charitable and generous character. Her parents were Christian, back-to-the-land hippies (liberal in politics, presumably) who I guess were part of a fairly large movement in the '60s.
They had had quite a time of it raising the Down's syndrome girl, I presume financially as well as everything else: the family never heated the house above 50 degrees in winter, bought modest clothing, and the kids all got heavy scholarships to college. I can't help but think, though, that the fact that this family was one of the most closest and most loving I know, and that Celia was one of the best and most loving people I know,
developed in part out of the challenges of caring for someone with Down's syndrome. I should mention that Celia was full of admiration for her sister's efforts to overcome her limitations, and told me about ways in which her sister was a much better person than she was, and good at working with kids. Needless to say, although their politics are generally to the left, they are all bitter opponents of abortion.

is there not beauty in this story, Moe? is there not dignity and grace? in a world where abortion is just another operation like getting stitches put in, what place would there be for stories like this one?

A disclaimer: This girl was apparently at the high end of functioning for Down's syndrome, take that for what you will.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | September 20, 2007 3:17 PM

Er, but Moe. The woman having her husband killed is certainly (unless she is insane, which we take into account, and may institutionalize her for, but generally won't jail her for) _aware that he is a human being_. Given the state of public opinion and such, it's reasonable to expect that most women having abortions don't _believe_ they are killing a human being, precisely. Now, I think they're wrong, but it's very, legally, hard to tell, isn't it? That's not relativism -- the abortion itself is wrong, and few pro-lifers would say it's anything but that. So why punish the doctor? He or she may well also think this isn't killing a human being. Well, illegality rather has to mean _something_, if society views (at least some) abortions as worthy of discouragement and punishment, and medical professionals are educated and not under any personal duress here. Moreover, having a poor understanding of what's human is more excusable for a one-shot self interest or duress than it is as a matter of professional life. It's a prudential distinction, but this is what the law is -- not a magic device springing from first principles, but a practical device for approximating justice and attaining order.

Look, I think lots of horrid things are wrong, and have no relativism about them whatsoever. But I don't always think it's prudent to jail people for them.

If people attitudes and beliefs change, this presumption might cease to be prudent, but I think that's a long way down the road, if it happens.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 20, 2007 3:29 PM

Hector concludes: "is there not beauty in this story, Moe? is there not dignity and grace? in a world where abortion is just another operation like getting stitches put in, what place would there be for stories like this one?

A disclaimer: This girl was apparently at the high end of functioning for Down's syndrome, take that for what you will. "

I'm not sure why you're addressing this to me, Hector. I merely noted that Downs children were being born in much smaller numbers these days. I was in no way endorsing that sort of selection. I was simply pointing out the truth - that it's happening in families across the political spectrum.

It's a difficult choice, and of course there are high-functioning Downs kids who bring joy to their families. There are also the less fortunate ones who live short and painful lives. I don't pretend to be wise enough to make decisions like that for other people.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 20, 2007 4:25 PM

TMoC replies: "Er, but Moe. The woman having her husband killed is certainly (unless she is insane, which we take into account, and may institutionalize her for, but generally won't jail her for) _aware that he is a human being_. Given the state of public opinion and such, it's reasonable to expect that most women having abortions don't _believe_ they are killing a human being, precisely."

So what? You're positing a country where the law has decided fetuses ARE human beings. Under that definition "public opinion" would have been swayed to your position. So remain true to it. Folow through with the clear implications of your new legal definition.

"Now, I think they're wrong, but it's very, legally, hard to tell, isn't it? That's not relativism -- the abortion itself is wrong, and few pro-lifers would say it's anything but that. So why punish the doctor? He or she may well also think this isn't killing a human being. Well, illegality rather has to mean _something_, if society views (at least some) abortions as worthy of discouragement and punishment, and medical professionals are educated and not under any personal duress here."

You're weaseling again. In your proposed system you're NEVER examining the motives or beliefs or state of mind of the woman having the abortion. She could be a well-educated professional - even an MD - who is simply having her 3rd abortion to avoid interrupting her career. Doesn't matter - you won't even ask. You're allowing one party to what you see as murder to skate EVERY SINGLE TIME because of political expediency. That's inconsistent and it's pure moral relativism.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 20, 2007 4:33 PM

Moe -- but it's not _moral_ relativism, you nitwit. It might be cheap pandering for political expediency, but I think that MD with her third abortion is quite possibly a moral monster, who will BURN IN HELL FOREVER, if that makes you feel better.

But I suspect the realities will make prosecuting her an exercise in "how to not actually attain the goal of reducing abortions."

That is: I care more about minimizing murders than punishing murderers -- it's true! You got me. In some ideal world where almost everyone thinks abortion is murder and mostly people act accordingly, yeah -- the rare woman who aborts is probably a good candidate for jail.

Look, nobody much accuses Thomas Aqunias of relativism. Yet he talks about (and wasn't the first guy to discuss this, y'know? you can look it up) this idea that the course of wisdom is not for the laws to always reflect all moral truths.

You're mixing relativism with prudence and expediency. Prudence is not a bad word, and you're a smart enough guy to know that. You just get off on making (stupid) claims of relativism. Look, there are better arguments against anti-abortion laws, that you and Anna Quindlen could both stick to -- and that are more likely to appeal to the public than a rather absurd little name calling game whose main political point seems lost. Saying "why, pro-lifers don't want to throw women in jail for abortions!" might win points of some kind in college debate, if the judges were rather simpleminded. As a point to attack them with in the public discourse, it seems strained -- and brings this policy (which most people who are somewhere in the big squishy middle on abortion probably agree with) into play. Much better to stick to claiming pro-lifers DO want to toss women in jail. Or at least more likely to win points for your side, if that's the game. And if that isn't the game, the point is not a very good one.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | September 20, 2007 5:54 PM

I had no idea Giuliani and Gingrich were members of the underclass. Thanks, Fitz.

I will say that Giuliani and Gingrich are setting a terrible example. In fact, this is one area where I do believe that "white privilege" and "class privilege" exist. People like Giuliani can sleep around, marry and divorce, and generally isolate themselves from the consequences of their behavior. Poor people can do the same thing, except for the escaping consequences part. This is why it is a bad idea for upper-class people to behave immorally, because it sets a bad example for those people in the underclass who suffer more serious consequences for the same behavior.

If you found out he was gay or a Democrat you'd beat him to death with your shoe.

Oh, come on. I don't dislike gay people. I dsiagree with homosexual behavior, but I don't have any desire to stop gay people from doing whatever they want with each other. I'm actually pretty much a live and let live guy. What I dislike is the constant attempt to destroy any part of society that does not condone homosexuality as OK. What I resent are people like Elton John, arguing that religion ought to be banned because he cannot stand the idea that anyone anywhere does not approve of his lifestyle.

Posted by Glaivester | September 20, 2007 7:31 PM

Re: If it is bad for their soul, they (and we) will only find out conclusively in the world to come, not in this life.

True, and this is why public policy should remain as agnostic on the question as it does on other "good/bad for the soul" questions, like what religious belifes one should hold.

Re: regarding Islam, while there is no ban on birth control in a theological sense, some Muslim clerics in recent years, in countries like India, have begun discouraging birth control, and encouraging large families, as a means to conquer the world through the force of demographics.

I don't know that they are trying to "conquer the world". They may be trying to maintain their numbers vis-a-vis the much more numerous Hindus. Or simply are concerned that they may die out. One finds similar such sentiments in many place, including the US, and one need not impute sinister motives to it.

rE: 'Our strongest weapon is the wombs of our womenfolk', etc . Quite a frightening thought.

Not to me. For a good (well, horrifying really) example of what happens when people over-reproduce due to some ruler's bizarre natalist obsessions I offer Ceauscescu's Romania. History indeed suggests that a people who maintain their population in good balance with their resources are more apt to prosper in the long run than those who breed like rabbits and end up suffering poverty, disease, ignorance and endless civil discord.

Re: The liberals are clearly on the wrong side of the abortion issue, and have taken a stand that contradicts their deepest ideals.

Here I very much agree with you.

Posted by JonF | September 20, 2007 8:44 PM

JonF,

Muslims in India have had quite a bit higher birth rates than Hindus for quite a long time. This is in part because they tend to be poorer, and less educated; Christians on the other hand, at least in the parts of India where most Christians live, tend to have lower birth rates than Hindus. In the southern state of Kerala, which is about 20% Christian (mostly Syrian Orthodox) the Christian birthrate is only about 1.7 child per woman. As the status of Muslims has been rising, their birthrate has been falling, but the Muslim birthrate is still significantly higher. Muslims don't need to fear their populations dropping, quite the opposite.

(It's also worth remembering the way that Islam was brought to India, by fire and sword- unlike Christianity, which was brought by St. Thomas the Apostle.)

At least some Muslim clerics are indeed using rhetoric of conquering the world through reproduction. It may not frighten you, but it frightens me- and in a way seems even more ghoulish and insidious than trying to conquer the world through conversion.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | September 21, 2007 10:25 AM

Marquis,

The fundamental problem with your position is that opposing a policy of severe punishment for women who have abortions contradicts the premise that abortion is a very serious form of wrong-doing, akin to killing a baby or some other born person. It's hard to take seriously your claim that you believe abortion to be the killing of an innocent human being when you also say that the only conseqences you wish to impose on women who have an abortion is a slap on the wrist--if that. Conversely, as long as you keep characterizing abortion as morally akin to murder or manslaughter, your claim that you have no intention of trying to impose harsh penalties on women who have abortions is likely to be treated with great skepticism by anyone who thinks you are being sincere in your moral claims. This is the basic contradiction at the heart of the anti-abortion movement. The only way out of it is for you to drop the rhetoric about abortion being the killing of babies, or adopt a policy response that is consistent with that rhetoric. I don't see any sign that you're willing to do either, which is why your movement is destined to contine to be marginalized and impotent.

Posted by Mixner | September 21, 2007 6:53 PM

Re: It's also worth remembering the way that Islam was brought to India, by fire and sword- unlike Christianity, which was brought by St. Thomas the Apostle

India was next door to Islam so of course there was going to be violence between the two cultures. Peaceful borders like the US-Canadian border are a rarity in history (and even that border once heard some gun shot). And once upon a time Westerners marching behind a certain Alexandros of Macedon also brought slaughter and rapine to India. That's history-- a record of humankind's follies and sins, for the most part. I see nothing particularly unique about Islamic culture in that regard.

Re: It may not frighten you, but it frightens me

It doesn't frighten me because it doesn't work. They might as well shake their Qu'rans at me as shake their women's wombs. Neither will be effective weapons. There's reasons the West (or better: European culture in toto) came out on top, and excessive reproduction was not part of it. The beginning of the European expansion (late 15th century) was actually an era of under-population in Europe (due to the lingering effects of the Black Death). No nation has ever propagated its way to strength though the opposite (see again: Romania) has hapepned.

Interesting stuff about India's Christians, by the way. I had no idea they were that numerous anywhere in the subcontinent, other than ex-Portuguese Goa.

Posted by Jonf | September 21, 2007 9:09 PM

JonF,

Of course you're right about overpopulation being a road to continued poverty and stagnation. I didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't. Certainly the plan of some Muslim clerics to dominate India through population, would doom both them and India in general to poverty. But perhaps they would rather be the majority in a poor and weak country than the minority in a prosperous one.

Solving the Muslim population problem by forcing Middle Eastern populations to come into balance with their natural resources, would only work if trade, aid and emigration between the Muslim world and the rest of the world were cut off. That would be difficult to manage as well as running into a great deal of moral and ethical problems.

India's Christians are surprisingly numerous, they date from at least three specific waves (which correspond roughly to Oriental-Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant). The Orthodox supposedly date back to the St. Thomas the Apostle in the 1st century, the Catholics to the Portuguese in the 16th century and the Protestant to British missionary efforts in the 19th. They are particularly common in Kerala and Tamil Nadu in the south (mostly the Orthodox and Catholics), in Goa (Catholics) and among the tribal peoples in the north-east (largely Protestant), but are also scattered over the country. Meghalaya (one of the tiny, sparsely populated tribal states in the NE) is the only majority-Christian state, but the largest actual number of Christians lives, I think, in Kerala.

They took advantage of educational opportunities under the British rule, more than the Hindus and Muslims, and as a result are today relatively well-educated and culturally Westernized.

It's an irony of history that the only time the Orthodox Christians of India were ever persecuted, it wasn't by Hindus or Muslims, but by the Catholic Portuguese (being heretics, and all). Notwithstanding that, Christians in India tended not to do the kind of atrocities that many Muslim rulers were known for. (Destroying temples and building mosques on the ruins, for a start). Christians certainly did that in other parts of the world (e.g. Mexico) but not in India, which is probably why there is much more anti-Muslim animus than anti-Christian in India today.

Alexander of Macedon was so long ago that he has virtually nothing in common with the modern, or even the medieval West.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | September 21, 2007 9:42 PM

Re: Alexander of Macedon was so long ago that he has virtually nothing in common with the modern, or even the medieval West.

Hector,
I wouldn't dismiss Alexander so handily. 2300 years ago is really not that long, and our civilization today has a solid Greco-Roman foundation. Many of the cultural themes of that era are still our themes today. And without Alexander's empire and the Greek disapora it inspired it's quite possible Christianity would have remained a minor Jewish sect without access to Greek philosophy or the West. As conquerors go he was hardly the worst, there are even some things to admire in him. But his Indian campaign was extravagantly bloody and he was not remembered happily in that country, though he was the imspiration for the first true Indian Empire, founded by Chandragupta Maurya a generation later.

Thanks again for the info on India's Christians. I knew the legend of St Thomas' mission there but little about the ancient Christian community. I once knew a young woman from Goa who had a Portuguese name (Francisca), was a Catholic and was more culturally European than Indian.

Posted by JonF | September 22, 2007 7:54 AM

I know it's desperately difficult to get good statistical information about illegal acts, but there are are countries in the world right now that have completely outlawed abortion.

I would love to see the number of abortions that happen per 1000 women of child bearing age in those countries, and compare those numbers to countries where it isn't illegal -- and then the numbers of women who die from their illegal abortion.

I suspect that if we outlaw abortion, we'll just trade a few fetus saved for mothers killed by un-safe abortions -- but I admit I don't have evidence to prove it.

Posted by sherrold | September 24, 2007 1:04 PM

The Future of Social Conservatism

Comments (87)

Today's Headlines From The Atlantic

VOICES

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives

Categories

A Movement That Can (And Cannot) Compromise

Not So Wonderful Now