Apologies for the lack of new content, Grand New Party-related and otherwise; book publicity and blogging don't mix well, apparently. Regular posting will hopefully resume soon; in the mean time, I have some thoughts on the Dobson-Obama spat up at the Current.
« Rape and the Death Penalty | Main | A Choice, Not An Echo »
Dobson vs. Obama
27 Jun 2008 03:03 pm
Comments (14)
Congrats on the big plug David Brooks gave you in his article today: "There have been other outstanding books on how the G.O.P. can rediscover its soul (like “Comeback” by David Frum), but if I could put one book on the desk of every Republican officeholder, “Grand New Party” would be it."
Regarding Abortion, Dobson, and Obama,
Is there a middle? Either it is a person or it is not. The issue is contentious because there is no middle ground. All moderate positions fall apart upon examination. Exceptions for rape and incest and state's rights make humanity conditional upon having the right parents in right jurisdiction.
Jimmy,
Are you really that stupid or is it a 'debating position'? There's no difference between one second after conception and one week before birth?
But if Obama wants a historic mandate, rather than a narrow win -- if he wants to cut the heart out of the GOP coalition and leave the Republicans for dead -- then breaking with his party's abortion orthodoxy to go hard after the evangelical vote is one obvious way to do it.
A brilliant game plan: betray his current supporters to after new ones, and hope they don't notice.
And what can his supporters do, pray tell? Sit at home? Vote for Nader? For McCain? Hillary?
is this Current a joke? obama already occupies the exact center on abortion (safe, legal, and rare) and has been there for years.
it's you and John McCain who are to the far right on this issue
Quietist asks: "And what can his supporters do, pray tell? Sit at home? Vote for Nader? For McCain? Hillary?"
They should all fly to Iraq as soon as possible and turn their other cheeks.
That would be very impressive and it would indicate that they really believe what they say they believe.
I don't expect much breath-holding to ensue here. Dobson's followers, like 99.9% of the "born-again" wingnut flock, are completely full of shit. Always have been, always will be.
"obama already occupies the exact center on abortion (safe, legal, and rare) and has been there for years."
I'm a little confused by this statement by raft, or maybe I'm a little confused by what constitutes the "center" on this issue. Raft speaks as though it's obvious that the center position on abortion is the "safe, legal, rare" thing, but that doesn't seem to me to be obvious at all. Is it the "rare" part which makes it less left-leaning? If so, I know few, if any, pro-choice advocates who would say anything other than that - would it only be a left-wing position if they called for safe, legal and frequent abortions?
miri, the centrist position on abortion is to 1) acknowledge the disturbing moral implications of abortion and 2) to nevertheless respect the very private and personal choices that women make about whether to carry their fetus to full term, at least within the first trimester or so. It's anti-abortion but pro-choice. That is: "safe, legal, and rare."
Then on the right you got a bunch of lunatics who think a one-celled zygote is equivalent to a full human being. On the left you got a bunch of lunatics who think a seventh-month-old fetus has no human rights and the power of women to control their body in all circumstances is paramount. The middle--the prevailing national consensus--is what I just described above.
P.S. Obama on abortion:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/obama-explores-abortion-issue/
Well said, Mr Raft. I cannot tell you the number of 'social-conservatives' I've shocked by explaining the 'moderate' position you described. (My family tree has a bumper crop of them.) They listen to Rush and Focus of the Family, they watch Faux News so they are certain that liberals celebrate the death of a fetus. 'Who can look at the sonogram happily displayed by a pregnant friend,' I ask, 'and not feel sadness for the tragedy that an abortion represents.'
The difference between liberals and the absolutist 'conservative' position is an awareness of the mystery and wonder that is the emerging humanity that every fetus and baby represents and that this life must find a place in the human family. That nothing is ever guaranteed. That women who find themselves pregnant must each work that process out in liberty and according to their own lights.
"miri, the centrist position on abortion is to 1) acknowledge the disturbing moral implications of abortion and 2) to nevertheless respect the very private and personal choices that women make about whether to carry their fetus to full term, at least within the first trimester or so. It's anti-abortion but pro-choice. That is: "safe, legal, and rare."
I'm still confused.
So far as I can tell, the policy part of your statement above has to do with timetables: "at least within the first trimester or so." That may indeed be the centrist position - but it is neither current policy in the United States, though there are of course variations by state, nor (given the link you provided above, about Obama's views on abortion) Obama's position.
Obama indicated in his (in my opinion, very thoughtful) answer to the abortion question that he might be open to exploring some limits on late-term abortions, and then talked mostly about prevention measures. He doesn't talk about any regulations on abortion like the one you mention having to do with abortions after the first trimester.
Second of all, since the bulk of abortions take place in the first trimester, I'm not sure that even if you imposed a hard and fast cap all non-health-related abortions after the first tri, that you would make that much of a dent in the abortion rate (i.e. they wouldn't become "rare.")
miri: "That may indeed be the centrist position
glad you agree.
"but it is neither current policy in the United States"
Most states ban or restrict post-viability abortions, so, yes it is.
"Second of all, since the bulk of abortions take place in the first trimester, I'm not sure that even if you imposed a hard and fast cap all non-health-related abortions after the first tri, that you would make that much of a dent in the abortion rate (i.e. they wouldn't become "rare.")
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-01-16-abortion-rates_N.htm
Abortion rates have precipitously declined since the 1990's. there are a number of reasons, of course, but a lot of it has to do with more effective and more accessible birth control. prevention works, and the technology is only going to get better. the main problem now from a social perspective is poor minority women who either don't have access to contraception or don't know enough to use it--more funding in that area would go a long way.
Safe, legal, rare.
Again, i want to stress the merit of this position. abortion is bad, we still shouldn't go back to the pre-Roe era where first trimester abortions were illegal, and we should try to reduce the number of abortions through contraception, sex ed, and various other means. It's just a very common sense, reasonable, pragmatic approach (and indeed it works, since abortion rates are going down rapidly). this is Obama's position, and, increasingly, the national consensus.
OTOH, Ross Douthat and John McCain occupy the right-wing lunatic fringe.
What's OTOH?
Anyway, the earliest possible time to talk about viability at all is around 22ish weeks (and that's really early; the beginning of the third tri, at 25ish weeks is a much better indicator) and the second trimester starts around week 13, so, again, a cap after the first trimester isn't current policy by a long shot. And since at least 14 states have *no* viability cap, I'm not sure what it means to say that US policy is the restriction you originally described. (Not to be pedantic or anything).
It is the case, however, that abortion rates have declined by quite a bit - though, at 1.2 million a year, I'd say we're a long from rare. Still, it's something.
Finally, though, as a general statement, I remain unconvinced of the apparent obviousness of "centrist" positions as a good normative indicator, though perhaps in the case of abortion policy there's a good argument to be made for the ostensibly centrist position you described. In general, though, I'm not sure that the concept of centrism is so intrinsically compelling - but perhaps I'm biased, since on most things, I tend to the hard left. I think on certain things, compromise is more problematic than not. So it goes.
| 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
First The Way Things Ought to Be, and now Poo-Bah? Are you trying to imitate Rush Limbaugh in all things? Do I need to hook you up with my neighbor selling oxycotin?
Posted by freddiemac | June 27, 2008 4:22 PM