The Audacity of the Party Line

Regarding the possibility of Obama taking a page from Democrats for Life, a reader who follows these issues closely writes:

Obama has never expressed any support for the "Pregnant Women Support Act" (i.e., the 95-10 bill introduced in Congress in 2007; it has languished ever since - neither Pelosi, nor Reid (nor any committee chair) have brought it forward for a hearing, etc.). In fact, Obama recently voted against one of its key provisions, namely, (re)inclusion of coverage for unborn children under SCHIP (the Allard Amendment). More damningly, he is a co-sponsor of the radically pro-abortion "Freedom of Choice Act." Indeed, he told a gathering at a Planned Parenthood event that "his first act" as President would be to sign it.

None of this is terribly surprising, given the landscape of today's Democratic Party - Hillary Clinton is likewise a FOCA sponsor, needless to say - but it's a useful reminder of the limits of what Steve Sailer likes to call Obama's "I have understood you" appeal to people with whom he disagrees. It's an approach to politics that's sustainable only up till the moment when platitudes have to give way to actual policymaking, and as such it has the capacity to breed even greater disillusionment with government (by raising expectations and then dashing them) than the up-front partisanship it seeks to vanquish.

The other day, a friend remarked: "Obama is making me more cynical about politics," and I think before all this is over an awful lot of people are going to agree with him. I suspect that number will include anti-war liberals and libertarian Obamaphiles like Andrew; I'm almost positive that it will include those anti-war, pro-life Catholics who have concluded that the Illinois Senator is a more conservative choice than John McCain.

Comments

I don't know where you anti-choice assholes ever got the idea that Obama would come out and pander to your anti-choice platform. It could be because Hillary lied about his voting record, but Obama is pretty damned consistently pro-choice. Like, you know, almost all of the Democrats.

Posted by br | April 25, 2008 11:00 AM

Man, this post makes me really angry. Check out this braindead logical fallacy: Obama doesn't support my niche position, which he never claimed to support and all evidence shows he's against. Therefore he is a cynical liar and will let everyone down.

Ross, you are usually too smart for this sort of tripe.

Posted by br | April 25, 2008 11:06 AM

By all means, Ross, keep linking to uber-racist Steve Sailer. Maybe he'll let you fondle his noose collection someday.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 25, 2008 11:12 AM

Yes. People who have projected qualities or beliefs onto Obama that he doesn't have and never claimed to are going to be disappointed. Why does Ross believe there are "an awful lot" of people like that? Who are they?

The role Steve Sailer plays in the conservative establishment is really interesting and someone should explore it further.

Posted by Brendan | April 25, 2008 11:27 AM

BR- Obama doesn't have to be a liar or a hypocrite to APPEAR like one.

To use a crude analogy, many a wife has become furious at her husband for retaining all the traits she disliked in him when he was single. A woman who married a sloppy bachelor may be shocked to learn that she's living with a sloppy husband. She may be outraged that her sports-mad boyfriend is now her sports-mad husband. She may even feel betrayed!

Why? Because she believed (or convinced herself) that he'd be different after they were married.

That may be silly. It may be unfair to him (he NEVER told her he'd be a different person after the wedding, after all, and had every right to assume she loved him the way he was). But it's a reality.

Barack Obama is a standard liberal Democrat, and has always been adamantly pro-abortion rights. It stands to reason that if you're a liberal and an abortion supporter, you'd like him. The "problem" for Obama is that, through charm, magnetism and eloquence, he's managed to attract a host of fans who DON'T share his positions on the major issues. He's managed to hold onto many of these people because he's very, very good at discussing hot-button issues politely and respectfully. He treats his foes very nicely, for the most part. So nicely that many of them come to think Obama understands them, respects their opinions, and may be receptive to their arguments.

But if and when Obama is actually President, people are going to judge him by his actions, not his rhetoric or his admirable courtesy. And is he acts like the pro-abortion politician he has always been, pro-lifers who'd come to like him are going to feel betrayed.

Not that Obama is the only candidate with this type of problem. John McCain's record indicates that he's almost always ben a solidly conservative Republican. For a time, he attracted a lot of support from liberals because of his winning personality. Many liberals convinced themselves that McCain didn't REALLY believe in things he'd always supported as a Senator. His record suggests he's always been pretty solidly anti-abortion. But many liberals have convinced themselves that McCain is secretly one of them. If McCain were elected President, and appointed a series of anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court, many of those liberals would feel betrayed!

Again, that feeling of betrayal might be foolish (McCain and Obama's records should speak for themselves). But the feeling of betrayal would be very real.

Posted by astorian | April 25, 2008 11:29 AM

In fact, Obama recently voted against one of its key provisions, namely, (re)inclusion of coverage for unborn children under SCHIP (the Allard Amendment).

The problem with this amendment is that it is offered in bad faith, to give pro-lifers something they can cite to in court cases to show that the fetus is a person.

Liberals totally support extending health insurance to pregnant women and the fetuses they are carrying. And if pro-lifers would draft a good faith bill which would do that WITHOUT affecting the abortion debate, it would probably get 100 percent of the liberal votes in Congress. The only reason we don't have that is because the only reason pro-lifers are supporting this in the first place is as a means to an end; they don't care about the health insurance issue at all, or think it is subordinate to the issue of establishing a law that "life begins at conception".

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 25, 2008 11:47 AM

Ross,
You fail to understand that Sen. Obama’s new approach to politics is not really about courtesy and charm, although he exhibits these qualities. It is certainly not about hiding his liberal views. I don’t claim to be able to list all its components, but I think some of them are:

•an emphasis on grassroots organizing and mobilizing new voters;
•an emphasis on grassroots funding to the (relative) exclusion of corporate funding;
•an emphasis on open, accountable bureaucratic procedures;
•a emphasis in campaigning on a positive policy and vision, which includes attacks on GOP performance and proposals, but seeks to avoid irrelevant personality-focused attacks of the kind the Republican Party generally used during its control of Congress and that the Bush campaign and its supporters used in both 2000 and 2004;
and
•a fresh look at policy, including a willingness to engage and advocate proposals unpopular with traditionally important constituencies, such as discussing the climate crisis seriously in front of auto industry executives (whether this approach will incorporate advocacy of anyone’s particular policy preference requires looking at what the campaign says about that issue), as opposed to always saying safe things about every issue in front of every audience.

Ross, what aspects of this agenda give anyone a good reason to be more cynical about politics?

Posted by jason | April 25, 2008 11:51 AM

"It's an approach to politics that's sustainable only up till the moment when platitudes have to give way to actual policymaking."

This statement is simply untrue. It's quite sustainable beyond the point of actual policymaking, *if* the politician is engaged in actual honest bargaining. There's quite a lot of rhetorical and political leverage to be gained from intelligent negotiation, compromise, and tit-for-tat reputation building. Many top-notch politicians in American (and, more broadly, Western-democratic) history have demonstrated this, including some of our best presidents.

Now, if said politician is, in fact, just spouting platitudes... then yes, the facade will collapse on contact with actual policy construction. I suspect your friend who is becoming more cynical is falling back into the mental box of party tribalism - "If Obama takes stances with which I do not agree, negotiates with my party and claims to understand our position, and then still chooses to disagree with me, then his negotiations must perforce be insincere." This sets an impossible bar, where a "unifying" politics must attempt to make everyone happy all the time.

To practice what he preaches, Obama must demonstrate both the ability to make concessions and the ability to creatively address policy problems. We do not have sufficient information to know whether he will actually do this. But if you choose to believe (against the evidence of the historical record) that such political acumen and behavior cannot exist and cannot succeed, then you can hardly complain when the bargaining partner across the aisle isn't Barack Obama, but instead is Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Grunthos | April 25, 2008 11:56 AM

So nicely that many of them come to think Obama understands them, respects their opinions, and may be receptive to their arguments.

I think that the fundamental flaw in Ross's "friend's" argument is that as far as I can tell, Obama does understand and respect their opinions. He may, perhaps, even be receptive to arguments from the other side. He also may firmly believe his position on this issue is correct, and therefore not be willing to compromise on it. How this illustrates "politics as usual" or a recently uncovered cynicism is where the argument devolves into pure whining.

Posted by drjimcooper | April 25, 2008 11:58 AM

Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate with no record of serious accomplishment in moving to the center on any major issue. McCain, both as a Congressman and Senator, has a record of compromising on issues and bears many political scars that have made him an anathema to hard-edged conservatives.

McCain, though not a policy wonk, should have little trouble taking Obama to the woodshed for his mainly frothy rhetoric along with a lack of substantial political experience and accomplishment.

The problem isn't, as Ross sees it, that Obama is a cynical politician; rather, he is a rookie one who doesn't really understand how to get substantial things done politically. He would be way out of his depth in the White House, however much liberal hearts would be gladdened by the racial symbolism.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | April 25, 2008 1:18 PM

The problem with this amendment is that it is offered in bad faith, to give pro-lifers something they can cite to in court cases to show that the fetus is a person.

You actually believe that propagandistic line? Sheesh. Take it from a lawyer: There is absolutely no way in hell that anything in an S-CHIP bill would ever be accepted by a court as proof that a "fetus is a person" for purposes of banning abortion.

Posted by John Doe | April 25, 2008 1:44 PM

"The other day, a friend remarked: "Obama is making me more cynical about politics," and I think before all this is over an awful lot of people are going to agree with him. I suspect that number will include anti-war liberals and libertarian Obamaphiles like Andrew; I'm almost positive that it will include those anti-war, pro-life Catholics who have concluded that the Illinois Senator is a more conservative choice than John McCain."

Yes: Well "Beware false Prophets".

Obama Messiah-ism should have died weeks back, or never been born.

Most sophisticated observers of politics understand that the differences between the parties on economic, social, and foreign policy issues are deep & real. The faux rhetoric that makes trasendence of this divide sound as easy as electing Obama is cynical - a cynical explotation of the wantonly nieve.

A John McCain with his years of experience as a senate deal maker and his studied & practical experience in bi-partisanship promises a clearer path to national reconciliation.

Finding common ground and making tough choices that please neither side completely is what good governance is about in a democracy. It takes a pedigreed maverick like McCain to reign in the extremes of both sides.

If the Obama-philes were truly interested in national progress they would be more impressed with McCain’s proven track record than with Obama’s vacuous platitudes.

Posted by Fitz | April 25, 2008 2:07 PM

95:10 does not include any contraception provisions. Therefore, it's ambitious and wholly laudable goals about reducing abortions do not pass the laugh test.

Check out pro-lifer Tim Ryan's bill (along with pro-choicer DeLauro) for legislation that might actually cut down the # of abortions.

Posted by anon | April 25, 2008 2:25 PM

As a pro-life, anti-war, libertarian-leaning Catholic, I've NEVER liked Barack Obama, not for one instant. Even when he was running for his Senate seat (practically unopposed) I kept hoping that some miracle would occur and he would lose. I'm always amazed at how many people I know who fall under any of the above categories (like pro-life or libertarian) could even consider Obama.

His policies are anathema to me, and I've never found him to have the "charismatic" personality everyone seems to think he has. It's a geeky analogy, but he has always made me think of Saruman from _The Lord of the Rings_ with his slimy, self-aggrandizing "eloquence".

Posted by Seth | April 25, 2008 2:45 PM

Thanks for your Concern, Seth. I'm sure your libertarian thinking came in handy when you voted twice for the--by any objective measure--least libertarian president since FRoo (Bush, Jr. if that's not obvious).

Posted by ed | April 25, 2008 3:02 PM

Well, Coburn-Obama and Lugar-Obama might not be construed as "concessional," since I would hope both federal funding financial transparency and nuclear non-proliferation would have bi-partisan appeal even at the worst of times. But I take issue with the idea that either of those bills are vacuously platitudinal.

Meanwhile, "straight-talking," torture-hating McCain votes against the Feinstein Amendment, the concession of extending military standards of detainee treatment to the CIA as being regrettably beyond the pale.

Posted by AG | April 25, 2008 3:14 PM

Re: The boilerplate GOP hackery of Leavitt at 1:18 and Fitz at 2:07.

It makes one wonder if Fitz is Petey's assbaby. From "frothy rhetoric" to "vacuous platitudes" - as opposed to what, non-vacuous platitudes like "stay the course" or "they hate us for our freedoms"?

McCain's a clueless, senile old bat with a bad temper and a whorish wife. He supports expanding the war in Iraq to include Iran and he thinks the economy is in good shape.

He's the perfect candidate for the brain-dead.

By the way, Fitz, either learn how to spell or use spellcheck. Spelling naive as "nieve" makes you look like an even bigger idiot than usual.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 25, 2008 3:41 PM

The problem with McCain is that he has no real record of achievement, and what little he has done has usually been grandstanding, followed by a stealthy scurry into ignominious retreat. Consider how he is now evading his own Campaign Reform measure, how he has flipflopped on torture. The fact is that McCain is a joke on public policy, because it actually requires some knowledge and hard work. Watch what happens when his teleprompter fails - he sounds like the incompetent old man that he is. If you expect him to win over voters as a serious advocate of public policy, or a principled legislator, you are in for a severe shock.

Posted by morzer | April 25, 2008 3:49 PM

I find it the height of hypocrisy for Ross Douthat to criticize anyone for lacking policy substance when he so studiously avoids discussing the single biggest issue facing America this decade--the war in Iraq--for fear of alienating future employers like the Weekly Standard.

What's more, it isn't even true that Obama has less policy substance than John McCain. He has policy positions, just like all the rest. This is just empty rhetoric on Douthat's part.

Posted by Freddie | April 25, 2008 3:52 PM

Freddie writes: "What's more, it isn't even true that Obama has less policy substance than John McCain. He has policy positions, just like all the rest. This is just empty rhetoric on Douthat's part."

Ross's recent run of posts makes me wonder if he's angling for a position in a McCain administration. Maybe he and Steve Sailer want to be the Grand Inquisitors in some big new Department, crisscrossing the country and confiscating overly-large TVs from ungrateful minority group members. Or Ross could be the Ambassador to Sam's Club, making sure the chain never runs out of flag lapel pins.

And that way if McCain expands the Iraq War to include Iran and Syria Ross won't even feel guilty about not commenting. He'll be too busy with his true calling, which has everything to do with party hackery and nothing to do with journalism.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 25, 2008 4:21 PM

Ross,

YOU make me quite cynical about politics. First of all, your concern trolling is silly. Second, it's kind of obnoxious to constantly read about abortion. Anyone who reads your blog is well aware you're opposed to the practice. What you don't discuss (and none of your commenters do either) is how you'd actually go about doing it.

So, Ross, if abortion is so important that you waste at least one post a day on it -- how would you end it? Would you criminalize the procedure? In that case, who would be penalized -- the doctor or the woman? If either is not to be penalized, why? Also, what verification procedures would be in place to make sure that every baby conceived was brought to term and every miscarriage was "natural?"

Is our "pro-life" culture going to protect young children's lives who are born into families with problems of abuse? Will more funding be available to single mothers to care for children (especially when pregnant with another child and unable to work?)? Will anything be done to provide proper pre-natal care to all expectant mothers?

It's easy to say abortion is wrong. Thousands of people do everyday. It's comfortable, and you get to have this nifty feeling of moral superiority over those who disagree with you. I know -- I was part of the pro-life movement. I do not consider myself so anymore. I can't be part of a movement so utterly divorced from reality.

The reality of the situation is any effort to "end" abortion would mean ending access for poor women. Rich women can travel out of state or out of the country to get the procedure they desire. It won't even really be an "end" for poor women -- it will force abortion back underground -- with disastrous public health consequences. Any policy initiated with full knowledge it will fail at its intended goals is the definition of folly.

So please Ross, explain to me exactly how all this bellyaching about abortion isn't tilting at windmills.

Also explain to me why it's okay to vote for Republicans who appoint justices who specifically claim they won't overturn Roe while claiming to be pro-life. Or why Bush gets away with literally phoning it in to the March for Life. At least Democratic candidates are honest about their beliefs (and your "party line" nonsense ignores folks like Bob Casey and Harry Reid -- but intellectual honesty is not the strong point of Republican hacks).

Of course, answers will not be forthcoming. The "pro-life" movement seems to be one long collective exercise in self-delusion.

James Hare

Posted by James Hare | April 25, 2008 4:29 PM

You actually believe that propagandistic line? Sheesh. Take it from a lawyer: There is absolutely no way in hell that anything in an S-CHIP bill would ever be accepted by a court as proof that a "fetus is a person" for purposes of banning abortion.

John, that's actually not true. Conservative judges probably would point to it (of course, they would vote against abortion rights anyway).

But the real point is, why should pro-choicers give pro-lifers a talking point rather than just having a clean bill that provides the insurance? And why is it that pro-lifers won't support the insurance if they can't have the talking point?

It's complete bad faith.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 25, 2008 4:39 PM

"I have understood you" was the first thing Charles De Gaulle said, after a dramatically endless pause, to a huge crowd of pied noir French-speaking Algerians in Algiers in 1958 during the Franco-Algerian War. The crowd went wild with joy. De Gaulle understands us! What more do we need.

De Gaulle then proceeded to give their homes to their mortal enemies, sending them into lifelong exile. He understood them fine; he just didn't care as much about them as he appeared to. More than a few of the exiled pied noirs in that crowd then spent much of the 60s organizing about 30 assassination plots to kill De Gaulle in revenge.

So, reality eventually intrudes and decisions have to be made, which means that rhetorical tricks like De Gaulle's and Obama's eventually run out of effectiveness.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 25, 2008 4:44 PM

Mr. Sailer,

They weren't "French speaking Algerians", they were imperial colonizers who had no business being in Algeria in the first place. Exacly why should De Gaulle have listened to those people?

Posted by Hector | April 25, 2008 4:51 PM

"They weren't "French speaking Algerians", they were imperial colonizers who had no business being in Algeria in the first place."

A classic example of "Who-Whom" thinking, where there are good guys and bad guys, and that's all that matters and we can then turn our brains off.

The point of the De Gaulle - Obama analogy is merely that to understand is not the same thing as to support, so a lot of people are going to wind up disappointed and possibly enraged because Obama told them he understood them, and they took it as proof that he agreed with them.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 25, 2008 5:38 PM

A classic example of "Who-Whom" thinking, where there are good guys and bad guys, and that's all that matters and we can then turn our brains off.

An interesting point, coming from someone who believes the wicked is indistinguishable from the black.

Posted by Freddie | April 25, 2008 5:55 PM

It's fair to argue that France never had any rightful claim to Algeria in the first place, but the fact is, Algeria was NOT a mere French colony when De Gaulle became President of France. Algeria had been an integral part of France since 1848! Most of the pied noirs in Algeria had lived there all their lives, just as their parents had, and regarded it as a province of France, no different from Orleans or Normandy.

Imagine the U.S. giving up Texas or Hawaii in response to an ethnic rebellion, and you'll get the idea of just what a big deal the abandonment of Algeria was.

Posted by astorian | April 25, 2008 5:57 PM

Hector asks the notorious racist Steve Sailer: "They weren't "French speaking Algerians", they were imperial colonizers who had no business being in Algeria in the first place. Exacly why should De Gaulle have listened to those people?"

Because Steve Sailer is pro-colonialist and a white supremacist, Hector. He probably wishes slavery were made legal again and that he could buy Michelle Obama. His next step - since he's a Republican - would be to start a movement exempting slave purchases from sales tax.

Sailer's comments about Obama's rhetoric should be dismissed as partisan bullshit, since he'd never bother to make the same criticism of Bush's "uniter not a divider" lie or McCain's idiotic "my friends" tic. I'm no friend of warmongering torture-enablers like McCain, and I don't want to be "united" with vacuous creatures like Dumbya or Sailer. Obama's rhetoric is far less absurd than that used by the wingnut brigade.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 25, 2008 6:26 PM

astorian writes: "It's fair to argue that France never had any rightful claim to Algeria in the first place, but the fact is, Algeria was NOT a mere French colony when De Gaulle became President of France. Algeria had been an integral part of France since 1848! Most of the pied noirs in Algeria had lived there all their lives, just as their parents had, and regarded it as a province of France, no different from Orleans or Normandy.

Imagine the U.S. giving up Texas or Hawaii in response to an ethnic rebellion, and you'll get the idea of just what a big deal the abandonment of Algeria was. "

Except that it's a shitty comparison, since the pied noirs (a significant number of whom were not French, but had settled from other European countries) amounted to just 10% or so of the population, and Algeria was a COLONY, not a recognized "province of France." Pretending otherwise is simply a lie meant to disguise the disgusting nature of the colonial relationship.

The Algerians fought for their independence and they won. Good for them. Americans should respect that sort of thing, but apparently many of us are only too willing to follow the Steve Sailer white supremacist line and applaud the colonial impulse.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 25, 2008 6:37 PM

Oh, I think Obama will alienate many of his liberal supporters too. He seems willing to promise people the moon. I think his supporters believe that he will have all the troops home from Iraq in a few months when logistics probably demands that it will be at least two years. His "I will have the troops home immediately" rhetoric will be akin to George H. W. Bush's "no new taxes" fiasco.

Posted by Thomas | April 25, 2008 7:22 PM

Thomas lies like a Limbaugh: "I think his supporters believe that he will have all the troops home from Iraq in a few months when logistics probably demands that it will be at least two years. His "I will have the troops home immediately" rhetoric will be akin to George H. W. Bush's "no new taxes" fiasco."

Except that he hasn't said any such thing. It's nice to see that conservatives never change - lying comes as naturally to them as jingoism does.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 25, 2008 8:08 PM

Not the Thomas of above.

I think he's mentioning this because some Pro-Life, or anti-Choice whichever, people have endorsed Obama. In several cases these people are strongly anti-war Pro-Lifers. They are well aware Obama is solidly Pro-Choice, but feel the war is a greater "life issue."

However some seem to feel that Obama is malleable, that he is anything they want him to be. Therefore his being a darling of "NARAL Pro-Choice America" doesn't mean anything because he is about understanding and able to grow as a person or some similarly unlikely thing. So this might be more about them and how they're wrong.

That being said it is unfortunate that he mentions Sailer in the post. In fact it almost derails the whole thing. Even if Sailer is unfairly maligned, and so far I don't think that's the case, he is generally known as a racialist. In a discussion of Obama citing him in anyway risks invalidating anything you want to say whether that's fair or not.

Posted by Thomas R | April 26, 2008 2:50 AM

Thanks for your Concern, Seth. I'm sure your libertarian thinking came in handy when you voted twice for the--by any objective measure--least libertarian president since FRoo (Bush, Jr. if that's not obvious).
Posted by ed | April 25, 2008 3:02 PM

Ed, who says I voted twice for Bush? First of all, in 2000 Bush definitely sounded a lot more libertarian than he turned out to be (with his "no policing the world" talk, for example). And I can definitely say that in 2004 I did not vote for Bush, though I admit to being glad that Kerry lost. Just so you know...

Posted by Seth | April 26, 2008 5:02 AM

"The problem isn't, as Ross sees it, that Obama is a cynical politician; rather, he is a rookie one who doesn't really understand how to get substantial things done politically."

Yup, no idea how to get things done. Like vault from a state senator to the Democratic leader in just three years. Or form a $200+ million national grassroots organization from nothing. Or defeat the Clintons at their own game (when did any Republican come anywhere close to doing this last one, btw?).

Posted by blahblah | April 26, 2008 2:30 PM

"Yes, it would be a terrible disappointment to many people to have an honest, intelligent, respected President. How would we ever live wih ourselves?"

And that's only the Republicans talking....

Posted by morzer | April 26, 2008 6:39 PM

Ross,

Something tells me that your cynicism is derived from sources far removed from Barack Obama.

But one thing I have found consistently about cynicism: generally cynics do not take much responsibility for anything, nevertheless their cynicism.

And I don't think Barack Obama or anyone has a cure for that, Ross.

Posted by Ben Sutherland | April 26, 2008 8:16 PM

From the tone from the first three comments (that's all that I could bare to read) you would think that the pro-life position was in favor of reinstituting slavery or something equally evil. To quote the first comment: "you anti-choice assholes." Let me get this straight, we who are against the limb-from-limb dismembering of a tiny, perfect human being sleeping peacefully in his mother's womb are anti-choice assholes. An anti-choice asshole is a person who believes that a helpless, innocent baby with a tiny beating heart does not deserve to be mercilessly slaughtered because of the inconvenience his life would cause to his mother? When several million couples would just love to adopt her baby? She can get the epidural and not feel anything during childbirth (I've had 5 wonderful babies myself). I dare you, no I double dog dare you, to watch the movie The Silent Scream, produced by a former New York city abortion doctor, where a camera catches the painful grimmaces and horror that an unborn baby undergoes during an abortion. You watch that movie and you let me know if you don't see blood on your hands and on the hands of all who support the slaughter of the vulnerable, the helpless, the tiny.

Posted by taylor | April 27, 2008 2:51 AM

I agree with Taylor.

Posted by Hector | April 27, 2008 10:58 AM

Of course you agree with Taylor, Hector. Even though the line about "several million couples would just love to adopt her baby" is pure bullshit, as witnessed by the fact that so many real, living kids go unadopted.

But since those kids aren't fetuses the lifer crowd doesn't fetishize them. Go figure. I guess being sentient and bigger than a quarter makes them less cute.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 27, 2008 12:40 PM

Shitty analogy, eh Moe? Well, nobody knows more about shitty arguments than you do, so I'll reconsider my assessment.

Let's see... France took over Algeria despite having no valid claim on it, and over the objections of much of the native population. The U.S. did the same to Texas and Hawaii. Check.

France made Algeria a full-fledged part of its territory in 1848. The U.S. annexed both Texas and Hawaii, later making them full-fledged states. Check.

Moe's only argument concerns numbers- in his considered opinion, the French had no claim on Algeria because they were a small percentage of the population. Aha! I see your point, Moe. So, the mistake the French made was that they didn't exterminate the locals or repopulate the land as efficiently as Americans did. My claim on my home in Texas is more morally valid than the pied noirs claims on THEIR homes because Texans were better at killing Commanches than the French were at killing Arabs!

Nice thinking, Moe.

The Texas/Hawaii comparison was spot on, Moe, and you'd know that if you hadn't been reading Spiderman comics in history class.

That's where you learned witty, snappy insouciant banter like calling people "Chuckles," right? So witty! So original! No wonder all the liberals on this board were so saddened when you were "banned." No wonder they all begged Ross to let you come back!

No, wait... they DIDN't, did they? NOBODY was sorry to see you go. You suppose that means even the people who AGREE with you were tired of your stale act?

Posted by astorian | April 27, 2008 5:32 PM

ass-torian replies: "Moe's only argument concerns numbers- in his considered opinion, the French had no claim on Algeria because they were a small percentage of the population. Aha! I see your point, Moe. So, the mistake the French made was that they didn't exterminate the locals or repopulate the land as efficiently as Americans did. My claim on my home in Texas is more morally valid than the pied noirs claims on THEIR homes because Texans were better at killing Commanches than the French were at killing Arabs!"

So your intelligent rebuttal is that the relative size of the populations involved is irrelevant? Can you possibly be that stupid?

It's obviously relevant when there's a revolt by the much-larger portion of the population, which was the case in Algeria. A rebellion by a Mexican minority in Texas in, say, 1950 would have been put down rather quickly and brutally by white Texans themselves, don't you think? No need for the federal government to even get involved. But the rebellion in Algeria wasn't going to be stopped without a massive operation by the French, and they weren't up to it, obviously.

And that's why your analogy was so shitty, chuckles.

"NOBODY was sorry to see you go. You suppose that means even the people who AGREE with you were tired of your stale act?"

I never went. I continued to post here on a regular basis. Some people don't like my act, some do. I happen to like it myself, and I'm quite happy you don't, since the very last thing I need in my life is to be applauded by half-bright weasels. Especially Texan weasels. I'd be quite happy to sell Texas back to Mexico for a dollar, since it would improve the US immeasurably and clear up that moral quandary that bothers you so much.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 27, 2008 6:35 PM

Let me get this straight, we who are against the limb-from-limb dismembering of a tiny, perfect human being sleeping peacefully in his mother's womb are anti-choice assholes.

I don't think people are jerks for opposing partial birth and other late term abortions. I think people are jerks for wanting to make illegal the limb-from-limb dismembering of a tiny, perfect human zygote sleeping peacefully in his mother's womb-- oh, yeah, that's right, zygotes don't have limbs, don't sleep, and don't have any concept of "peace".

If you want to use the rhetoric quoted above, fine, go after late term abortions. But leave early term abortions, RU-486, and the morning after pill alone.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 27, 2008 7:00 PM

Dilan,

You're falling into the same old materialist error of thinking that a thing is defined by its material, observable, physical properties. You're failing to grasp the Platonistic distinction between essence and accidents, for lack of a better term. The fact that the fetus lacks limbs or organs has to do with its accidental properties, and doesn't change the fact that its innate essence and potentiality are human. A thing is not merely defined by its physical properties.

The natural end of a fetus is to become a human person, just as the natural end of an acorn is to become an oak.

You also appear to be confusing the mind, the soul and the brain. These are very different things. The soul is separate from the body and doesn't require the existence of a brain. You are making the materialist error of thinking that the mind and soul is an epiphenomenon of the brain, which is easily disprovable.

Posted by Hector | April 27, 2008 8:23 PM

Hector writes: "The natural end of a fetus is to become a human person, just as the natural end of an acorn is to become an oak. "

The vast majority of acorns do not become oaks, and a significant number of zygotes don't become "human persons," even without abortion, and somehow the world goes on. This "natural end" nonsense is more than mildly insane.

"You also appear to be confusing the mind, the soul and the brain. These are very different things. The soul is separate from the body and doesn't require the existence of a brain."

There is no evidence for the existence of "souls."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 27, 2008 9:00 PM

The problem with this amendment is that it is offered in bad faith, to give pro-lifers something they can cite to in court cases to show that the fetus is a person.

This is irrelevant, I would argue, to the post, because the S-CHIP amendment is simply brought up to show that Obama does not actually concede anything to the pro-lifers, regardless of how respectful he may be of them. Nowhere in the post is his vote against the amendment portrayed as being anti-pregnant-woman care; it is simply presented as being a pro-choice vote rather than a pro-life vote.

The point of the De Gaulle analogy is this: Obama to some extent gets some of his support from people who disagree with him on issues because he sounds very conciliatory; that is, he respects the opinions of people who disagree with him (unlike, say, Amos'n'Dr.MartinLutherKingJr., I mean, MoeLarryandJesus). Some of this support is likely to become disillusioned or to turn against Obama when people start to realize that "understanding them" is worth Jack Squat in practical terms.

They weren't "French speaking Algerians", they were imperial colonizers who had no business being in Algeria in the first place. Exacly why should De Gaulle have listened to those people?

Sailer is not arguing that he should have. The point is that De Gaulle tricked the French-speakers living in Algeria into thinking that he actually cared about them when he didn't. This point is valid regardless of whether you think such trickery was good or bad.

A classic example of "Who-Whom" thinking, where there are good guys and bad guys, and that's all that matters and we can then turn our brains off.

Translation: See the bolded sentence again.

Posted by Glaivester | April 27, 2008 9:21 PM

Glaivester writes: "Obama to some extent gets some of his support from people who disagree with him on issues because he sounds very conciliatory; that is, he respects the opinions of people who disagree with him (unlike, say, Amos'n'Dr.MartinLutherKingJr., I mean, MoeLarryandJesus)."

This is patently false, since I actually do respect some opinions that I don't agree with, and some of the people who hold them. I don't respect opinions that go over certain moral or rational lines, and I don't respect people who hold those opinions for what I see as disingenuous, lazy, or malignant reasons.

For instance, anyone who thinks Dumbya & Gang should be applauded for making torture the official policy of the United States is cordially invited to commit suicide immediately. The Earth will be immediately improved by your subtraction. Note that this would be a strictly voluntary act and I do not condone government or individual action to take your life against your will, because unlike Dumbya and the Bushpigs I have genuinely moral standards.

By the way the "respect" most spokesmaggots (I can't call them men) of the right have for those who disagree with them can be observed by listening or watching as Limbaugh, Cheney, Scalia, Coulter, Savage, Hannity and the rest go about their business. The phrase "go Cheney yourself" didn't enter the language by accident.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 27, 2008 9:51 PM

"as witnessed by the fact that so many real, living kids go unadopted." ML&J

TR: Part of this is that the adoption process is lengthy and fairly strict. Middle-class heterosexual couples can at times wait years or be rejected for any number of reasons. Also many of the kids who don't get adopted are older or have emotional problems.

Another part is just generalized social problems. Abortion hasn't really relieved us of the issue of unwanted kids as you even indicate. Quite the contrary child death and abandonment are often worse here than in many nations with greater abortion restrictions. Well unless there's way more unwanted German, Irish, Maltese, or Portuguese kids than I'm aware of.

Posted by Thomas R | April 28, 2008 6:49 AM

The natural end of a fetus is to become a human person, just as the natural end of an acorn is to become an oak.

I have no idea what the term "natural" means in this context, other than "things that religious people believe or assume because their deity whom the rest of us aren't required to believe in claims it".

Seriously, though, the fact that the natural end of a caterpillar is a butterfly doesn't make them the same thing.

More seriously, the natural end of denying abortion rights is to screw over women. The issue isn't about life, it's about women's rights.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 28, 2008 11:10 AM

This is irrelevant, I would argue, to the post, because the S-CHIP amendment is simply brought up to show that Obama does not actually concede anything to the pro-lifers, regardless of how respectful he may be of them. Nowhere in the post is his vote against the amendment portrayed as being anti-pregnant-woman care; it is simply presented as being a pro-choice vote rather than a pro-life vote.

This doesn't answer the point. The pro-life movement put forward a bill they knew that pro-choicers couldn't vote for, refused to amend it, and then accused the pro-choicers of being partisans. Sorry, if you want to be bipartisan, come up with language that both sides can support.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 28, 2008 11:13 AM

Dilan,

It is important in any debate that we talk truthfully. You said:

oh, yeah, that's right, zygotes don't have limbs, don't sleep, and don't have any concept of "peace".

Actually the scientific term is embryo for an implanted baby three months or younger and after that the scientific term is fetus. The earliest a pregnancy can accurately be confirmed is three weeks after conception, at which time a tiny heart is already beating. The abortion does not take place on the same day as the initial consultation and confirmation of pregnancy, so even in the very earliest abortions, a tiny heart has been beating for days or even weeks. You need to go online and look at some pictures of embryos that are 3 or 4 weeks old. Actually they DO have tiny arms and legs and the dismembering of their arms and legs is the process used on early, not late abortions.

For late-term abortions, the doctor will either poison the little baby with so much salt that its insides burn up and it slowly dies over a period of about 24 hours OR he causes the baby to be born feet first and then stabs the back of the skull with a scissors just before the head is born.

What I am trying to do in my comments is to educate people who are in favor of abortion and make sure they understand scientific facts about the brutality of abortion. If you watch the movie the silent scream and you see the painful grimmaces on the faces of these tiny, perfect human beings and you still feel like abortion is such a wonderful and liberating thing, then fine! At least you know what you are supporting. But to close our eyes and pretend like lifeless blobs of tissue is what is being aborted is just plain ignorant and unscientific.

On the adoption issue, there are on record 2 million people waiting to adopt newborn babies. It's not for us to say that a couple who is struggling with infertility shouldn't prefer a baby and should adopt an older kid instead. My point is that if all the women who had abortions last year were to have given their babies up for adoption instead, there would have been enough couples. Furthermore, if we ever got to the point where there were more babies than couples wanting to adopt, every pro-life couple I know would be willing to take a baby even though all of us are not on a list.

Aha, that just gave me an idea! I think I might start a list of people and see how many signatures I could get of people who are not signed up to adopt but would be willing to take a baby that would have been aborted otherwise.

Posted by taylor | April 28, 2008 4:20 PM

Actually the scientific term is embryo for an implanted baby three months or younger and after that the scientific term is fetus. The earliest a pregnancy can accurately be confirmed is three weeks after conception, at which time a tiny heart is already beating. The abortion does not take place on the same day as the initial consultation and confirmation of pregnancy, so even in the very earliest abortions, a tiny heart has been beating for days or even weeks.

taylor, your movement asserts that life begins at conception and that even Plan B should be illegal because it stops a beating zygote.

And no, an RU-486 abortion can definitely occur before there is a beating heart. A beating heart occurs at 5 weeks (60 days). RU-486 is effective any time from 0 to 49 days into the pregnancy. Though it isn't common, you can also do a Manual Vacuum Aspiration during that period. And your movement considers all those non-heartbeat stopping abortions to be murder.

When you speak of tearing limb from limb, etc., you are using the language that describes a fully formed baby being torn apart. Such imagery may work for late term abortions, but it is a terrible bait-and-switch when it is used to oppose all abortions.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 28, 2008 7:32 PM

If a baby survives an abortion attempt, gets up, and starts running out of the room, would the FOCA permit the abortionist to shoot it, on the grounds that legislation prohibiting the shooting of fleeing fetuses assumes a tendentious interpretation of the term "viability"?

Posted by TRP | April 28, 2008 8:48 PM

Dilan, If a human being in its early stages of life--fetal and embryonic--is not a human being, what is it? A bird? A monkey? A snail? What is its taxonomy? Just wondering.

Posted by TRP | April 28, 2008 9:04 PM

Dilan, If a human being in its early stages of life--fetal and embryonic--is not a human being, what is it? A bird? A monkey? A snail? What is its taxonomy? Just wondering.

TRP:

Abortion is legal because without it, women would suffer a serious impairment in their ability to have careers, get educations, stay out of abusive marriages, and have complete and fulfilling sex lives without having to bear children.

It has nothing to do with abstract and silly philosohpical debates about what "category" a human fetus falls into. Women's rights are more important than that debate.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 28, 2008 11:27 PM

Dilan,

Unlike most supporters of abortion you are at least honest in admitting that you simply don't care whether or not abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, so long as it justifies noble ends like career-improvement, enhanced sexal enjoyment, and such. Of course, there are many ways in which life might be made easier if the legal prohibitions against killing were loosened a bit, for reasonable targets like problem kids, alcoholics, mentally stunted individuals, and liberals, to name a few. Unfortunately, those ignorant hayseeds in flyover country might get involved with absract philosophical ideas like "killing is wrong" and "that would be evil!" But you and I know that civilized society cannot tolerate such stunted thinking.

Posted by TRP | April 29, 2008 12:05 AM

correction:

In the last post "...so long s it justifies noble ends..." should be "so long as it promotes noble ends..."

Posted by TRP | April 29, 2008 12:27 AM

"have careers, get educations, stay out of abusive marriages, and have complete and fulfilling sex lives" DE

TR: We should really ban paternity tests then. Men shouldn't be burdened by procreative concerns just because some woman he had "complete and fulfilling sex" with got pregnant. Knowing he has an illegitimate kid may hurt his education, career, or relationship to others.

For that matter men who were never married men should never have to pay child support either. Do they? I mean child support costs him money and may embarrass him in his attempts to score.

Anyway women with children leave abusive marriages all the time. This might shock you even more, but many of the women I went to college with had children. Many women are able to procreate without becoming poor, unemployed, phenomenally stupid, or celibate. Meg Whitman, of E-Bay fame, has two teenage boys. Believe it or don't.

Posted by Thomas R | April 29, 2008 8:07 AM

Unlike most supporters of abortion you are at least honest in admitting that you simply don't care whether or not abortion is the taking of an innocent human life

You have it wrong. In fact, I think that people who say "abortion is the taking of a human life" are making something that is, at best, a very theoretical claim (based on categories and potentials and development cycles) and making it sound like abortion is the same thing as if the woman or the doctor goes out on the street and stabs someone to death.

Whatever the moral status of the fetus, it is purely a matter of abstract theory, based on unknowable philosophical claims and suppositions about whether there is a God and what She might want.

Meanwhile, banning abortion screws over actual women and forces the costs of pregnancies, which are substantial, onto them in order to uphold a completely abstract, philosophical, nobody-can-ever-know-if-it-is-really-true-and-really-matters claim.

Banning abortion is inhuman, because it says we should sacrifice the lives of actual women so as to uphold someone's hocus-pocus religious beliefs.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 29, 2008 1:10 PM

Anyway women with children leave abusive marriages all the time. This might shock you even more, but many of the women I went to college with had children. Many women are able to procreate without becoming poor, unemployed, phenomenally stupid, or celibate. Meg Whitman, of E-Bay fame, has two teenage boys. Believe it or don't.

Thomas, you don't know how many abortions Ms. Whitman may or may not have had. But many successful women have had them, which may tell you a thing or two about whether, even among the privileged, childbearing can actually be a career booster.

More generally, the fact that "some women do X" doesn't mean all women are able to do it. The psychodynamics of abusive relationships are such that for many women, legalized abortion is a lifesaver, because if their boyfriends or husbands or exes find out they are pregnant, that can lead to domestic violence, threats, demands that she keep the baby and carry it to term, demands that he stay in her life, etc.

Your side doesn't care about that stuff. You want to make this easy. It's alive, it's murder. But debating the moral status of the fetus belongs in philosophy class or the seminary. Meanwhile, you ban abortion, you screw over women. And yes, women's rights is more important than your false religious beliefs.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 29, 2008 1:28 PM

"a very theoretical claim (based on categories and potentials and development cycles)"

It's based on nothing of the sort. It’s based on the fact that what is being killed is a living human individual, different from an adult only in growth and development. Being an adult, an adolescent, a toddler, an infant, a fetus, and an embryo--these are all stages in the life of any individual human being. It’s true that a fetus and an embryo look very different from an adult, but so does a newborn. There is no evidence to suggest that some fundamental change occurs in the biology of the fetus once it is out of the womb, or at any earlier stage for that matter. It's the denial of the humanity of the little ones in the womb that must be justified with obscure theoretical claims and incomprehensible pretzel-like reasoning. Someone committed to this view apparently can't even answer a simple question: if it's not a human being, what is it?

http://reluctantpenitent.blogspot.com/

Posted by TRP | April 29, 2008 1:42 PM

As to your second claim, that establishing the humanity of the fetus and embryo requires "suppositions about whether there is a God and what She might want", you will notice that the very simple and straightforward argument presented above makes no reference to any theological claims, or to any passage of sacred text.

Your third claim is that "banning abortion screws over actual women and forces the costs of pregnancies." It's true that banning abortion would impose a burden on women and men who don't want a child. But it's the nature of any legal requirement to impose burdens on some people. You can argue that the parents of any problematic child have a burden imposed on them by laws that prohibit them from killing the child. Childless people are burdened by taxation that requires them to pay for the schooling of other people's kids. I am burdened by democracy, which forces me to suffer the irrationality of liberals in the public sphere.

http://reluctantpenitent.blogspot.com/

Posted by TRP | April 29, 2008 2:04 PM

It's based on nothing of the sort. It’s based on the fact that what is being killed is a living human individual, different from an adult only in growth and development.

But that's like saying that a catarpillar is the same as a butterfly, different only in growth and development. Sure, but that's a big difference!

Growth and development mean quite a lot. For one thing, that growth and development includes the growth and development of a brain and a nervous system and a will to live.

Despite having human DNA, a zygote has more in common with an amoeba than it has with a human adult. An embryo is more like a tadpole than a human adult. A fetus is more like a small animal than a human adult.

But as I said, while you regress over and over again back to the philosophy class, meanwhile, women will lose their jobs, quit school, be forced into bad relationships, and be driven to suicide if your policies are enacted into law. The lives and livelihood of those women are more important than stupid and unresolvable debates about what the "nature" of a fetus is.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 29, 2008 7:41 PM

DE: "that's like saying that a catarpillar is the same as a butterfly, different only in growth and development"

TRP: Well, isn't it? They're the same individual, distinguished only by growth. Note, however, that in humans there is nothing quite as dramatic as metamorphosis.

DE: "Growth and development mean quite a lot"

TRP: Yes, they mean growth and development, the same process that distinguishes the adult from the infant. Growth and maturation are required to turn an infant into an adult. We don’t conclude from that fact that it’s permissible to kill the infant. Why should the fact that growth and maturation are required to turn a fetus into an adult human being justify the killing of fetuses?

DE: "you regress over and over again back to the philosophy class"

TRP: It has nothing to do with philosophy. Any person with common sense and a rudimentary knowledge of biology can think these things through. You, on the other hand, still refuse to answer the very basic and non-philosophical question: if it's not a human being what is it?

DE: "A fetus is more like a small animal than a human adult"

TRP: And an infant is more like a small ape than like an adult human being. What of it? Does that mean that the infant is not human? In fact, some apes have are cognitively more developed in early years of life than humans—are they more human than human infants? Should we prohibit the killing of infant apes but permit the killing of infant human beings?

DE: "women will lose their jobs, quit school, be forced into bad relationships, and be driven to suicide if your policies are enacted into law"

TRP: Every policy has consequences, good and bad. Abortion has had plenty of bad consequences, for women as well as for the unborn. Most if not all laws that you, no doubt, support—imposing taxation, prohibiting the killing of the insane, of problem children, of old people—impose burdens on other human beings. What else is new? To live in a state with laws is to live with burdens that others impose on you, whether you like it or not.

Posted by TRP | April 29, 2008 10:40 PM

"you don't know how many abortions Ms. Whitman may or may not have had. But many successful women have had them, which may tell you a thing or two about whether, even among the privileged, childbearing can actually be a career booster." DE

TR: My first temptation was to just laugh, but it struck me this is actually pretty disturbing.

Putting aside the potential libel on a billionaire, she supported Romney after all, do you even like women? I'm halfway serious on this. Your basis seems to be that things inherent to their sex are bad and disruptive. That they really should desire being as much like men as they humanly can be. That anything that fails them from becoming men makes them almost less human.

Because really the way you define equality it would be better just to encourage women to get sterilized at 18 and get the testosterone shots they need to have more masculine bodies/attitudes. That would lower the inequality on upper-body strength and the desire for risk. Possibly going the whole-nine and having women be gender-reassigned would eliminate these feminine weaknesses you find so inferior and backward.

Posted by Thomas R | April 30, 2008 3:46 AM

In any event it's certainly possible for policies to be in place where giving birth is not much more detrimental for women than men. If women were given better maternal benefits and men were expected to pay more in child-support would banning abortion be okay by you? Why not? (I mean besides the "pregnancy is bad, if guys don't have to do it women shouldn't either.")

Posted by Thomas R | April 30, 2008 3:51 AM

TRP: Yes, they mean growth and development, the same process that distinguishes the adult from the infant. Growth and maturation are required to turn an infant into an adult. We don’t conclude from that fact that it’s permissible to kill the infant. Why should the fact that growth and maturation are required to turn a fetus into an adult human being justify the killing of fetuses?

Because making abortion illegal screws over women. Making infanticide illegal doesn't. Women's rights is the key to understanding this issue.

Further, because there is substantial growth development, including of the nervous system and the brain, between the time when most abortions take place (first 13 weeks of pregnancy) and after a baby is born.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 30, 2008 1:13 PM

It has nothing to do with philosophy. Any person with common sense and a rudimentary knowledge of biology can think these things through.

This is a common piece of BS from the pro-life side. Biologists can tell you about the growth and development cycle of a human being. They cannot, and do not, tell you when something is a being with a right not to be killed, or what sorts of justifications are acceptable for killing it. When a pro-lifer is talking about biology, he or she is really talking about contestable conclusions that pro-lifers draw from biology.

These issues are in the purview of moral philosophy and religion and, most importantly, feminism, which reminds us of how bad it would be for women if we made abortion illegal.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 30, 2008 1:17 PM

Putting aside the potential libel on a billionaire, she supported Romney after all, do you even like women?

Thomas, libel requires a false statement of fact. I said that you don't know if Ms. Whitman has had an abortion. That is a true statement. I did not say Ms. Whitman has had them. I did say that many successful women have. Again, a true statement.

Further, libel requires a defamatory statement. Saying someone had an abortion (which I did not do, I reiterate) is not defamatory because there is nothing wrong with having nonmarital or marital procreative sex, and nothing wrong with terminating a pregnancy.

Finally, the fact that Ms. Whitman supported Romney doesn't tell you anything. Until this presidential campaign, Mitt Romney was pro-choice, not pro-life. For all you know, she was supporting Romney because of his early pro-choice record, or because of issues having nothing to do with abortion. Certainly Romney had plenty of pro-choice supporters in the primary.

I have no idea how Meg Whitman feels about social issues. I can tell you that there are books full of reminiscences by famous and successful women who had abortions and who were glad the procedure was available to them.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 30, 2008 1:22 PM

Thomas R,

Very interesting. You’re right that the logical conclusion of pro-abortion feminism is to rid the world of any traces of the female sex, by subjecting all women to gender reassignment. Its main benefactor so far has been the man who sees women as nothing more than instruments of male sexual gratification. Such a man used to have to worry about getting a woman pregnant, in which case the state (or, worse, the woman’s male relatives) might burden him with unpleasant paternal obligations. Miscarriage was his only hope. Nowadays, he doesn’t have to hope: the woman can make sure that it happens, by subjecting her womb to sharp probes and vacuum suction, with bloody, painful—and, for the fetus deadly—results. And she does this just so the charming fellow can be free to treat other women as his personal gratification machines. It makes you wonder whether some evil male genius might not be pulling the strings behind the whole feminist spectacle.

Posted by TRP | April 30, 2008 1:29 PM

DE: "Biologists can tell you about the growth and development cycle of a human being. They cannot, and do not, tell you when something is a being with a right not to be killed, or what sorts of justifications are acceptable for killing it."

Biologists tell us that being a fetus is just like being an infant, an adolescent, in one's middle age, or in one's senior years: it's a stage in the life of an individual human being. Of course, biology cannot tell us whether it is right or wrong to kill a fetus, but neither can it tell us whether it’s right or wrong to kill an adult. However, what it can tell us is very important. In thinking about the morality of abortion, it’s no small matter that being a fetus is the early stage in the life of any individual human being.

On the other hand, you still refuse the answer the question: if it's not a human being, what is it? We know what answer biology gives. What is your answer? Are you relying on a supernatural revelation that is so mystical and obscure that you hesitate to share it with those who are not initiated into your cult?

DE: "Because making abortion illegal screws over women. Making infanticide illegal doesn't. Women's rights is the key to understanding this issue."

This has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the fetus is a human being. If you want to say that killing a human being is permitted as long as it has good consequences, then should we permit the killing of kids with behavioral problems, people with mental illness, or anyone else who is burdensome to others--for in these cases too we are relieving people of a burden?

DE: "because there is substantial growth development, including of the nervous system and the brain, between the time when most abortions take place (first 13 weeks of pregnancy) and after a baby is born"

So what? There is substantial growth and development from infancy to adolescence, but we don’t conclude from this fact that the infant is a member of some other species--that it's not a human being. Rather, we conclude, rightly, that it's a human being with a brain that is less developed than an adult’s. What treatment of the immature does morality require of adults? Does it permit us to say: “Look how undeveloped this human is. Of course someone should have the right to kill it”? On the contrary, we judge harshly and punish those parents who neglect to feed, clothe, or provide for their children in other ways. A morally sane universe does not permit adults to kill immature members of their species should they prove to be needy. Rather, it does the opposite: it obliges adults to do all they can to provide for the needs of the less developed and of their kind.

Posted by TRP |