The Times and Life

Naturally, I agree with Ramesh that the peculiar TNR Online piece arguing that the New York Times's abortion coverage is undermining the pro-choice side of the argument is somewhat less than persuasive. The author's three main examples only prove her point if you think the Times has an obligation to treat their pages as an auxiliary wing of Planned Parenthood. (Which to be fair, does seem to be roughly her position.) Moreover, it isn't all that hard to find counter-examples - try here or here or here, to pick a few - where the Times' coverage was presumably more to her liking. Then there's the difficulty that if you're going to remark on how the Times Magazine covers abortion, it's tough to ignore the cover story they ran in 2006, all about the nightmare of El Salvador's abortion ban - in case anyone missed the relevance to the U.S., the piece was called "Pro-Life Nation - which didn't quite manage to get the facts all right. I expected the TNR piece to simply gloss over that incident; instead, the author brazens it out:

Then there was the disturbing flap at the Magazine two years ago, after a cover piece about illegal abortion in Latin America reported on a woman in El Salvador who supposedly was criminally convicted for aborting her 18-week fetus. Post publication, it turned out the woman was actually judged guilty of murdering her newborn, full-term baby. The reporter had never bothered to read the court records, and the Magazine's factcheckers hadn't either. In its eagerness to champion abortion rights in a country that has none, the paper had gotten sloppy. And on its own national turf, where long-established rights are being chipped at, sloppiness runs in the other direction.

So a prominent case in which the Times ran a factually-inaccurate, "too good to check" piece that just happened to double as a brief for the pro-choice cause is somehow an example of their supposed anti-choice turn. As I said, somewhat less than persuasive.

Comments

This is why I can't stand debates on media bias. The truth is, pro-lifers aren't pro-lifers because they were brainwashed by the media, and pro-choicers aren't pro-choicers because of it either. Abortion happens to be an issue that isn't particularly difficult to understand (that's not saying there aren't complex arguments about feminism and about the beginning of life; only that you don't have to understand those arguments in any depth to have a concrete opinion about the subject).

And let's be clear here: if there are people who know so little about abortion to be swayed by New York Times coverage one way or the other, they probably aren't the types who read the New York Times.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 14, 2008 6:17 PM

Awe, I remember you Dilan.

"""""
Abortion happens to be an issue that isn't particularly difficult to understand
"""""

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/jamie_lynn_and_huckabee_cont.php

--------------------------
Bean Counter Savagery Recap:

""""
3. Jamie Lynn Spears is too young to be carrying her pregnancy to term.

Of course, she's a celebrity, so her life will go on, but your average 16 year old who gets pregnant needs to get an abortion. Teen pregnacies ruin people's lives.
""""

""""
More importantly, though, abortion is LEGAL-- it is a fact of life. As long as it is LEGAL, it is a VERY good idea for people in Ms. Spears' situation. Carrying the pregnancy to term, in contrast, effectively ends the hopes and ambitions of many teenage girls, as well as their right to gender equality.
""""

""""
The entirety of the abortion debate isn't that pro-choicers don't care about life, but that pro-lifers don't care about the competing values (ESPECIALLY gender equality).
""""

""""
Eliminating sexism and promoting gender equality is FAR, FAR more important than saving the life of something that is similar to a tadpole and doesn't even know or care that it is alive
""""

""""
pro-lifers consist of two groups of people: (1) people who think screwing over women in GOOD (because it was included by the ignorant authors of the Bible) and (2) people who think screwing over women may not be good but is ACCEPTABLE.
""""

--------------------------

Posted by ninjapirate | February 15, 2008 1:02 AM

Tes: the "information flow"* is always important. The words we use and the pale of established & prestigious media outlets make a tremendous difference in any ongoing social debate.

*(As a past professor of mine called it)

Good faith observers on either side of the debate readily concede press bias, especially in the NYT. This concession becomes even more unanimous when the charge of bias is narrowed to "social issues".

The recent addition of the position of Public Editor has established this quite readily.
As DANIEL OKRENT wrote

“my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”

Subsequent Public Editors such as BYRON CALAME have noted the same monolithic tone the NYT falls into every time the issues covered hit on "gender"

As a NYT subscriber and dedicated social conservative,I find the whole thing quite exasperating. They often don’t simply sound bias but rather foolish. (As when they claim “so called” partial birth abortion – or “fetuses” go from being children to things in an instantaneous form of bizarre journalistic logarithms)

They would do better and serve their readership more if they treated them with respect & intelligence. The naked cheerleading only diminishes their hoped for influence and drives down subscription rates.

Posted by Fitz | February 15, 2008 11:17 AM

ninja:

Thanks for quoting my words back at me. They certianly don't derogate from my point, which is that the ordinary person can understand the issue and pro-choice and pro-life positions tend not to be formed because of bias in the media.

I might say, however, that I am also quite proud of those words. The truth is, I've had arguments with quite a few pro-lifers on this site, and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM fit within the rubric of either "(1) people who think screwing over women in GOOD (because it was included by the ignorant authors of the Bible) and (2) people who think screwing over women may not be good but is ACCEPTABLE". We haven't seen one yet who believes in the sexual revolution and the full sexual freedom and equality of women, having no moral objections to the separation of sex from procreation whatsoever, but just thinks killing an embryo is wrong.

Because, in truth, that's not what the pro-life movement is comprised of.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 15, 2008 2:10 PM

Fitz:

Show me one pro-choicer who is a pro-choicer despite being completely ignorant of the abortion issue but rather due to media bias.

This is a silly complaint. Media bias can matter when things aren't discussed that should be discussed (e.g., media consolidation issues) or when memes get mindlessly repeated without scrutinty (Bush is stupid, Kerry is a flip-flopper) or where public opinion on issues where public knowledge is low is shaped by media coverage.

But abortion is none of those things. So all claims of media bias come down to nothing more than whining. There's a heck of a lot of pro-choice people in this country, and a heck of a lot of pro-life people as well. There is no evidence that any of those people came to that position because the media didn't give both sides of the debate.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 15, 2008 2:20 PM

Fitz wrote: "They often don’t simply sound bias but rather foolish."

There's an odd form of illiteracy that I've noticed over the past few years in which semi-literate people leave the proper "-ed" suffix out of words. Thus "cut and dried" becomes "cut and dry," "old-fashioned" becomes "old-fashion," and "biased" becomes "bias." I'm not sure what the genesis of it is, but it sure is ugly.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 15, 2008 5:47 PM

Dilan,

Now you're simply being silly. I have been clear in our debates that I support the essence of the sexual revolution, and only being opposed to some of its excesses. I think JonF has made that clear as well. although I wouldn't call myself a feminist, I do also believe in the equality of women, certainly in an ontological sense and also in a social and economic sense. Why don't you go to a college campus and talk to the pro-life student group and get a better sense of who the pro-life movement among young people are composed of these days. I would venture to suggest that not more than a minority of pro-life people these days are opposed to premarital sex, contraception or women's equality.

Really Dilan you are just making your own intellectual shallowness very clear.

Posted by Hector | February 15, 2008 5:48 PM

When we can take the zygote/embryo/fetus out of the woman's body and stuff it into the body of a prolifer to be carried to term, then I might listen. Otherwise, any blethering from anyone will be from someone who is not putting his money where his/her mouth is.

Or--how about this? I'll accept prolifers' arguments the day after they all go vegan.

Posted by grumpy realist | February 15, 2008 8:36 PM

"Or--how about this? I'll accept prolifers' arguments the day after they all go vegan. "

failure

Posted by ninjapirate | February 15, 2008 9:53 PM

> "(1) people who think screwing over women in GOOD (because it was included by the ignorant authors of the Bible) and (2) people who think screwing over women may not be good but is ACCEPTABLE"

Which column does Harry Reid go in?

Posted by Rod Blaine | February 16, 2008 1:21 AM

Which column does Jim Langevin go into?

Posted by Hector | February 16, 2008 8:57 AM

Dilan,

"EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM fit within the rubric of either "(1) people who think screwing over women in GOOD (because it was included by the ignorant authors of the Bible) and (2) people who think screwing over women may not be good but is ACCEPTABLE"."

What a remarkably subtle intellect you possess! What a carefully nuanced view! It's so refreshing to hear from someone so removed from fundamentalism. A person who is able to appreciate what you call 'competing values'.

Objecting to the deliberate killing of a fetus is 'screwing over women', based on the 'ignorant authors of the Bible'. It could never be based on anything rational, like biology. It couldn't be an application of the principal that it is wrong to kill people wedded with the observation that a fetus with a heart beat, hands, feet, and a completely distinct genetic identity looks like a human being. No, it is a desire to 'screw over women' based on the Bible that leads women to oppose abortion. Only a person such as yourself that appreciates 'competing values' could have explained it so clearly.

Posted by Tmore | February 16, 2008 2:14 PM

In the context of Dilan's other views, this is really rich. This is a guy who muses about whether prostitution, pornography and polygamy 'screw over women'. It isn't so clear to him whether polygamy is good or bad, but when it comes to outlawing the killing of an unborn baby, then it's perfectly clear.

Posted by Hector | February 16, 2008 4:21 PM

You pro-lifers are misreading category 2. It certainly is true that even those of you who don't want to reverse the sexual revolution nonetheless think it is perfectly ACCEPTABLE to screw over women as a result of banning abortion. Even those of you who don't think gender equality violates God's plan and should be reversed still undervalue gender equality in the sense of not caring enough about it to be willing to acknowledge the horrid effects of an abortion ban.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 16, 2008 8:42 PM

I don't believe that banning abortion screws over women, because I don't consider that the right to commit manslaughter is a right worth having. Nor do I consider _unlimited_ freedom, in any sense of the word- political, social, economic or sexual- to be a right worth having, for men or women.

Your error seems to be to think that I want the benefits of liberal society to be available to men but not to women. On the contrary, I believe that liberal society _itself_ is fundamentally on the wrong track.

Posted by Hector | February 16, 2008 8:54 PM

"you...undervalue gender equality in the sense of not caring enough about it to be willing to acknowledge the horrid effects of an abortion ban."

And Dilan, you are unwilling to acknowledge the horrid effects of abortion license. A person being chopped up and removed as arms and legs separately from inside their mother doesn't count as a 'competing value' in your calculus. You deny a right to be alive and equality to a whole class of persons, and then have the arrogance to accuse people opposed to such a horrific evil of being opposed to 'gender equality'.

Posted by TMore | February 16, 2008 9:22 PM

TMore writes: "you are unwilling to acknowledge the horrid effects of abortion license. A person being chopped up and removed as arms and legs separately from inside their mother doesn't count as a 'competing value' in your calculus. You deny a right to be alive and equality to a whole class of persons, and then have the arrogance to accuse people opposed to such a horrific evil of being opposed to 'gender equality'."

Dilan has most "pro-lifers" nailed dead-on. This nonsensical crap about "being chopped up" has nothing to do with most abortions, since most are performed in the first trimester.

Funerals for miscarriages in the first trimester don't happen in our society. I'd actually be willing to compromise and outlaw all abortions past that 1st trimester (with a life/health exception) just to see the lifers squawk and hem and haw. Most movement lifers are opposed to abortions after day one - even the morning after pill is murder to them. This is simply not a rational position.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 17, 2008 4:36 AM

Moe,

1) I'm not a "movement lifer".
2) I have no particular problem with the morning after pill, ad I don't view it as essentially abortifacient.
3) Many pro-lifers would probably be delighted to see a ban on abortions after the 1st trimester, although they would want that as a first step. However, you guys are the ones who want a 'life and health' exception like the one in Bolton vs. Doe, which is so broad as to be essentially meaningless.
4) You may be willing to countenance a ban on abortion after the 12th week (as they have in many European countries) but the abortiomaniacs who have a lock on the throat of the national Democratic party are not, which they have made abundantly clear.

Posted by Hector | February 17, 2008 11:29 AM

Hector, this isn't about you. It's about "most lifers," as I sad.

The reason choicers don't want to compromise with the lifer movement is that we think most lifers are lunatics, to be honest with you. Perhaps you'd be willing to compromise yourself, but the Randall Terrys of the country sure aren't, and the Catholic Church isn't, and the fundies aren't. You can refer to "abortiomaniacs" all you want, but the real maniacs can be seen picketing clinics - talk about the mentally ill! And all of the violence with this issue has come from the lifer side - bombings and shootings and stalking and death threats - I know where the real maniacs are, and they don't work for Planned Parenthood.

Your blithe dismissal of the health exception doesn't tell me much. What sort of health exception would you endorse?

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 17, 2008 2:39 PM

"Hector, this isn't about you. It's about "most lifers," as I sad.

The reason choicers don't want to compromise with the lifer movement is that we think most lifers are lunatics, to be honest with you. Perhaps you'd be willing to compromise yourself, but the Randall Terrys of the country sure aren't, and the Catholic Church isn't, and the fundies aren't."

So in other words, Hector is right, but since other people make bad pro-life arguments, the pro-life cause is wrong.

That is illogical. There are many bad and crazy arguments for the pro-choice position too (supporters of infanticide, racially or gender-targetd abortions, or people who want to limit human population for environmental reasons). You can't just smear your opponent with guilt by association with insane arguments and leave out the perfectly good points you can't answer.

If you can't answer Hector's points, then you shouldn't be pro-choice. You don't need to have all the good arguments to win a debate, just the best one.

If someone proposed a compromise abortion amendment to the Constitution, pro-lifers (at least some of them) would be the ones to support it. As you admit, it's the pro-choicers who refuse to compromise, for the fevered imaginary reasons you brought up.

Posted by Ed | February 17, 2008 3:57 PM

I don't think wanting to limit human population for environmental reasons is a bad _motivation_. I just think abortion is a terrible and immoral way to go about it.

Posted by Hector | February 17, 2008 4:07 PM

"And all of the violence with this issue has come from the lifer side"

Right, because it isn't violent to kill a child in its mother's womb - that, you see, is 'a choice'. Chopping up and removing arms and legs is precisely what is happenin under a Court decision core to the Democratic party's mission; it seems fairly violent to me, and (I'm sure) to the fetus.

It's nice that you would limit abortions after the first trimester; wouldn't it be nice if people could vote on it. However, Democrats like you refuse to allow abortion to be resolved by the Democratic process - you say your refusal to compromise is because we are 'lunatics'. Cute: we would let people vote on this, but those people that disagree with us are 'lunatics'. There's no telling what might happen if they are allowed to vote. Meanwhile let's sputter in moral outrage that pro-lifers want to 'screw over women'. Maybe no one will notice our hypocrisy; after all dead fetuses can't vote.

Posted by TMore | February 17, 2008 5:38 PM

Ed replies: "So in other words, Hector is right, but since other people make bad pro-life arguments, the pro-life cause is wrong.

That is illogical. There are many bad and crazy arguments for the pro-choice position too (supporters of infanticide, racially or gender-targetd abortions, or people who want to limit human population for environmental reasons). You can't just smear your opponent with guilt by association with insane arguments and leave out the perfectly good points you can't answer.

If you can't answer Hector's points, then you shouldn't be pro-choice. You don't need to have all the good arguments to win a debate, just the best one.

If someone proposed a compromise abortion amendment to the Constitution, pro-lifers (at least some of them) would be the ones to support it. As you admit, it's the pro-choicers who refuse to compromise, for the fevered imaginary reasons you brought up."

Choicers compromise (or are forced to compromise) constantly, Eddie. And they don't respond by bombing Operation Rescue offices or issuing death threats. That's what lifers do.

There was nothing "illogical" about my response to Hector. The "movement lifers" are the ones driving the issue on the lifer side, not more moderate folks like Hector, and that's what I was pointing out. He and I have gone over these issues many times - you're late to the fair, as it were.

I'm sure some lifers would support a compromise, but the movement biggies sure as hell wouldn't. They'd go nuts. Then again, Randall Terry and people like him are already nuts, and he's a corrupt and repulsive nut.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 17, 2008 5:52 PM

TMore goes wild: ""And all of the violence with this issue has come from the lifer side"

Right, because it isn't violent to kill a child in its mother's womb - that, you see, is 'a choice'. Chopping up and removing arms and legs is precisely what is happenin under a Court decision core to the Democratic party's mission; it seems fairly violent to me, and (I'm sure) to the fetus."

First trimester abortions - which represent well over 90% of all abortions in this country - don't involve any more "chopping" than the average enema does, TMore. But then we both know you'd ban all abortions - and probably some forms of birth control, and the morning after pill, and who knows what else.

"It's nice that you would limit abortions after the first trimester; wouldn't it be nice if people could vote on it. However, Democrats like you refuse to allow abortion to be resolved by the Democratic process - you say your refusal to compromise is because we are 'lunatics'. Cute: we would let people vote on this, but those people that disagree with us are 'lunatics'. There's no telling what might happen if they are allowed to vote. Meanwhile let's sputter in moral outrage that pro-lifers want to 'screw over women'. Maybe no one will notice our hypocrisy; after all dead fetuses can't vote."

Live fetuses can't vote, either. Nor are they counted in the census, or given status as tax deductions. Looks like our culture doesn't really regard them as human beings, chuckles.

And I'm an independent, not a Democrat. I'm pro-choice because I don't think the government should be making these decisions, and I don't think lunatics should be, either. This isn't the sort of issue that resolves well at the ballot box - any more than, say, bankruptcy law or civil rights law is. Even for you that shouldn't be so hard to understand.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 17, 2008 6:01 PM

"I'm pro-choice because I don't think the government should be making these decisions, and I don't think lunatics should be, either. This isn't the sort of issue that resolves well at the ballot box - any more than, say, bankruptcy law or civil rights law is. Even for you that shouldn't be so hard to understand."

The government makes the decision either way. Either against fetuses or ins support of them.

I am not sure how you came to the oddly anti-democratic idea that abortion can't be resolved at the ballot box. It had been in all 50 states prior to Roe, which overturned the laws of 46 of those states. Abortion has been decided legislatively in most of Europe; I believe the UK has the regime you suggest with abortion permitted in the first trimester. If you consider enough of the population 'lunatics' that you oppose democratic resolution to the problem, it says more about you than the voters.

Posted by TMore | February 17, 2008 6:21 PM

TMore replies: "The government makes the decision either way. Either against fetuses or ins support of them.

I am not sure how you came to the oddly anti-democratic idea that abortion can't be resolved at the ballot box. It had been in all 50 states prior to Roe, which overturned the laws of 46 of those states. Abortion has been decided legislatively in most of Europe; I believe the UK has the regime you suggest with abortion permitted in the first trimester. If you consider enough of the population 'lunatics' that you oppose democratic resolution to the problem, it says more about you than the voters."

In reality, of course, those laws were not "resolved at the ballot box," they were resolved by legislators, not by voters. And like all laws, they're subject to review by the courts. Apparently you despise our constitutional form of government.

Anti-miscegenation laws weren't "resolved at the ballot box," they were also installed by legislatures, and they were similarly thrown out by courts.

Legislatures often do stupid, crazy things, like outlawing homosexual behavior, or dildos, or interracial marriage, and I'm certainly glad we have courts which have seen fit to throw out such laws. I'm also glad that the abortion choice is not in the hands of wackaloons like Jim Inhofe.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 17, 2008 6:51 PM

"I'm an independent, not a Democrat." - MLJ

...an important distinction, because MLJ's known for his nuanced, center-of-the-aisle political viewpoints. They are difficult to classify as either conservative or liberal. What pprevents you from being a Democrat MLJ? I'm just curious.

Posted by jhb | February 17, 2008 6:55 PM

jhb wonders: "MLJ's known for his nuanced, center-of-the-aisle political viewpoints. They are difficult to classify as either conservative or liberal. What pprevents you from being a Democrat MLJ? I'm just curious."

My independent nature, of course. And I don't agree with the Democrats all of the time, and I don't trust politicians much. LBJ's actions in Vietnam were just as wrong as Dumbya's in Iraq. Both sides waste too much money on too many non-productive endeavors - and I'm more fiscally conservative than you might think. But there is no "left" party in America today, of course. There's a center-right party (the Democrats) and a hard-right nationalist/religious party (the Repiglicans). I'm not happy with those choices.

(In my home state of MA I've voted for Republicans for governor several times, though I couldn't go for Mitt Romney, who gave me the creeps even when he was pretending to be a moderate. I happily voted for Bill Weld twice - you probably consider him to be a radical.)

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 17, 2008 7:08 PM

"In reality, of course, those laws were not "resolved at the ballot box," they were resolved by legislators, not by voters. And like all laws, they're subject to review by the courts. Apparently you despise our constitutional form of government."

I would encourage you to read the Constitution MLJ. You'll find no provision guaranteeing a right to abortion. Indeed, the amazing thing is that it wasn't 'discovered' until 1973. The phrase states shall not 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...' originally intended to guarantee civil rights for freed slaves suddenly meant that the U.S. was committed to the most liberal abortion regime in the world.

Any form of government can be abused; Roe is an abuse of judicial power. The legislative parade of horribles you describe, could be met with an equally long list of Supreme Court decisions (Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. U.S, etc). Such a list proves nothing. Your opposition to a democratic solution to abortion is not a matter of trust in courts, just approval of a Court decision you like.

Posted by TMore | February 17, 2008 7:13 PM

TMore replies: "I would encourage you to read the Constitution MLJ. You'll find no provision guaranteeing a right to abortion. Indeed, the amazing thing is that it wasn't 'discovered' until 1973. The phrase states shall not 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...' originally intended to guarantee civil rights for freed slaves suddenly meant that the U.S. was committed to the most liberal abortion regime in the world.

Any form of government can be abused; Roe is an abuse of judicial power. The legislative parade of horribles you describe, could be met with an equally long list of Supreme Court decisions (Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. U.S, etc). Such a list proves nothing. Your opposition to a democratic solution to abortion is not a matter of trust in courts, just approval of a Court decision you like."

Roe isn't a decision forcing people to have abortions, chuckles. Though it may well have been decided on specious law, it's not a decision granting additional power to the government, it's one placing decisions in the hands of individuals. I'm fine with that. There's also no right to use birth control explicitly written in there, but I'm glad it has been interpreted - quite sanely - that we do have that right. You authoritarian types may quiver over that, but I can live with that, too.

You consider fetuses to be individuals? Amend the Constitution to reflect that, then. You won't find them mentioned in there now, to use your own argument.

By the way, the US is far from "the most liberal abortion regime in the world," and thanks for the laugh over "regime."

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 17, 2008 7:30 PM

"Roe isn't a decision forcing people to have abortions, chuckles."

Never said or implied it was, chuckee(???)

"Though it may well have been decided on specious law, it's not a decision granting additional power to the government, it's one placing decisions in the hands of individuals."

In other words, you concede that you are not concerned about our 'consitutional form of government' as long as you agree with the outcome. The decision actually apportions power to the Supreme Court to decide abortion laws, rather than states - the power to regulate is also a power, and one particularly useful when protecting the vulnerable.

'There's also no right to use birth control explicitly written in there, but I'm glad it has been interpreted - quite sanely - that we do have that right.'

Keep in mind though that Griswold had little legal effect. It was based on spurious doctrine, but it overturned the laws of 2-3 states that weren't enforcing the laws anyway. It's much more analagous to Lawrence than Roe. Again, you clearly don't care about the actual Constitution, you support the Court here because you agree with it.

'By the way, the US is far from "the most liberal abortion regime in the world," and thanks for the laugh over "regime."'

Describe a policy more liberal than abortion any time, for any reason, at any point in the pregnancy. Some other countries may provide more public funding, but generally that is because they provide more public funding for all medical expenses. The U.K. for instance, no bastion of conservatism, has far more restrictive abortion laws.

Posted by TMore | February 17, 2008 8:11 PM

However, you guys are the ones who want a 'life and health' exception like the one in Bolton vs. Doe, which is so broad as to be essentially meaningless.

This is not true. The Doe v. Bolton health exception permits practical bans of abortions past viability, and many states have them.

The pro-life movement, for political reasons, lies about the Doe exception and makes it sound as if all a woman has to do is claim that she might be distressed if she doesn't get an abortion and she gets one. But that's not true. There has to be a serious threat to her health, as determined by a doctor. And when we are talking about psychological health, we are talking things like suicide threats, not that a woman might feel bad about delivering the baby.

In states that have third trimester abortion bans, very few abortions get through under the health exception. Don't believe pro-life groups' lies about this issue.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 17, 2008 8:24 PM

TMore quotes and writes: ""Though it may well have been decided on specious law, it's not a decision granting additional power to the government, it's one placing decisions in the hands of individuals."

In other words, you concede that you are not concerned about our 'consitutional form of government' as long as you agree with the outcome. "

If oe had gone the other way and New York and California (for example)had been forced to keep abortion illegal, you lifers would have been doing handstands in the streets on every anniversary of the decision.

Let's not kid ourselves. The Court has the power to interpret the Constitution. Be it taxation or central banking or abortion, lots of people have quarreled with the basis for its decisions. That doesn't mean it didn't have the power to make them. It obviously does.

"Describe a policy more liberal than abortion any time, for any reason, at any point in the pregnancy."

That's not what Roe did, and it's not what we have. I know you lifers like to pretend that 3rd trimester abortions are as common as trees, but it simply isn't so.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 17, 2008 8:25 PM

MLJ quoted/wrote "Describe a policy more liberal than abortion any time, for any reason, at any point in the pregnancy." That's not what Roe did, and it's not what we have. I know you lifers like to pretend that 3rd trimester abortions are as common as trees, but it simply isn't so."

That is exactly what we have. And that is exactly what Roe combined with Bolton (handed down on the same day) did. You frequently reason fallacially, but even for you the point about the number of late-term abortions and whether or not they are illegal is a non-seuquitur.

"The Court has the power to interpret the Constitution...lots of people have quarreled with the basis for its decisions. That doesn't mean it didn't have the power to make them. It obviously does."

Again, a non-sequitur. I never said the Court didn't have the power to interpret the Constitution. In Plessy v. Ferguson it upheld segregation. That doesn't mean that segregation was the correct interpretation. The Court can be (and has been) wrong - and it can be wrong about the extent of its own authority under the Constitution.

Posted by TMore | February 17, 2008 9:08 PM

TMore again: "I never said the Court didn't have the power to interpret the Constitution. In Plessy v. Ferguson it upheld segregation. That doesn't mean that segregation was the correct interpretation. The Court can be (and has been) wrong - and it can be wrong about the extent of its own authority under the Constitution."

Sure, like in Bush v. Gore, the Court can overreach, and I'll bet you loved that one. I notice you didn't bother to respond to my point that if Roe had gone the opposite way and enshrined the fetus as a full-fledged human the last thing you'd be doing is bitching about it.

By the way, could you please stop pretending that I said you said things? It's a truly stupid rhetorical ploy. I'm not your monkey - in expressing my opinion, I'm not always contradicting you.

So, how many miscarriage funerals have you been to lately?

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 17, 2008 9:19 PM

"There has to be a serious threat to her health, as determined by a doctor. And when we are talking about psychological health, we are talking things like suicide threats, not that a woman might feel bad about delivering the baby.

In states that have third trimester abortion bans, very few abortions get through under the health exception. Don't believe pro-life groups' lies about this issue."

I call BS Dilan. Oh, so a DOCTOR has to sign off on it! Well, then it must be really difficult. Wait a minute - aren't doctors the ones that performs the abortions. Maybe they could help her find a doctor to sign the permission slip...

Dilan, only a child would believe that requirement couldn't easily be circumvented - and that's how it's taught in Con Law classes. There may be few late-term abortions, but that doesn't mean that it is because of legal restrictions. Do you have evidence that there are much lower rates in states with those restrictions?

Posted by TMore | February 17, 2008 9:24 PM

Dilan Esper writes: "In states that have third trimester abortion bans, very few abortions get through under the health exception. Don't believe pro-life groups' lies about this issue."

It all fits in with their rhetoric. TMore wants all aborted fetuses to be seen as fully-formed kids riding tricycles who get "chopped" up. It's beyond bizarre, really, and it strikes me as fundamentally dishonest since they want ALL abortions stopped (or at least most of them do).

If all 3rd trimester abortions stopped tomorrow would their rhetoric change even a little bit? Of course not. Doesn't that indicate a lack of honesty in their arguments?

How many of them would be willing to sign on for cheaper, safer, easier-to-get contraception, along with earlier and better education in the schools on this matter? Very few, I think.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 17, 2008 9:26 PM

TMore asks: "Do you have evidence that there are much lower rates in states with those restrictions?"

This is delusional stuff. What does this guy think, that there's some sort of underground network of 3rd trimester abortion providers? Sheesh. Yeah, and it's run a big conspiracy of Jews, atheists, and communists!

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 17, 2008 9:31 PM

"Sure, like in Bush v. Gore, the Court can overreach, and I'll bet you loved that one. I notice you didn't bother to respond to my point that if Roe had gone the opposite way and enshrined the fetus as a full-fledged human the last thing you'd be doing is bitching about it."

Bush v. Gore was crap, so what? I admit it. Regarding the opposite of Roe, at least the 14th Amendment does protect 'life' as in 'life, liberty, etc.', but the decision still would be crap...and you'd have a right to 'bitch'. I guess that is some sort of sloppy counter-factual hypocrisy ad hominem. If there is an argument to respond to, let me know.

"I'm not your monkey - in expressing my opinion, I'm not always contradicting you."

Sorry, you had it as a response to a quote of mine...I assumed it was intended to be on point. I guess you can put unrelated ruminations under my quoted comments if you wish, but I'll continue to call them non-sequiturs.

"So, how many miscarriage funerals have you been to lately?"

Assuming this was directed at me...I guess, it's another non-sequitur. I'm not sure if you've known many people who have had miscarriages, but it's not really something to joke about. Not to call you an insensitive @#@#@, but...

Posted by TMore | February 17, 2008 9:41 PM

TMore again: "Bush v. Gore was crap, so what? I admit it."

Sure, you admit it, but you didn't become a "movement Gorian" to protest it. You reserve that sort of thing for Roe. You liked the result in Bush v. Gore, after all.

""So, how many miscarriage funerals have you been to lately?"

Assuming this was directed at me...I guess, it's another non-sequitur. I'm not sure if you've known many people who have had miscarriages, but it's not really something to joke about. Not to call you an insensitive @#@#@, but..."

It wasn't a joke - not at all - and it's about as far from being a "non sequitur" as you can get. Claiming that anyone who doesn't share your fetus fetish is "illogical" and is using "non sequiturs" seems to be the only arrow in your quiver. It's not very impressive.

Now I'm off to donate to Planned Parenthood in your honor.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 17, 2008 9:50 PM

"It wasn't a joke - not at all - and it's about as far from being a "non sequitur" as you can get. Claiming that anyone who doesn't share your fetus fetish is "illogical" and is using "non sequiturs" seems to be the only arrow in your quiver. It's not very impressive."

Well, neither is trading in non-sequiturs and illogic. If you had a substantive response, I assume it would have appeared by now.

First you said you only support abortions in the first trimester, but that because pro-lifers are 'lunatics' you actually support abortion for all nine months.

Then you said that because there are only about 100,000 or so 2nd term abortions every year (9% of 1.2-1.3 million), that pro-lifers are lying when they talk about the procedure used to kill those fetuses.

Now, you are saying I have a 'fetus fetish' because I look at a sonogram and see hands, arms, and legs and think, you know that looks human, maybe we shouldn't indiscriminately kill those humans. Presumably your own support for limiting abortion to the first trimester, is NOT based on a fetus fetish?

Posted by TMore | February 17, 2008 9:59 PM

Let's examine the steaming pile of rhetorical gibberish MLJ just generated to spot the fallacy...

'It all fits in with their rhetoric. TMore wants all aborted fetuses to be seen as fully-formed kids riding tricycles who get "chopped" up. It's beyond bizarre, really, and it strikes me as fundamentally dishonest since they want ALL abortions stopped (or at least most of them do).'

- I described second-trimester abortions which in fact do involve chopping up fetuses. Roughly 100,000 of these are performed every year.
- MLJ thinks it is 'bizarre' and 'dishonest' that people who are pro-life point out facts like this, because they really want to stop all abortions.
- Similarly, Democrats are dishonest and bizarre when they point out that Iraq was a mistake, because they really just want to enact their platform.

"If all 3rd trimester abortions stopped tomorrow would their rhetoric change even a little bit? Of course not. Doesn't that indicate a lack of honesty in their arguments?"

Similarly, if Iraq were to improve marginally, and the Democrats kept criticizing Republicans about Iraq, wouldn't that indicate a lack of honesty in their arguments?

"How many of them would be willing to sign on for cheaper, safer, easier-to-get contraception, along with earlier and better education in the schools on this matter? Very few, I think.'

Well, it depends on why they opposed the education. If there was evidence that either abstinence or contraception education had a significant effect on pregnancy rates there might be a tension there. Either way, most pro-lifers would gladly have fewer abortions and more contraception.

Posted by TMore | February 17, 2008 10:20 PM

TMore replies: "seems to be the only arrow in your quiver. It's not very impressive."

Well, neither is trading in non-sequiturs and illogic. If you had a substantive response, I assume it would have appeared by now.

First you said you only support abortions in the first trimester, but that because pro-lifers are 'lunatics' you actually support abortion for all nine months."

The substantive response was there, but you're unable to appreciate it because you're a fanatic.

I didn't say I only support abortions in the 1st trimester. I didn't even come close to saying that, in fact. I also didn't say I support them for all nine months because lifers are "lunatics," even though I believe many lifers are indeed lunatics.

The point is that movement choicers don't think you lifers are capable of compromising in good faith on this issue. Why should they? I'm not a movement choicer, but I can see why they're loathe to give fanatics any leeway at all.

I support abortion in an case where the mother's life or long-term health is in danger. No exceptions. And I'd rather the law err on the side of caution here - have more abortions of this sort rather than cost the life of a single woman. Deal with it.

"MLJ thinks it is 'bizarre' and 'dishonest' that people who are pro-life point out facts like this, because they really want to stop all abortions."

You do. It's dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

"Similarly, if Iraq were to improve marginally, and the Democrats kept criticizing Republicans about Iraq, wouldn't that indicate a lack of honesty in their arguments?"

No. But do you suppose some of the Iraqis we've slaughtered over there were PREGNANT? Perhaps the blown-up fetuses might give you guys pause before you try to fake reasons to go to war with Iran as well.

"If there was evidence that either abstinence or contraception education had a significant effect on pregnancy rates there might be a tension there. Either way, most pro-lifers would gladly have fewer abortions and more contraception."

Yes, that explains the almost total lack of support among movement lifers for such programs - except, of course, the asinine "abstinence education" crapola. It would be one thing if the message was, "Don't get laid, but if you do, wear a condom." Instead it's, "Don't get laid, you'll make the Baby Jesus cry."

Although given the topic let's make that the Fetus Jesus instead.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 17, 2008 10:36 PM

MLJ said "I support abortion in an case where the mother's life or long-term health is in danger. No exceptions. And I'd rather the law err on the side of caution here - have more abortions of this sort rather than cost the life of a single woman. Deal with it."

Well, I guess we'll end it there. I think that is a reasonable position. In fact, I support abortion in many of those cases too, although I guess we may differ on where we draw the line on life or health.

I am surprised that somebody who holds such a moderate view expresses himself so intemperately, but then I guess I'm not one to cast stones there. Have a good night.

Posted by TMore | February 17, 2008 11:52 PM

Moe,

You are _assuming_ that a Court decision which increases the power of individuals and decreases the power of the government is _by definition_ a good thing. But that only is convincing to one who shares your premises, which I don't.

This decision increased the freedom of individuals too (at least the freedom of capitalists- it decreased the freedom of workers, much like abortion increases the freedom of mothers and decreases the freedom of babies) but I'm sure you're not in favor of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York

Posted by Hector | February 18, 2008 9:55 AM

I call BS Dilan. Oh, so a DOCTOR has to sign off on it! Well, then it must be really difficult. Wait a minute - aren't doctors the ones that performs the abortions. Maybe they could help her find a doctor to sign the permission slip... Dilan, only a child would believe that requirement couldn't easily be circumvented - and that's how it's taught in Con Law classes. There may be few late-term abortions, but that doesn't mean that it is because of legal restrictions. Do you have evidence that there are much lower rates in states with those restrictions?

TMore, do your own research. And yes, almost all the third trimester abortions are in states that DO NOT have bans with Doe v. Bolton mandated health exceptions.

This is one of those areas where pro-lifers are, for lack of a better term, simply jerks. You guys think that health exceptions are simply ways for abortion doctors to drum up business and scheming women to circumvent the law. In fact, health exceptions exist because WOMEN CAN DIE OR BE SERIOUSLY HARMED IN CHILDBIRTH in some instances, and some women WILL COMMIT SUICIDE IF THEY CAN'T GET ABORTIONS.

Pro-lifers, of course, for the most part don't care enough about women, so thanks for demonstrating my point with your totally insensitive comments about health exceptions.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 18, 2008 9:33 PM

Dilan,

Men commit suicide after their wives divorce them, and after they lose their jobs- does that mean you want to make layoffs and divorces harder? (I might actually agree with you some of the way if you did.)

The law that Doe vs. Bolton overthrew _permitted_ abortion in the case of severe or fatal injury to the mother. That is the kind of law that seems reasonable to me, but it evidently wasn't enough for the pro-choice lobby.

How many women have been denied abortions in states with only health exceptions? I doubt it's very many. 'Health exemption', my left foot.

Posted by Hector | February 19, 2008 8:16 AM

Hector:

The data's available. In many states with Doe-compliant health exceptions, third trimester abortions almost never happen. In some states without health exceptions, they are somewhat more common.

The fact of the matter is this is a classic example of where I am totally right about pro-lifers-- you folks don't care enough about women. If a woman is going to commit suicide because she is forced to have a child, that pregnancy is obviously a threat to her life and certainly her health. Yet pro-lifers like you say "let her die; people commit suicide all the time".

If a woman is forced to get a hysterectomy because of complications from a pregnancy if she doesn't abort, many pro-lifers say "screw her-- the fetus' life outweighs her interests" and think (but don't usually say) "in any event, she could have avoided all of this by just not having sex when she wasn't ready to have a baby".

Pro-lifers' attitudes towards health exceptions are sickening. Rather than having any compassion for women in difficult circumstances, all they see is scheming doctors and women trying to circumvent abortion bans.

Again-- your movement is made up with people who either (1) want to oppress women; or (2) just don't give a damn about their rights and interests. And that's a big reason why pro-choicers don't trust them to seek compromise.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 19, 2008 1:09 PM

Dilan,

What about the many, many women who are pro-life? In any case, I wouldn't say 'screw her' to a woman who is forced to get a hysterectomy. It would be a tough call, but I do believe that the Georgia law that Doe v. Bolton struck down permitted abortions in the case of serious injury to the mother.

Regarding suicide, of course that's a tragedy, and I would do everything in my power to keep someone in such emotional straits from commiting suicide. But properly speaking, it isn't the pregnancy that is a threat to the woman's life, it is the woman herself. I would say again, do you want to make layoffs illegal, on the grounds that some people kill themselves after being laid off?

Would you accept the argument that you don't give a damn about the rights and interests of the fetus?

Posted by Hector | February 19, 2008 5:02 PM

Hector asks: "Would you accept the argument that you don't give a damn about the rights and interests of the fetus?"

The fetus has no more rights than a clump of hair has, legally speaking. (And the millions of spontaneous abortions that occur in this country without the woman even being aware that she had been pregnant aren't seen as a tragedy by anyone.)

But interests? Yeah, they have those. Here's a glimpse at the interests of one fetus.

Johnny B. Fetus

Interests: Floating in amniotic fluid, bumping against the uterine wall, wrinkling, parasitic nutrition.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 19, 2008 5:12 PM

Moe,

I do believe that at the 'Project Rachel' retreats, they give names to babies who suffered either abortions or miscarriages. Which would tend to obviate your argument that no one sees miscarrgiages as a tragedy.

I also think that it's a deplorable misuse of language to say that the fetus is 'parasitic'.

Black people once didn't have any legal rights, either (in the United States, anyway.) That didn't mean they had any fewer _moral_ rights, did it?

Posted by Hector | February 19, 2008 6:28 PM

Hector replies: "I do believe that at the 'Project Rachel' retreats, they give names to babies who suffered either abortions or miscarriages. Which would tend to obviate your argument that no one sees miscarrgiages as a tragedy."

Take another look at what I actually wrote instead of replying with your lifer reflex, Hector. I was referring to the millions of miscarriages no one even notices - that literally get flushed away. As for efforts to name unsuccessful fetuses, I find it narcissistic and fetishistic and sort of silly all at once. France has recently seen some sort of court decision allowing people to register their lost feti this way. I guess much of the time you'd have to give it a neutral name if the sex hadn't been determined yet

"Black people once didn't have any legal rights, either (in the United States, anyway.) That didn't mean they had any fewer _moral_ rights, did it?"

Actually they were recognized in the Constitution, even if they were slaves, and there were always free blacks in the US. There were even laws protecting actual slaves, though these varied widely in substance and enforcement. While I see your point, I think you should also see mine - that our culture simply does not recognize the fetus as a "real" human being.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 19, 2008 7:42 PM

Hector:

In fact, your analogy is wrong. While some pro-choicers are absolutists with respect to free and legal abortion until birth, many pro-choicers are quite willing to put up with regulations of late term abortions. We do draw the line on health exceptions, but it isn't for the reason pro-lifers hypothesize, that we are looking for a loophole, but rather because we actually care about women's health and don't want women to face serious health consequences because they are forced to carry fetuses to term. Also, bear in mind that a health exception with so many hoops to jump through that it it is too difficult to claim (as Georgia's pre-Doe health exception was) can actually kill women by interfering with doctors' ability to make a judgment in an emergency.

The thing is, as I said, there's no evidence that any substantial number of people on your side of this issue are willing to give women's interests the weight they deserve. They either don't want to recognize them as interests at all-- i.e., the religious crowd that doesn't approve of nonprocreative sexuality or work outside the home-- or they don't care enough about them-- i.e., the group that sees health exceptions as nothing more than a scheme to circumvent abortion laws.

For there to be any real compromise on this issue, two things have to happen: (1) pro-lifers need to separate themselves from the portion of the movement that has retrograde views on female sexuality, as any compromise is going to contain a lot of promotion of contraception and morning after pills; and (2) pro-lifers have to be willing to accept that pro-choicers are pro-choice NOT because we are too stupid to understand that life begins at conception, but because we have deep concerns about women's rights. If we saw pro-lifers moving in that direction, I bet you there could be compromises on abortion.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 20, 2008 1:02 PM

I also think that it's a deplorable misuse of language to say that the fetus is 'parasitic'.

By the way, Hector, I know it sounds horrible (because of the negative connotation of the term "parasite" in common usage), but in the strict scientific use of the term, Moe is correct that the fetus is a parasite.

Parasitic relationships are one of a number of different classifications in science for biological relationships, e.g., symbiotes are organisms whose activities are mutually beneficial.

A fetus, in strict terms, draws nutrients from the woman in whose womb it resides, and does not confer any biological benefit to the woman (again, in strict terms; I realize that parenthood can be quite beneficial to people in other ways), instead burdening her body in various ways. Thus, the fetus benefits and the woman is harmed. That is, in biology, the definition of a parasitic relationship.

And this does matter for abortion rights. Pro-lifers like to speak of the blessings of born children, but during the nine months of pregnancy, the fetus is no blessing to a woman who doesn't want to bear it.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 20, 2008 1:08 PM

I also think that it's a deplorable misuse of language to say that the fetus is 'parasitic'.

By the way, Hector, I know it sounds horrible (because of the negative connotation of the term "parasite" in common usage), but in the strict scientific use of the term, Moe is correct that the fetus is a parasite.

Parasitic relationships are one of a number of different classifications in science for biological relationships, e.g., symbiotes are organisms whose activities are mutually beneficial.

A fetus, in strict terms, draws nutrients from the woman in whose womb it resides, and does not confer any biological benefit to the woman (again, in strict terms; I realize that parenthood can be quite beneficial to people in other ways), instead burdening her body in various ways. Thus, the fetus benefits and the woman is harmed. That is, in biology, the definition of a parasitic relationship.

And this does matter for abortion rights. Pro-lifers like to speak of the blessings of born children, but during the nine months of pregnancy, the fetus is no blessing to a woman who doesn't want to bear it.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 20, 2008 1:10 PM

Dilan,

Point taken. But I don't see why moderate pro-lifers should not accept strategic help from more conservative people who might oppose contraception, etc. Do you think Martin Luther King should have kicked the communists out of his movement just because he might not agree with them on everything? I certainly don't.

I will do you a favor and assume that you are pro-life because you don't realize when life begins (I don't think that I would place it at conception, but certainly I would place it well before you do....probably around implantation, which I believe is the medical definition of the begnning of pregnancy.) I'm being charitable in assuming that you don't know when life begins....I think the whole women's rights business, in this context, is a red herring and I can't take those arguments seriously.

I work in the biological sciences so I know very well what a parasite is. You're wrong. A parasite can be defined as a symbiont that reduces the _Darwinian fitness_ of its host (defined as the number of surviving offspring). Obviously each child increases the Darwinian fitness of its mother, therefore it can't be defined as a parasite.

Your definition (parasite reduces the life expectancy of its host) could work too, there are different ways to define a parasite, and in fact there has been some semi-recent work in evolutionary biology about mother-offspring conflict in the womb. Nevertheless, you can see that analogizing the child to a parasite is, at best, highly questionable.

Posted by Hector | February 20, 2008 4:43 PM

Hector:

I don't think "when personhood begins" is a particularly important question. I do understand the debate-- but human development is obviously a continuum with many stages at which a reasonable person could draw a line but no place where a line would have to be drawn by logical necessity.

So I understand a fetus or embryo can have a theoretical claim of being a person. But what makes pro-choicers pro-choice is that we are concerned about an organism about which are far more certain about the personhood claim, i.e., the woman carrying the fetus or embryo.

In any event, you should understand-- I don't think your side has any obligation not to make an alliance with the religious right if you think it will get you towards your goals. What I do say, however, is that if you ally yourself with groups that really think that the entire cause of women's rights is dead wrong, don't complain about pro-choicers' unwillingness to compromise. There is simply no way that pro-choicers who want to protect the space of women to have the sex lives of their choosing while developing their careers and lives and remaining independent from men (especially abusive ones) are going to be able to compromise with people who want to constrict or eliminate that space.

So if you want to see compromise on abortion-- and as I said, that compromise is probably possible-- the people compromising have to agree on the goal of reducing abortions (and especially abortions of more developed fetuses) while protecting the interests of women who want to or need to live a life other than a stay-at-home mother dependent on her husband. That's why distancing from the religious right is necessary for a compromise.

As for the off-topic issue of the definition of parasite, I realize that wikipedia isn't exactly the gospel (but of course, as you know, I don't think the Gospels are the gospel either), but a quick and dirty definition included therein is a relationship that benefits the parasite and harms the host. The wikipedia page mentions the evolutionary version of the concept that you mention but also mentions several other types of parasitic relationships (including parasitic twins); the human-fetus relationship can clearly fit within the broader definition.

As I said, I understand why a certain type of person recoils from the use of this particular term, but the point being made is important-- for a woman who doesn't want to be carrying it, the presence of a fetus is harmful during the course of a pregnancy.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 20, 2008 6:23 PM