Obama and Abortion

Abortion will be a footnote issue in this election.

Bank on that.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 3:12 PM

"hope that the Democratic Party might move toward the center on abortion"

Ugh! What is the center on abortion? This idea that its the Democrats who are too far left and Ross who is just right (pun intended) is laughable. Has Ross ever thought that conservatives need to move to the center on abortion? I bet, Bill Bennett, that the answer is no.

Posted by MLP | June 4, 2008 3:27 PM

Since the center on abortion rights is to keep it safe and legal, I hope the Democratic party does move in that direction.

Posted by Randy | June 4, 2008 3:41 PM

What is the center on abortion?

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

Posted by DaveWoo | June 4, 2008 3:42 PM

DaveWoo wins the thread. Thanks for the link, Ross.

Posted by Noah Millman | June 4, 2008 3:44 PM

Good.

Posted by arbitrista | June 4, 2008 3:55 PM

Yes, that gives a (mild) advantage to McCain on this question, but Obama cannot afford heterodoxy here.

Confused. Massive majorities support Roe, support the protection of women's bodily autonomy and the right to choose. Obama's lack of "heterodoxy" simply puts him in the center of American political opinion.

It's no surprise that John McCain has gone out of his way not to talk about abortion since taking the nomination. It's a losing issue for the Republicans.

Posted by DivGuy | June 4, 2008 4:20 PM

There is no "Center" on the issue of abortion, just as there is no "Center" on the issue of weather the Earth is flat or not. Either a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy or not. Either the government has veto power over a woman's right to continue her pregnancy or not. These are "Yes" or "No" questions. There is no "middle ground". Further, I hardly think that a back-door attempt to criminalize abortion by stacking the court with right wing "strict constructionists" is somehow a moderate position. And assuming McCain gets the nomination and goes ahead and criminalize abortion, there will be social turbulence in this country we really do not need right now. "Conservatives" have already screwed up the economy and launched the most idiotically planned and executed war in American history - do they really want to create social anarchy in this country too? And finally, since men don't get pregnant, who really gives a damn about your moral qualms with abortion? A man's opinion should matter far, far less than a woman's on this particular debate.

Posted by Nathan | June 4, 2008 4:35 PM

"Safe, rare, and legal" IS the center, a position the Democratic party has been occupying for some years now. It's McCain and the Republican right who are out of touch.

Posted by Korha | June 4, 2008 4:36 PM

OBama is actually to the left of NARAL on abortion. In the Illinois Senate Obama voted twice against a bill that sought to protect infants born alive. NARAL stated that Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ...

This is consistent with the National Journal pegging Obama as having the most liberal voting record in the Senate during 2007. The reason that he has such a poor record of accomplishment in both Illinois and Washington is that he is positioned way far to the left on most issues, notwithstanding his frothy and alluring rhetoric.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 4, 2008 4:57 PM

The center on abortion would likely permit abortions through the first trimester, a la the UK and what surveys show the largest number of Americans would support. The actual Roe/Casey rulings are to the left of American's preferences. Obama is, of course, to the left of every sitting U.S. senator in 2002, as he opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois which was passed 98-0 by the U.S. Senate.

Posted by JohnB | June 4, 2008 5:03 PM

Good to see some more examples of careful, reasoned debate that is such a hallmark of the pro-choice movment.

Posted by JohnMcG | June 4, 2008 5:07 PM

Massive majorities support Roe

Rubbish.

Pose a series of questions about the circumstances under which abortion should be legal and you discover the current regime - abortion on demand - has the support of about 20% of the adult population.

Posted by Art Deco | June 4, 2008 5:12 PM

Boy, the NARAL-PCA trolls are out in force today. One assumes that the commenters here travel in circles as narrow as those Pauline Kael did: "All my friends support abortion rights, and therefore so must the majority of Americans." It took me 10 seconds to find this summary of polling on the abortion issue over the past twenty years, and lo, the reality-based community members posting here will find that fully 62% of those surveyed in 2007 believed that abortion should be more strictly regulated than it is now (only 21% of those believed that it should be banned outright, but the 41% supporting further restrictions on abortion were a plurality).

Now, the apparent disconnect between a majority support for Roe and majority support for stricter restrictions on abortion is an interesting conundrum. But I don't think it's all that difficult to resolve: three decades of shoddy news coverage suggesting that overturning Roe would somehow "ban" abortions is probably explanation enough.

And for Korha and others: The Democratic position on abortion is, more accurately, "safe, legal, rare, and subsidized." That's not only an extreme position, it's also disingenuous: You do not make something rare by subsidizing it. In other words, of those four options, pick any three.

Posted by Richard | June 4, 2008 5:12 PM

The right-wing position on abortion is that only wealthy women can afford to travel to where they're available. The left-wing position is that they should be legal everywhere. I suppose the center Ross advocates is to put the dividing line at about $50-80K/year.

Posted by Mike | June 4, 2008 5:19 PM

JohnMcG says: "Good to see some more examples of careful, reasoned debate that is such a hallmark of the pro-choice movment."

Yeah, well, we'd shoot some doctors and piss ourselves in front of clinics instead but you guys have those moves patented.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 5:20 PM

And assuming McCain gets the nomination and goes ahead and criminalize abortion, there will be social turbulence in this country we really do not need right now.

Nathan actually suggests how the polling "problem" appears -- he appears to be under the impression that a Supreme Court overturning Row would criminalize abortion. It might, in some states with standing unenforced laws, I suppose, but in general it certainly would not do that. Perhaps Nathan is simply being dishonest, but he probably actually just thinks that overturning Roe means national criminalization.

I also am very skeptical on the "social unrest" if Roe goes. Abortion will still be available as it is now in much of the land.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 4, 2008 5:24 PM

It took me 10 seconds to find this summary of polling on the abortion issue over the past twenty years, and lo, the reality-based community members posting here will find that fully 62% of those surveyed in 2007 believed that abortion should be more strictly regulated than it is now (only 21% of those believed that it should be banned outright, but the 41% supporting further restrictions on abortion were a plurality).

That, of course, is John McCain's position. He believes abortion should be illegal, though it should be decided on the state level. He supports Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe.

21% of Americans agree with John McCain and Ross Douthat and you that abortion should be illegal.

You have a massively marginalized position in American politics, and John McCain and George Bush have been smart enough to talk as little as possible about their positions, because they are deeply unpopular.

Posted by DivGuy | June 4, 2008 5:27 PM

DivGuy,

I believe that abortion is deeply immoral in nearly all circumstances, but that doesn't mean that I believe that it should be illegal in all circumstances. (Unlike many folks on the left - and my more extreme right - I do not believe that my moral beliefs should invariably be codified into law. It's a concession I'd love to see more of my friends on both sides making toward living in a pluralistic society.) I would be happy with a compromise that allowed abortions in the first trimester, or any number of other compromises. In other words, I would be happy if our abortion law reflected the moral sensibilities of a plurality of the American people, as reflected through the votes of their representatives. I think that puts me, almost by definition, very much in the mainstream. You, on the other hand, hold to a position that's almost as marginalized as that which you accuse me of holding.

Posted by Richard | June 4, 2008 5:35 PM

TMoC writes: "I also am very skeptical on the "social unrest" if Roe goes. Abortion will still be available as it is now in much of the land."

You lack an imagination, then. I would guess that within a year abortion would be illegal in a dozen states, with a life of the mother exception in most, and possibly a rape/incest exception in most.

Where it would get interesting would be when abortionists started getting arrested, and when some ambitious wingnuts decided that women should not be allowed to cross state lines in order to procure abortions. I suspect there would also be some sort of organized effort to help women do just that.

How acrimonious could this become? Given the proven willingness of the lifer side to use violence, very.

Imagine also the first poor woman who dies from a self-induced or illegal abortion in this Brave New World - she'll be the martyr of choice.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 5:36 PM

I believe that abortion is deeply immoral in nearly all circumstances, but that doesn't mean that I believe that it should be illegal in all circumstances. (Unlike many folks on the left - and my more extreme right - I do not believe that my moral beliefs should invariably be codified into law. It's a concession I'd love to see more of my friends on both sides making toward living in a pluralistic society.)

That's nice. I misrepresented your position, and I apologize.

But that's not John McCain's position. If John McCain were running as pro-choice / pro-restrictions, that would be fascinating thing that would completely change the dynamics of abrtion politics. John McCain is not running as a pro-choice candidate, so it's irrelevant.

I shouldn't have mentioned my or your positions on abortion, because they aren't the point. We're talking about presidential politics.

Posted by DivGuy | June 4, 2008 5:45 PM

Richard writes: "I would be happy with a compromise that allowed abortions in the first trimester, or any number of other compromises. "

Yeah, you'd be happy for about a week, and then you'd start lobbying to chip away at that "compromise."

There have been plenty of compromises already, and not a single one of them has made an appreciable number of lifers "happy." Yours wouldn't, either.

My idea of compromise would involve a life/health of the mother exception after the 1st trimester and a rape/incest exception as well. But invariably lifers object to such exceptions because they say women are liars and so forth. So much for compromise.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 5:48 PM

My understanding is that Obama's position is, wouldn't it be great if no woman ever had to be in the position where an abortion was an option? So how do we get there? Not with abstinence-only sex education, that's for sure. Not with an anti-middle class tax structure either. It's a bigger picture than Roe v. Wade people.

Posted by Jeffro | June 4, 2008 6:01 PM

ML&J is out in fine form today, as always, attributing the best motives to his opponents, especially those he's known for, oh, about 15 minutes and 200 words. Unlike him, I won't attempt to weigh the motives behind his positions, but I would like to ask what "compromises" he's talking about. There's been, by my count, precisely one step back from the absolutism of Roe v. Wade - last year's decision allowing a federal ban on late-term abortions. But that's it. Would he mind identifying more?

Posted by Richard | June 4, 2008 6:23 PM

Richard writes: "ML&J is out in fine form today, as always, attributing the best motives to his opponents, especially those he's known for, oh, about 15 minutes and 200 words. Unlike him, I won't attempt to weigh the motives behind his positions, but I would like to ask what "compromises" he's talking about. There's been, by my count, precisely one step back from the absolutism of Roe v. Wade - last year's decision allowing a federal ban on late-term abortions. But that's it. Would he mind identifying more?"

Sure, here you go:

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=272870

As with the ban on 3rd trimester abortions, not a single one of the restrictions/requirements resulted in a big surge in the number of happy lifers.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 6:31 PM

Has Ross ever thought that conservatives need to move to the center on abortion?

Many conservatives are at the center on abortion, and support a federalist approach to the issue. Scalia himself admits the constitution is silent on the abortion, and in no way prevents a state from maintaining a liberal policy with respect to abortion access. Indeed, before 1973, abortion wasn't a very big issue among conservatives, most of whom took the eminently sensible position that voters and their representatives will sort out this messy moral issue with the compromises that are the essence of democracy.

You lack an imagination, then. I would guess that within a year abortion would be illegal in a dozen states, with a life of the mother exception in most, and possibly a rape/incest exception in most.

Shorter Moe: Abortion will be as freely available as it was under Roe in 3/4ths of the states. He's likely correct, because state legislatures were insuring the country as a whole was pretty clearly headed that way before 1973.

Posted by Jasper | June 4, 2008 6:34 PM

Yeah. Moe's 12 states -- they'll be states where abortion on demand is hardly popular as it is. Will there be some acrimony and such? Maybe some violence? Sure.

I don't notice the Roe regime (which Moe admits doesn't allow what he seems to view as a reasonable compromise position, I think?) having been an era of peace and happiness on these matter either.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 4, 2008 7:19 PM

Jasper quotes and writes: "You lack an imagination, then. I would guess that within a year abortion would be illegal in a dozen states, with a life of the mother exception in most, and possibly a rape/incest exception in most.

Shorter Moe: Abortion will be as freely available as it was under Roe in 3/4ths of the states. He's likely correct, because state legislatures were insuring the country as a whole was pretty clearly headed that way before 1973."

I don't think it will be quite as "freely available" in all of those states. In addition to the 12 or so I think there would be more where additional restrictions would pass.

In some ways it might be a good thing if Roe were overturned. I think the right would be shocked at how much energy that would give the left side of the Culture War. There are women out there who are a whole lot tougher than Pat Buchanan or William Bennett ever were. And let's face it, it's a stretch to say that abortion is "freely available" in places like South Dakota right now.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 7:26 PM

"Indeed, before 1973, abortion wasn't a very big issue among conservatives, most of whom took the eminently sensible position that voters and their representatives will sort out this messy moral issue with the compromises that are the essence of democracy."

This is bunk. The main objection from conservatives and evangelicals to abortion was not based on federalist grounds. Roe was the culmination of country that had lost its moral (not federal) compass. It was evidence of the declining morals of the country and the rhetoric reflected that. You don't see pro-life advocates outside of a state capital waving the Constitution, its pictures of babies. The idea that conservatives were not concerned with abortion pre-Roe before it became a federal issue tries to rewrite a history that was based more on emotions than it was on any sense of federalism. This is a familiar meme that you see over the years with pro-lifers trying to seem more mainstream than they are, and rewriting some of the more questionable behavior of its past supporters.

Posted by MLP | June 4, 2008 7:38 PM

TMoC replies: "Yeah. Moe's 12 states -- they'll be states where abortion on demand is hardly popular as it is. Will there be some acrimony and such? Maybe some violence? Sure.

I don't notice the Roe regime (which Moe admits doesn't allow what he seems to view as a reasonable compromise position, I think?) having been an era of peace and happiness on these matter either."

Roe allowed state regulation in the 3rd trimester, and I think thats reasonable enough, for my part.

But the main issue will be when disagreements arise between the states, as I said. It could be Dred Scott all over again. That was part of the concern that drove Roe, as I recall.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 7:39 PM

On abortion - there is an easy way to handle this, and reduce abortions to a bare minimum.

When giving out flu shots to all women from 13-17, isn't there a way to do some sort of time release capsule, that prevents pregnancy, and lasts 1 to 2 years?

If you give that out to all teenagers - boom - immediate stop to teenage unwed mothers.

Similarly, if this is offered to all single women, as par for the course (can be withdrawn of course, for lesbian couples, or successful single women who can afford and are ready for a child), then again, a DRASTIC reduction, in amount of pregnancies.

Right?

Posted by JC | June 4, 2008 8:05 PM

Er. Is JC suggesting this seriously? "Easy" in what sense? Is this to be voluntary?

Hasn't "JC" offered up this silly point before here?

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 4, 2008 8:13 PM

Why is it silly? For after 18 years old, of course, voluntary.

But for pre-18? Why should it be voluntary? (If something like this were available for men, same thing - why voluntary?)

Now, the technology might not exist - but why is it silly?

Posted by JC | June 4, 2008 8:16 PM

Seriously, I don't understand why this is silly.

It seems to get at the bulk of concerns on both sides -

a. Freedom for women to do what they want to, with their lives. Without having to deal with taking a pill every day, or sometimes forgetting to. (Or men, "forgetting" to have condoms).
b. Eliminates a lot of unwanted pregnancies. As well as a lot of abortions.

IF this technology can exist - and I think it does - I remember reading an article about a judge who was considering some INVOLUNTARY 5 year period of a woman on some time release progestin(?) capsule, because she had had 5 kids in 4 years, was in and out of shelters, and simply would not take any precautions. (Very rare, of course, but happens.)

What would be the issue?

Posted by JC | June 4, 2008 8:21 PM

"Ugh! What is the center on abortion?"

TR: John B essentially has it. I think Democratic Presidential candidates who oppose parental consent laws or the ban on partial-birth abortion (Dilation/Extraction if you prefer) are Left of center. This is going by the polls I've seen. I think this has hurt them more than people realize because those who favor some abortion restrictions are more energized to vote on the matter than those who oppose all restrictions.

Even if it might pain me to say it a totally Pro-Life position is indeed "Right of Center." Americans have some tendency to believe the center is literally in the center. Hence they like the idea of teaching evolution and creationism. So if a candidate said "no abortion after the pregnancy is half-over" they'd get a good deal of support I imagine.

I don't agree though that Hillary is significantly more centrist on abortion. She's always gotten 100% from NARAL, 0% from "Democrats for Life", and accused Obama of wavering on Pro-Choice. Biden was the closest thing on the Democratic side to a centrist on abortion.

Posted by Thomas R | June 4, 2008 8:21 PM

To follow-up, on behavior.

Once upon a time, all entrances to freeways were right angles. People were admonished to "look both ways", but it still ends up being a lot more accidents.

Someone got the bright idea to have the GRADUAL, looped, entrances into freeways we have today. And accidents immediately went down.

I see this as similar - NO ONE between 14 and 17 should be having kids - and I'm assuming single women for the most part, don't want kids until they are married - or until they are very successful. So why not encourage the most practical method of birth control?

Posted by JC | June 4, 2008 8:25 PM

JC writes: "I see this as similar - NO ONE between 14 and 17 should be having kids - and I'm assuming single women for the most part, don't want kids until they are married - or until they are very successful. So why not encourage the most practical method of birth control?"

Because the very people most opposed to abortion tend to be the ones who think birth control is just as wrong.

I'm not one of them but the coercive nature of the program you're suggesting bothers me. But free and easily available and highly effective birth control seems fine and dandy to me. Some of the details you spelled out are a little silly, though.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 8:33 PM

MoeLarryAndJesus,

Doing a very quick google scan, it looks like the number of abortions is still over 1,000,000 a year. So the "highly effective and easily available", again, like the highway example of accidents, until we put in curved entrances to freeways, can be VASTLY IMPROVED, and reduced to a tenth of that number. IF something like this was the encouraged, and the accepted method of contraception.

Regarding children and teenagers - there are so many restriction on teenages, the fact that they teenagers, CAN'T HAVE CHILDREN, I think, is a net positive.

Regarding opposition of abortion, opposition of contraceptives - I do think there is split there. For those who think that abortions are a tragedy - a "fairly easy" way to ensure - NO MORE ABORTIONS. Thus, all the language about "vast extermination program as worse as the Holocaust" promulgated by extreme abortion opponents would be rendered - null and void.

Posted by JC | June 4, 2008 8:43 PM

JC again: "Regarding opposition of abortion, opposition of contraceptives - I do think there is split there. For those who think that abortions are a tragedy - a "fairly easy" way to ensure - NO MORE ABORTIONS. Thus, all the language about "vast extermination program as worse as the Holocaust" promulgated by extreme abortion opponents would be rendered - null and void."

I think you're underestimating the essential wackiness of most lifers. I would say that even if you could guarantee that 90% of all abortions would be eliminated they wouldn't get behind your program.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 9:02 PM

I'm with Moe-- the side that shoots doctors and bombs clinics doesn't get to complain that the opposition is too extreme.

One thing to point out is that we actually aren't talking about denying abortion rights to everyone; we're talking about denying them to the poor. The financially secure who want to get abortions and live in stays banning abortion would just load up the SUV and head to a state where they are legal, or-- if they really had to-- jump on a plane to Canada or France and get it done. That's a slogan pro-lifers can really get behind: "Abortion: Only for the Affluent."

Posted by Freddie | June 4, 2008 9:48 PM

The idea that conservatives were not concerned with abortion pre-Roe before it became a federal issue tries to rewrite a history that was based more on emotions than it was on any sense of federalism.

I didn't say conservatives "were not concerned with abortion" prior to Roe. Please read more carefully. I correctly pointed out that it wasn't a "big" (as in the political sense) issue with conservatives. Because it wasn't.

In some ways it might be a good thing if Roe were overturned. I think the right would be shocked at how much energy that would give the left side of the Culture War.

Moe/L/J: Maybe so. I'm not overly concerned one way or another with the political consequences of the overturn/evisceration of Roe. Being a liberal I'm happy to reap the gains of an energized left should any materialize. But I suspect the overall outcome in terms of politics is likely to be neutral, as both left and right suffer a reduction in enthusiasm/support/fundraising from key interest groups. I mean, abortion-rights groups are already pretty energetic, pretty potent fundraisers. If Roe gets overturned, I seriously doubt the already formidable influence of such groups will become stronger still via a "let's take back the courts" strategy in an America where abortion continues to remains widely available (as a believe it will, after a stasis solidifies wherein -- horror of horrors -- culturally conservative and culturally liberal communities are permitted to adapt their laws accordingly). And I welcome the day when the wearying abortion battle becomes localized in nature, and so national politics can, to the greatest extent possible, jettison cultural debates in favor of arguments about economic policy, foreign affairs, etc.

Posted by Jasper | June 4, 2008 10:01 PM

Jasper replies: "But I suspect the overall outcome in terms of politics is likely to be neutral, as both left and right suffer a reduction in enthusiasm/support/fundraising from key interest groups. I mean, abortion-rights groups are already pretty energetic, pretty potent fundraisers. If Roe gets overturned, I seriously doubt the already formidable influence of such groups will become stronger still via a "let's take back the courts" strategy in an America where abortion continues to remains widely available (as a believe it will, after a stasis solidifies wherein -- horror of horrors -- culturally conservative and culturally liberal communities are permitted to adapt their laws accordingly). And I welcome the day when the wearying abortion battle becomes localized in nature, and so national politics can, to the greatest extent possible, jettison cultural debates in favor of arguments about economic policy, foreign affairs, etc."

Don't worry, the wingnuts will always find something else to obsess about... gay marriage is already a bigger blip on their radar than abortion is.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 10:17 PM

IF something like this was the encouraged, and the accepted method of contraception.

Regarding children and teenagers - there are so many restriction on teenages, the fact that they teenagers, CAN'T HAVE CHILDREN, I think, is a net positive.

As you say, you're talking about mandating it for girls, not just encouraging it. Purely as a political matter, that's doomed to fail. Abortion-rights advocates and feminists aren't going to take kindly to a program that denies girls control over their own bodies and forces them to submit to temporary sterilization; family values types aren't going to like taking the choice/responsibility away from parents; conservatives worried about teen promiscuity will go nuts; civil libertarians will faint dead away, etc.

More to the point: I think it's a bad idea regardless of the politics. Forcing every girl in America to submit to an injection and temporary sterilization seems both unfair to individual girls and a vast over-reaction to the problem of teen pregnancy. As a means of reducing abortion I don't see it working. I'm just guessing, but I assume it would bring the numbers down a bit. But you'd be taking responsibility out of the hands of the girls and their partners. Why worry about how to avoid pregnancy when the government's already taking care of it? There might be a mini-epidemic of women getting pregnant around age 18 or 19 (or whatever, depending on the cut-off for the mandatory temporary sterilization).

Last, but not least, the interplay of morality, practicality and politics doesn't bode well for this proposal. The vast swathes of America in which teen pregnancy and abortion either aren't problems or are dealt with quietly will never stand for the forced temporary sterilization of their daughters. Someone will come along and suggest that the program be targeted at communities in which there is a demonstrably high incidence of teen pregnancy. Implementing a program of that kind would be, to understate things, very bad. Even having the debate would be bad.

Posted by JB | June 4, 2008 10:54 PM

There is no "Center" on the issue of abortion, just as there is no "Center" on the issue of weather the Earth is flat or not. Either a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy or not. Either the government has veto power over a woman's right to continue her pregnancy or not. These are "Yes" or "No" questions. There is no "middle ground".

In practical terms, that is false. There is all sorts of diversity of opinion in terms of what restrictions, if any, should be imposed on abortion. Moreover, there are also other issues at stake than whether or not the government should regulate or ban abortion; such as whether or not the government should use tax dollars to provide abortions or require hospitals to provide abortion serices.

Only if you believe that any restriction on abortion is equivalent to banning all abortions (or alternately that allowing any abortion is equivalent to having every pregnancy aborted at taxpayer expense) can you say that there is no middle ground. It appears that the former is what Nathan is saying.

Posted by Glaivester | June 4, 2008 11:11 PM

The abortion pro-lifers on the right oppose the use of contraception to prevent the unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions; and then they support wars and the mass killing that is inherent in that activity. And then they call for us pro-choicers to meet them on the middle ground which is no where near the fucking middle.

Jesus Christ-protect me from your so called followers!

Posted by Help me Jesus | June 5, 2008 12:22 AM

"The center on abortion would likely permit abortions through the first trimester, a la the UK and what surveys show the largest number of Americans would support. "

Then the GOP is far from the center, since its project is to ban abortions in almost all cases. Why aren´t conservatives moving to the center?

Posted by Segio Méndez | June 5, 2008 2:46 AM

Segio Mendez wonders: "Why aren´t conservatives moving to the center?"

Because it's somewhere between their ass and their elbows, and they get lost.

Posted by MoeLarryandJesus | June 5, 2008 3:35 AM

"Why aren´t conservatives moving to the center?" Segio Méndez

TR: Pro-Life people are one of their most reliable voting groups. They also vote based on the abortion issue more than Pro-Choicers do.

There's not much evidence that many Pro-Choice people would switch parties because Republicans run someone "in the center" on the issue. Pro-Choice people are likely to believe in other things conservatives/Republicans do not. Many Pro-Life people also believe things Republicans or conservatives don't, but they're more willing to minimize those to vote Pro-Life.

So in many ways the Democrats running people with solid NARAL backing really is the more surprising thing. It makes sense they'd run people with 60-80% NARAL ratings, but they go more 95-100 every time. It's unlikely they'd lose that many Pro-Choic voters if they had someone who say vocally supported parental notification, but they might gain more married people with kids. The only thing I can think of is that solidly Pro-Choice organizations are important in funding the Party and they have to please donors. And hopefully I'll disappear again for awhile.

Posted by Thomas R | June 5, 2008 6:55 AM

So long as abortion is legal, murderers will roam free and be celebrated by people without a conscious. The only time the murder of a child should be legal is when the mother's life is threatened. Otherwise, it's just cold-blooded murder.

Both the evil doctors who kill and the selfish mothers who allow their children killed--as well as anyone else who assisted in killing that kid--belong in prison the rest of their miserable, selfish lives.

Posted by jack M. | June 5, 2008 7:41 AM

Thomas:

The problem is that most people in the US are not for totally banning abortion. As shown above, only 21 per cent of the people in the US will support that measure. So relying on such extremist side of totally banning abortion may keep the faithfull but will also keep many "centrists" from voting the GOP.

Personally I am for abortion in all cases if there is rape, danger to the life of the mother or malformation of the fetus. I am in favor of abortion in suply the first 3 months, not cause i consider it a "centrist" thing to do, but cause I consider there fetus has not achieved any possible degree of conscience and thus, it is not a human person. But I guess that is another debate

Posted by Segio Méndez | June 5, 2008 8:07 AM

NARAL was in favor of the Federal Infants Born Alive Act. Obama was against an Illinois state one. Has anyone asked what was different about those two laws?

The Virginia ban on so-called partial birth abortion was struck down even though the federal one was upheld. Why? Because the two laws were more different than they seem at first glance. The federal law only criminalizes doctors who deliberately perform an intact dilation and extraction. The Virginia one criminalizes doctors who set out to perform a standard, legal dilation and evacuation but, through some slip, end up delivering enough of the dead fetus to count as an accidental intact dilation and extraction. The only way for a doctor to be sure that he or she is in compliance with the Virginia law is to never perform abortions any later than the second trimester. The federal law doesn't do this.

Posted by DRF | June 5, 2008 8:47 AM

JC:

First, I assumed you meant coercive for all -- which is, frankly, totalitarian. There are women who don't take the pill not out of any qualms about contraception but because it plays havoc with moods and hormones (and sexual desire) and the long-term medical effects are still not that greatly understood for various kinds and dosages. I think the feminists are right that the medical world is pretty willing to play dice with women in ways they might not with men. Fortunately, that kind of coercion is "silly" in that the US is unlikely, whether under our grim overlord McCain or our dread master Obama, or anyone else in the next twenty years, to act in such a totalitarian way.

So you just mean coercive on girls. But given that the benefits here are slim-to-none for non sexually active teens, and unless you propose Magic 1950s Science (like the plastic that's poisoning us a bit in all our bottles? or Wonder Bread?) there would be side effects and long-term complications. No drug is without bodily effects, our chemistry just doesn't work that way. The public health benefits of vaccines may make it worth coercion, but vaccines are less heavy-weight than any kind of contraception like you propose would be, and the benefits are arguably considerably smaller, since almost completely controlled by behavior.

It's paternalistic, coercive, and tramples the rights of parents (and their kids).

To the extent it's voluntary, I suspect it wouldn't change the abortion rate that much (contraception isn't that hard to come by now, though you might argue the expense is a minor but real factor in some populations); to the extent it is involuntary, it ought to give everyone here who values the autonomy of women (or any citizens) the creeps.

And it's silly because nobody (thank goodness) is going to propose anything like this in the American scene. Oh, and the judge proposing sterilization was a totalitarian creep, too.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 5, 2008 10:25 AM

I'm with Moe-- the side that shoots doctors and bombs clinics doesn't get to complain that the opposition is too extreme.

When was the last doctor shooting or clinic bombing?

Every political movement has an extreme faction that does wacky things. Considering the scale of injustice the pro-life movement believes abortion to be, I think our discipline is remarkable.

Posted by JohnMcG | June 5, 2008 10:35 AM

Senator Obama, what about human rights for the unborn?...

USA: the demographic winter is coming.

Aging workforce.
geocities(dot)com/demographic_crash

Good information on the subject. Welcome for a visit.
Have a nice day.

Sincerely,
Solange Miller
P.S. Also new website prowomanprolife(point)org.

Posted by SM | June 5, 2008 12:33 PM

Interesting that a previously lively thread became crickets chirping, and Andrew Sullivan would say, once the pro-choice movement was challenged to provide support for their contention that the pro-life movement is the home of clinic bombers and doctor shooters.

Posted by JohnMcG | June 5, 2008 1:06 PM

Interesting that a previously lively thread became crickets chirping, and Andrew Sullivan would say, once the pro-choice movement was challenged to provide support for their contention that the pro-life movement is the home of clinic bombers and doctor shooters.

Are you serious? Are you really denying that pro-life extremists have bombed clinics and killed abortion doctors? That Planned Parenthood centers routinely receive anthrax threats? That doctors who provide abortions wear bullet proof vests out of fear for their life? You've never heard of Eric Rudolph? No one is jumping up to provide evidence that these things have happened because everyone knows that they have happened. Including most of your allies here in this thread.

Posted by Freddie | June 5, 2008 1:15 PM

So, er, exactly how common are clinic bombings and murder of abortionists? A lot of ink is spilled noting how rare very late term abortions are in the US -- you know, the ones that everyone who isn't a moral monster would agree are essentially infanticide (certainly they are in any scientific sense). They're pretty rare, yes. Are they more or less rare than deaths caused by pro-life activists? What are the numbers? I'm curious.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 5, 2008 1:23 PM

JohnMcG fatuously says: "Interesting that a previously lively thread became crickets chirping, and Andrew Sullivan would say, once the pro-choice movement was challenged to provide support for their contention that the pro-life movement is the home of clinic bombers and doctor shooters."

All threads go silent sooner or later, chuckles. Stop patting yourself on the back.

I will predict right now that if Obama wins the presidency lifers will start getting crazier again, and we'll have some more shootings and bombings. They went into abeyance when Dumbya was in office because your side felt it was winning. Didn't work out for ya, did it?

And of course the lifer movement was the source of the bombers and shooters - there was never any violence committed by the other side. I well remember the stock responses given by lifer leaders every time one of their nuts committed murder - they always seemed to start the same way - "This is a terrible event, BUT..."

How very Hezbollah!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 5, 2008 1:25 PM

Can't help but notice that your point is devoid of a reference to any actual recent events.

Eric Rudolph has been in jail for almost 5 years.

If violence is such a part of the pro-life movement, I suspect you'd have little difficulty doing better than that.

Or does "everyone know" this becuase it aligns with your prejudice?

Posted by JohnMcG | June 5, 2008 1:29 PM

there was never any violence committed by the other side

Well, if you don't count the vaccuming out skulls of babies, there wasn't.

A bit like how WWII was sort of one-sided if you only count violence done to Germans as bad.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 5, 2008 1:36 PM

Another pro-choice post without any documented events.

Interesting...

Posted by JohnMcG | June 5, 2008 1:42 PM

A bit like how WWII was sort of one-sided if you only count violence done to Germans as bad.

The better Holocaust comparison is between the Germans, who were anti-semites who threw millions of Jews into concentration camps, and religious conservative pro-lifers, who are misogynists who want to enslave a hundred million American women and force them to either give up their sex lives or pop out babies.

The only evil people in this debate are the ones out to harm actual women, not the ones who advocate killing theoretical persons.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 5, 2008 2:20 PM

I know you're out there; I can hear you Googling.

Posted by JohnMcG | June 5, 2008 2:20 PM

Come on, Dilan. If you can't admit that some late term abortions involve more than "theoretical persons" you're a bastard who belongs in the same Hell as those Nazis.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 5, 2008 2:28 PM

Both of the objectors to the idea of long-term based contraception, base their objection on a "creepy" totalitarianism.

First - why the loaded language - "forced temporary sterilization". No, it's just MORE EFFECTIVE CONTRACEPTION. Much more effective than having to remember to take a pill once a day, or monthly doctor visits, etc, etc.

Right now, everyone is engaging in contraception, of some type, unless they want to get pregnant, or are winging it, rolling the dice.

But why this emphasis on less effective contraception, that is - clearly - less reliable - than more effective contraception - a time release insertion capsule? Again, quite like an IUD, but less restrictive.

I would agree, there are issues around the hormones - but there are they same issues for ANY type of contraception. Why would this be any different?

Now, the "totalitarian" thing. The thing is, we are already pretty totalitarian to our daughters, or anyone under 18, right? And there is a strong state interest in not having children HAVE CHILDREN.

Maybe a good middle for this would be, simply, at doctor visits, asking "are you sexually active?" If so, then the procedure is done. Since again, it is the most effective method of birth control, not relying on the good conscience of the individual (like the straight intersections to freeways), but structuring the effects to take into account, human foibles.

Same thing with how product is tagged in stores, now. Every item has an active radio tag, which if it isn't deactivated, by being bought, will automatically go off. Much better way to reduce theft in stores, than relying on eagle eyed security guards. (Again, not perfect, by any means.)

The point is, the reasons I have heard against this, frankly, are bad scary strawman - "totalitarian", etc. Not based on simply being practically smart.

As Bill Clinton said, "safe, legal, and rare". This method of contraception, delivers this in spades.

Finally, regarding the "far religious right" - while there are definitely those religious people who simply don't want people to have sex, babies, etc, outside of marriage - I will say again, there is a separation between those who have those views, and those who are troubled by abortion - but are not religious nuts. Those who are troubled by abortion, can be SPLIT OFF from the "real" religious nuts, by a program such as this.

Really, the objections I've heard - so far -0 have been specious at best.

I just don't get it - it seems to be common sense.

Posted by JC | June 5, 2008 2:38 PM

@JC: Your sterilization program would almost definitely lead to greater STD transmission among youth. Most teenagers shy from sex due to fear of pregnancy - remove that bugbear, and sexual contact would probably rise, as well as condom use decreasing.

It'd be a nightmare.

Posted by concerning the trolled | June 5, 2008 2:43 PM

JC -- if it's forced on everyone, yes, it's totalitarian. If you reduce it to your "doctor asks 'are you sexually active?'" thing, it still is (this is not a vaccination, where infection is a plausible argument for the state forcing you to do something that may not be in your best interest) -- it still is.

Look, there are women who rely on condoms because they find that the pill's health risks and hormonal effects outweigh the convenience. Who the hell are you (or the state) to decide for sexually active kids?

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 5, 2008 2:49 PM

Moreover, given the availability of contraception now, the only way this might do much about abortion rates would be if it was heavily involuntary. In which case it is clearly a monstrous invasion of women's bodies with medicine they don't want and may not need. If you're offering to make it free, but voluntary, it won't change much, I'm pretty sure.

concerning may well be right about STD rate effects, too.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 5, 2008 2:54 PM

concerning the trolled,

"greater STD transmission" - um, you kids will only use the fear of getting pregnant, to use condoms? I would submit that the irresponsible, who would leave themselves open to STD's, would leave them open to also being irresponsible to effective birth control.

The Marquis of Carabas.

"if it's forced on everyone, yes, it's totalitarian".

Two things - one, I didn't say it had to be forced, but I didn't make it clear. To be softer, how about "we HIGHLY RECOMMEND", giving the rap why this is the easiest way?

secondly - by your criteria, putting on seat belts is totalitarian. Not allowing teenagers to drink is totalitarian.

So what's the deal?

Posted by JC | June 5, 2008 2:59 PM

Again, everyone is required to wear seatbelts. And "monstrous invasion of women's bodies"? How?

It's not an invasion of women's bodies to be on the pill, right? Don't doctors recommend that?

Posted by JC | June 5, 2008 3:01 PM

TMoC quotes and writes: "there was never any violence committed by the other side

Well, if you don't count the vaccuming out skulls of babies, there wasn't."

I don't count them, and neither do you, because you lifers are almost uniformly full of shit when you refer to fetuses as "babies."

If you actually believe over a million babies a year are being murdered in this country and you're NOT driven to acts of violence or serious, self-jeopardizing resistance as a result, I suggest you're a chickenshit bastard and you should shut the fuck up. That goes for you and Fitz and John McG and Chris and Hector, too.

But of course it's possible you believe no such thing - you're just posturing. I believe this to be the case for most vocal lifers.

So let's hear the splendid stories about the time you've all spent on the front lines - chaining yourselves to clinic doors, following nurses and counselors and doctors home in your creeped-out cars with the Jesus-fish on the bumpers. Let's hear about all of the times you've been arrested and spent nights in jail because of your deep concern over the MILLION BABIES A YEAR being MURDERED in this country while you worry about your 401Ks and your crabgrass.

If actually-born babies were being murdered in 1/10th of those numbers there would be armed vigilantes on every street.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 5, 2008 3:26 PM

The 'highly recommended' approach would clearly be more palatable.

But in the end, even with the forced approach, you are saying -

the right for a teenager to choose - or not even choose - her method of contraception, is a more important thing to protect, than the elimination of one million abortions a year, plus however many children born to teenagers out of wedlock.

I get that, and respect it.

But I would argue the societal costs of the children born out of wedlock, and the million abortions, are great enough to argue for a slight imposition of imposing a bulletproof TYPE of contraception utilized.

We make the same choice, by saying you can't drink until you are 21.

Posted by JC | June 5, 2008 3:26 PM

Lastly - a social argument - I don't think it's a coincidence, that the rightwing revolution "took off" in the 70's. I don't think it could have taken off so strongly, had it not been for the "abortion issue". THIS issue is what radicalized conservative churches, in a way that no other issue can. And continues to do so.

Let's take the issue away.

Posted by JC | June 5, 2008 3:32 PM

ML&J,

I notice that when challenged to back up your assertion that the pro-life movement is all about shooting doctors, you shift your criticism that we don't shoot enough doctors.

So, which is it? Are pro-lifers too violent or not violent enough?

Posted by JohnMcG | June 5, 2008 3:37 PM

I'm a pro-life Catholic who supports Obama. I harbor no illusions about whether Obama will moderate his position on the legality of abortion -- which is extreme. (He supports no restrictions of any kind). I had harbored hope, based on his speech to Call to Renewal, that he would approach pro-lifers with more respect and open up room for dialogue on the subject. He reinforced that hope with his answer on the abortion question at the faith debate -- where he said that we all need to acknowledge the moral gravity involved in abortion.

You might ask why that's enough for me. Part of it is because I still feel deeply burned by having voted for Bush in 2004, pretty much over this issue. I don't regret voting against a pro-choice Catholic; but my Bush vote lent tacit support to an admistration that is highly problematic from my Catholic POV. He repaid me by doing nothing that I can point to to help further dialogue around life issues in this country. The attempt to nominate Harriet Myer still rankles. And while I'm glad he remained firm on stem cell research issues -- the fact of the matter is that we are going to lose on all of those issues, and badly, if public dialogue isn't encouraged. Legislation just isn't going to be capable of keeping pro-life values in place if the majority of the population sees things in a different way. And on the abortion issue itself, an overturning of Roe v. Wade would mean a great deal in terms of its signal about what is or is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, but it would have little effect on the practice itself.

Maybe the above is all rationalization for the fact that I just can't see voting for a Republican this year. But I do think that it's worth considering the possibility that in the long-run creation of space for thoughtful dialogue is more necessary to the cause than is continuing to fight increasingly futile legislative battles. Obama offers some promise of that.

However, I will also say that Russ is right and that Clinton actually had more room to move on the non-legislative approaches to dealing with abortion. Obama is going to have to worry about the feminist vote for a while -- and as long as they have him boxed in, he's not going to risk being seen as moving to the center on this question. That wasn't true two months ago. But Hillary has used the last two months of her doomed campaign to encourage polarization around gender issues, and one unintentional consequence of that is that Obama will have less room to maneuver for the foreseeable future.

McCain has room to capture my vote if he persuades me that he really is serious about finding a way of effectively promoting pro-life issues, and that he really does want to move away from the other parts of the present Republican platform that are more problematic. Problem is, he seems to be exactly emphasizing all those other issues.

In short, I think this is an election where there is no meaningful vote in support of a truly pro-life administration to be had. That forces the voting decision to other issues. Meanwhile, we need a chastened and revitalized Republican party, and the best way to get that is to toss them out this year.

Posted by Maggie | June 5, 2008 3:41 PM

JC, one problem with your approach (mandatory contraceptive implants for teenagers) is that the vast majority of abortions are obtained by adult women, not teenagers.

Posted by KCN | June 5, 2008 3:59 PM

Another problem is that parental opposition would be huge. Socially conservative parents will insist their daughters are not sexually active and this don't need to run the risk of using hormonal contraception (there are small but real risks for most contraceptive methods, although of pregnancy and childbirth carries much larger risks). The uproar over the HPV vaccine is a case in point.

Socially liberal parents will not want a contraceptive method forced on their daughters but will want them to choose between condoms, pills, injectables, implants, abstinence, etc.

Posted by KCN | June 5, 2008 4:12 PM

JohnMcG replies: "I notice that when challenged to back up your assertion that the pro-life movement is all about shooting doctors, you shift your criticism that we don't shoot enough doctors.

So, which is it? Are pro-lifers too violent or not violent enough?"

I like how you managed to completely mischaracterized both parts of my argument, sport. And how you completely missed my post about why I think lifer violence ebbed after the 90s, and why I think it will come back.

I just checked out your blog. You don't seem like a dumbass, but I'd never have known that by your contributions here.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 5, 2008 4:13 PM

KCN,

"one problem with your approach (mandatory contraceptive implants for teenagers) is that the vast majority of abortions are obtained by adult women, not teenagers",

Well, yes - but IF - and always a big if - this goes through for teenagers, and is clearly a superior contraception method, then I would guess that, slowly, there would be this choice taken by more and more women - especially as those teenagers BECOME adults.

I'm not looking for perfect, but better.

As far as social objection, start with the liberal first:

"Socially liberal parents will not want a contraceptive method forced on their daughters but will want them to choose between condoms, pills, injectables, implants, abstinence, etc"

Well, abstinence yes. But why would a socially liberal parent not want their child to have the best contraception available, if that teenager/child is sexually active?

The other one: "Socially conservative parents will insist their daughters are not sexually active".

There really isn't a way around that, I think, and yes, is a defect. But that is true, now - of ANY such plan.

Here, it's like universal healthcare - "no person should FORCE me - MANDATE me - into healthcare!"

But of course, we get the best results when EVERYONE is on universal healthcare.

Same thing - if all single active person is on this type of contraception, the best outcomes ensue - no unplanned pregancies, no abortions.

But we can take steps, towards that, and let the drop in abortions, pregnancies, lead the way, to convince others.

Posted by JC | June 5, 2008 4:23 PM

Click my name, John McG, Marquis, etc.

Posted by Freddie | June 5, 2008 4:55 PM

I am ardently pro-choice but in the "safe, legal and rare" camp. I can understand why many people find abortion morally troubling and I think the pro-choice movement would be better served if this were more openly acknowledged.

JCs argument is interesting because it raises a fundamental question: why are there so many abortions given that there are many highly effective methods of contraception? The "capsule" that he (just guessing but he seems like a he) mentions as a hypothetical sounds like Norplant, which was FDA approved in 1990 and marketed in the US until 2004. There is a second generation implant called Implanon which is highly effective and last for 3 years. Depo Provera (3-monthly injectable) is another highly effective reversable contraceptive. Of course there is also the pill, and the IUD, for women who have had kids and have no STD risks, not to mention condoms.

Anyway, just wanted to broaden the debate a bit to try to address the root causes of why there are so many unintended pregnancies in this country.

Posted by KCN | June 5, 2008 5:49 PM

KCN concludes: "Anyway, just wanted to broaden the debate a bit to try to address the root causes of why there are so many unintended pregnancies in this country."

The same reason there are so many unintended pregnancies in other countries, I suspect. There's a whole lotta fuckin' goin' on!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 5, 2008 5:58 PM

Left a response, but had a link in it, so it's in queue.

So I'll repost a bit -

KCN - thanks for the reminder - Norplant. And I didn't know about Implanon. My fiance and I will need to look at that, see if, medically, see if the effects are better/worse than the pill, which is your choice currently (but we do run out now and then, don't order in time, so it happens to everyone.)

Posted by JC | June 5, 2008 7:47 PM

I guess MoeLarryAndJesus things he's being cute, but seriously, other wealthy/industrialized countries do not have nearly the rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion that we have in the US. Why is that? Age of sexual debut is similar in Europe as compared to the US, and as I said before most abortions are not in teenagers but in adult women anyway. What is different between the US and Europe (or Canada for that matter)? They have comprehensive sex education (no abstinence only programs). They have national health systems where I presume contraception is free. Is it all about easier access to contraception? I don't know, but I think we should try to find out if we are serious about "safe, legal and rare."

Posted by KCN | June 5, 2008 10:49 PM

So no response to that list of anti-abortion violence I linked to, huh? I believe JohnMcG used the term "crickets chirping"....

Posted by Freddie | June 5, 2008 11:25 PM

"greater STD transmission" - um, you kids will only use the fear of getting pregnant, to use condoms? I would submit that the irresponsible, who would leave themselves open to STD's, would leave them open to also being irresponsible to effective birth control.

Is that supposed to refute my argument? In your world, those kids would still leave themselves vulnerable to infection, and there's a good chance a greater number of youths - heretofore dissuaded by the possibility of pregnancy from practicing unprotected sex - would indulge and increase the transmission of STD's.

I'm not saying that condoms are used by children only to prevent pregnancy - however, in the minds of teenagers, pregnancy looms larger than infection. As the lack of the former makes condoms appear obsolete, the presence of the latter becomes less constrained. Is this so hard to understand?

Posted by concerning the trolled | June 6, 2008 12:49 AM

Come on, Dilan. If you can't admit that some late term abortions involve more than "theoretical persons" you're a bastard who belongs in the same Hell as those Nazis.

If we were debating late term abortion, I would very much agree that late term fetuses have a much stronger claim to personhood than early term ones do.

Of course, if we are talking about late term abortions, you can no longer make Holocaust comparisons, either, because there aren't that many of them. And, of course, it is restrictions on early term abortions that really screw over women, and perpetrate the real Holocaust by forcing 1/2 of the population to either give up sex or carry babies to term.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 6, 2008 1:03 AM

Dilan writes:

"The better Holocaust comparison is between the Germans, who were anti-semites who threw millions of Jews into concentration camps, and religious conservative pro-lifers, who are misogynists who want to enslave a hundred million American women and force them to either give up their sex lives or pop out babies.
The only evil people in this debate are the ones out to harm actual women, not the ones who advocate killing theoretical persons."

Dilan, thanks for the brilliant self-parody of your typical abortion post. Oh, and TMoC wasn't making a comparison between abortion and the Holocaust, as you'll notice if you go back and read what he wrote. Again, calm down, think, and then write.

"Of course, if we are talking about late term abortions, you can no longer make Holocaust comparisons, either, because there aren't that many of them. And, of course, it is restrictions on early term abortions that really screw over women, and perpetrate the real Holocaust by forcing 1/2 of the population to either give up sex or carry babies to term."

Again, see above. And if you think that that the situation for women in America pre-1967 is the equivalent of the deliberate destruction of six million Jews, then you really are a zealot.

Posted by torourke | June 6, 2008 7:33 AM

tourourke:

1. I don't really think any of this should be compared to the Holocaust or WW2 or Nazi Germany.

2. Pro-lifers, however, often do it (and yes, I took Marquis' reference to the Germans to be a Holocaust reference), when in fact there side is the only side of this debate that is validly analogous to the Nazis (because they are sexists and misogynists, which is an invidious form of discrimination like anti-semitism was, whereas the pro-choice movement favors equality and not discrimination). If there are going to be holocaust comparisons at all, your side is the Nazis and my side is the resistance.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 6, 2008 1:01 PM

Dilan writes: "1. I don't really think any of this should be compared to the Holocaust or WW2 or Nazi Germany.

2. Pro-lifers, however, often do it (and yes, I took Marquis' reference to the Germans to be a Holocaust reference), when in fact there side is the only side of this debate that is validly analogous to the Nazis (because they are sexists and misogynists, which is an invidious form of discrimination like anti-semitism was, whereas the pro-choice movement favors equality and not discrimination)."

Lifers are addicted to using the Holocaust comparison, though they ignore the fact that abortin was illegal in Hitler's Reich.

Noted SuperChristian mulefucker Neil Horsley's website "The Nuremberg Files" published the home addresses of clinic personnel in an obvious incitement to violence, and the site was replete with Holocaust imagery in addition to the inflammatory title.

(And in case anyone thinks "mulefucker" is an insult, I'm just reporting the facts. Horsley is a self-identified mulefucker.)

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 1:28 PM

JohnMcG and the Marquis have gotten quiet since I posted that link they were asking for.

Posted by Freddie | June 6, 2008 1:53 PM

Freddie says: "JohnMcG and the Marquis have gotten quiet since I posted that link they were asking for."

To be fair, TMoC never posts on a Friday. It's his day in the barrel at the monastery.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 2:04 PM

We make the same choice, by saying you can't drink until you are 21.

I think that's a bunch of crap, too, actually. Like our making the decision that no one can smoke pot (even for medical reasons!)

As to Freddie's numbers -- yeah, I knew them. They look orders of magnitude less than the relatively small numbers of very late term abortions performed each year. As Moe notes, given that there are babies being murdered, it's really a testament to Christian non-violence (or perhaps cowardice, as Moe suggests) that the streets aren't running red with the blood of abortionists. Heck, maybe Moe's convinced me to guy buy some fertilizer. I drive by a Planned Parenthood when I take the long way home from work...

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 6, 2008 2:11 PM

So who knew he could fit a laptop in the barrel?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 2:16 PM

TMoC jerks off in public: "Heck, maybe Moe's convinced me to guy buy some fertilizer."

Ah, the old Freudian slip!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 2:22 PM

They look orders of magnitude less than the relatively small numbers of very late term abortions performed each year.

Ah, yes. It's an acceptable number of murders, bombings and terrorist acts. My bad.

Posted by Freddie | June 6, 2008 3:01 PM

Freddie,

Thanks for the link, and I'm pretty sure that some are going to start debating the veracity of Wiki now instead of the facts. One of the entries on the page is important, someone tried to bomb a clinic in 2006 so bombing clinics is not something that only happen, long long ago. But I think that its a testament to the intellectual rigor of the pro-life movement that the bomber was mistaken and the clinic did not even perform abortions. Talk about a metaphor!

Posted by MLP | June 6, 2008 4:34 PM

It's an acceptable number of murders, bombings and terrorist acts. My bad.

Well, no. But I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do about it, buddy. I don't bomb clinics, I don't support bombing clinics, I don't shoot doctors.

People have killed a lot of people in the name of helping the poor. By the "guilt by association" logic you use, I guess all charitable efforts or social safety nets are discredited due to the actions of Marxist guerrilas somewhere. What exactly do you want to prove? The number of late term abortions, as far as I can tell, actually dwarfs this, and many people outside the pro-life movement think of those as at least damn close to infanticide.

But, hey, if you want to think like the people who loathe all Muslims because some are terrorists, I guess that's your business. I'm not sure that bin Laden discredits anything about the quiet, decent, faith in Allah's justice and mercy of some of my friends. But the Muslims I know are mostly university faculty in the sciences, so perhaps they don't count by some snob logic on your part.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 6, 2008 8:13 PM

No. Go back and read the thread again, please, and then engage your intellectual honesty. Pro-choice people were described by several as being extremists. I pointed out that it was unfair for a movement that has produced this kind of carnage doesn't have much standing to call the other side extremist. JohnMcG and yourself challenged me to present evidence that there actually was a lot of anti-abortion violence. I've done so.

It is possible to actually go back and read what you wrote before, you know. A little integrity would be nice.

Posted by Freddie | June 6, 2008 8:29 PM

Freddie,

How does the number of victims of clinic violence compare to the victims of partial birth abortion?

A movement that would allow a baby _born alive_ to then be starved to death is nothing if not extremist. Indeed, it is a testament to Christian charity that clinic violence has been so rare.

Posted by Hector | June 7, 2008 8:53 AM

Indeed, it is a testament to Christian charity that clinic violence has been so rare.

Again, a normative statement out-and-out saying that the level of anti-abortion violence is actually too small compared to what the commenter thinks is justified. You guys can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously say that you don't support murder and bombings of abortion providers, and then turn around and say "but actually much worse is justified." Either you think that this anti-abortion violence is utterly reprehensible and unjustifiable, or you think that the violence is somehow not equal to what is warranted. But not both.

Posted by Freddie | June 7, 2008 12:59 PM

Hector says: "Indeed, it is a testament to Christian charity that clinic violence has been so rare."

So it's "charity" that allows a so-called Holocaust to continue?

I'd say it's either a testament to Christian bullshit or to Christian cowardice. I don't believe for a single minute that you're truly convinced that a fetus equals a human being - but if you were and you're "charitable" enough to let what you see as this constant slaughter continue, then as a lot you have tiny little balls.

Full of shit or gutless wonders? These are the only two options. During the true Holocaust there were some German Christians - very few, but there were some - who risked and in some cases gave their lives to try to stop what was going on. And then there were the millions of Christian who were "good Germans" who did fuck all, as the saying goes.

But hey, we live in a freer society where you can fight the good fight by wearing little silver feet or putting ugly bumper stickers on your minivan, so FIGHT ON, Hector!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 7, 2008 4:02 PM

Er, Moe, how would you recommend we 'risk our lives' to try and reduce the incidence of abortions? Pass state laws? Nope, your Supreme Court closed off that road. Peacefully pray outside abortion clinics? Nope, that's illegal too. Move to another country? No, you guys bully third world countries into liberalizing their abortion laws so they can be modern and Western and I don't know what.

The reason that people choose to express their anti-abortion views by declining to vote Democrat, is because that's pretty much the only method they have left.

Posted by Hector | June 8, 2008 12:38 AM

Hector scratches his tiny nuts and replies: "Er, Moe, how would you recommend we 'risk our lives' to try and reduce the incidence of abortions? Pass state laws? Nope, your Supreme Court closed off that road. Peacefully pray outside abortion clinics? Nope, that's illegal too. Move to another country? No, you guys bully third world countries into liberalizing their abortion laws so they can be modern and Western and I don't know what.

The reason that people choose to express their anti-abortion views by declining to vote Democrat, is because that's pretty much the only method they have left. "

Hey, Hector, it's MASS MURDER, a HOLOCAUST that you think is going on. What's preventing you Jesoids from picking a clinic every weekend and INVADING it with 1000 or so bodies? Sure, you'd most likely end up in jail, but that's not even close to "risking your lives." You're afraid of "breaking the law"? Martin Luther King wasn't, and while he was fighting a great evil, he wasn't fighting an ongoing Holocaust. You lifers claim that's exactly what you're fighting. I'm saying you're a bunch of gutless wonders who act like you're fighting property laws.

That's why I make the claim that you're either full of shit with this "murdering babies" nonsense or you're a bunch of cowards who love their Barcaloungers a little too much. If there were a house down the street where folks were beheading babies on the front lawn I suspect you and your neighbors might stop it even if the cops refused to. But abortion clinics? Nope, none of you are doing much. I say that makes you either liars or cowards or both.

How am I wrong?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 1:54 AM

"How am I wrong?"

TR: A just war requires a possibility of victory or at least amelioration of the injustice. It also has to be done by a legitimate force, not a mob action. So a person may think that militias in Sudan are committing mass-murder, but this doesn't mean the proper or sensible approach is to fly to Darfur and start killing militia-men.

Violence against clinic workers is more likely to aid the Pro-Choice cause than harm it. So any lives saved in the short-term will be counteracted by losses in the long-term. It also is anarchic and promotes social disorder. For example it encourages others who feel "life issues" are at stake, like PETA people, to commit chaotic violence.

In addition violence is not the first or most logical response to a wrong. Hence many Pro-Lifers do not believe in execution or believe in it in only limoted circumstances. Even with someone like Hitler the first response was not violence.

As for Martin Luther King Jr. he didn't go out and blow-up Klan meetings. Nor did he go into houses of segregationists and wreck up the place. Many Pro-Lifers are willing to break laws, perhaps too willing, but doing so violently is not necessary or required by human rights tradition. Granted there's John Brown, who killed people to free slaves, but he was largely a kook.

Posted by Thomas R | June 8, 2008 6:17 AM

Thomas R replies: "As for Martin Luther King Jr. he didn't go out and blow-up Klan meetings. Nor did he go into houses of segregationists and wreck up the place. Many Pro-Lifers are willing to break laws, perhaps too willing, but doing so violently is not necessary or required by human rights tradition."

I didn't say anything about violence, TR. When I said "What's preventing you Jesoids from picking a clinic every weekend and INVADING it with 1000 or so bodies? Sure, you'd most likely end up in jail, but that's not even close to "risking your lives,"" I was saying an MLK-like strategy (remember the lunch counters?) is available.

It's true that Operation Rescue tried this on a smaller scale, but if a small percentage of the lifers who use this bullshit "Holocaust" comparison were to get off their couches and take part it would dwarf anything OR ever did. But then again that would require personal courage and sacrifice and those qualities are completely missing in the conservative movement. Just look at Dumbya and Dickless, your "leaders," to see what is truly important to you folks.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 11:43 AM

I didn't vote for them in 2004.

Anyway if a 1000 invaded a clinic they would be arrested. Massive amounts of imprisonment I guess could show bravery or it could just make them look crazy. (Or crazier if you prefer)

Is this what you think King did? There were sit-ins, but they rarely involved 100s or 1000s. In addition for the case of segregation a "Sit-in" directly related to what they were protested. Anti-abortion people aren't protesting that they're not allowed in abortion clinics. An abortion clinic could probably allow a booth for "National Right to Life" to distribute literature and this would please anti-abortion people only a little. (At best)

Or do you mean they should chain themselves to clinics to keep people from entering. Kind of like those people who chain themselves to trees. Well maybe that could work, but I'm skeptical. Unlike trees abortion clinics have security people to keep that from happening.

I think what bothers you is that anti-abortion people, to some extent, are smarter than what you're meaning. Brave people are, quite often, pretty stupid. The smart way to do change often involves lobbying, lawyering, boycotts, bookwriting, and non-protesting methods. The kind of stuff you're advocating is for people who need attention or are not to bright. The Pro-Life cause really doesn't need attention in that way as people roughly know what abortion is and why some object to it. For Northerners in 1953 life under Jim Crow was sometimes hazier or not talked about so they needed the attention. Even then boycotts and lawyering mattered a heck of a lot more than what you're thinking.

Posted by Thomas R | June 8, 2008 12:27 PM

Thomas R replies: "Anyway if a 1000 invaded a clinic they would be arrested. Massive amounts of imprisonment I guess could show bravery or it could just make them look crazy. (Or crazier if you prefer)

Is this what you think King did? There were sit-ins, but they rarely involved 100s or 1000s. In addition for the case of segregation a "Sit-in" directly related to what they were protested. Anti-abortion people aren't protesting that they're not allowed in abortion clinics. An abortion clinic could probably allow a booth for "National Right to Life" to distribute literature and this would please anti-abortion people only a little. (At best)

Or do you mean they should chain themselves to clinics to keep people from entering. Kind of like those people who chain themselves to trees. Well maybe that could work, but I'm skeptical. Unlike trees abortion clinics have security people to keep that from happening. "

Geez, are you being purposely obtuse here, Thomas? My points are being made against the claim that a HOLOCAUST is happening. I'm saying that lifers are hardly responding to it with any sense of urgency, and this tells me that they're uniformly full of shit when they make those comparisons.

Massive peaceful protest a la King or Gandhi could very well have an effect, but lifers can't be bothered because they'd get arrested. I guess that's too big a sacrifice to make to stop a "Holocaust."

How many anti-abortion bumper stickers do you have on your car, Braveheart?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 12:46 PM

"Safe, rare, and legal" IS the center, a position the Democratic party has been occupying for some years now. It's McCain and the Republican right who are out of touch.,/i>

Does 1.1, 1.2 million per year sound "rare" to you?

Best just to admit that "safe, legal, and rare" was a throwaway line. Only the first two are really believed in.

And why not? If there are not moral implications to abortion, why should they be rare? Do we want appendectomies to be rare?

Posted by Richard | June 8, 2008 12:55 PM

Moe,

Are you looking for a concession that pro-lifers do not really believe that killing a fetus is _no different_ than killing a child?

Well, I can't speak for JonF or Thomas R., or anyone but myself. But I will say this. While intellectually I accept that a fetus counts as 'innocent human person', I will concede that emotionally it doesn't have quite the same valence for me as a born child. I think killing a child or an adult is "worse" than killing a fetus, in the same way that Saddam Hussein is "worse" than Dumbya and Dickless. Are you happy now? It doesn't really matter....theyre _both_ wrong, and the fetus still has enough aspects of humanity that it ought to be protected by our laws.

Posted by Hector | June 8, 2008 1:33 PM

Hector writes: "Well, I can't speak for JonF or Thomas R., or anyone but myself. But I will say this. While intellectually I accept that a fetus counts as 'innocent human person', I will concede that emotionally it doesn't have quite the same valence for me as a born child. I think killing a child or an adult is "worse" than killing a fetus, in the same way that Saddam Hussein is "worse" than Dumbya and Dickless. Are you happy now? It doesn't really matter....theyre _both_ wrong, and the fetus still has enough aspects of humanity that it ought to be protected by our laws."

I didn't need the confirmation, Hector, since the fact that all but the most rabid lifers do a similar sort of moral calculus is obvious, but thanks.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 3:53 PM

"My points are being made against the claim that a HOLOCAUST is happening. I'm saying that lifers are hardly responding to it with any sense of urgency" ML&J

TR: Perhaps, but I'm saying this doesn't say as much as you seem to think.

In 1994 there was a Holocaust happening in Rwanda. Did Americans respond with urgency? Did you? Well then American or other claims of "genocide" are just prattle.

Even in WWII our "urgency" wasn't because of the Holocaust. We were responding to a threat on ourselves and our allies. The idea that a genocide makes people act "urgently" is a wonderful dream, but so far that's all it seems to be.

So anyway it's true Pro-Lifers probably do not connect to American fetuses in any more real a way than they do to African Tutsis. There is some sense of fatalism and distance in both cases.

I'd go further than that and agree "Holocaust" or "genocide" is overly loaded. There really isn't an intent to kill people with abortion. Therefore a kind of response that could be justified against a genocide does not make sense here.

Further I don't think a fetus has the full rights of an adult anymore than an infant does. At 60 weeks after conception babies don't speak, use the press, assemble, vote, or freely travel. Their rights are almost totally determined by their parents, excepting life.

All that said I don't even agree that "urgency" is always the best way to respond to things. I'm kind of conservative so I don't necessarily favor do a good thing in a hasty manner proned to massive backlash. Even when I supported the Iraq war I kind of wanted us to wait another month or so.

Posted by Thomas R | June 8, 2008 10:07 PM

Thomas R writes: "I'd go further than that and agree "Holocaust" or "genocide" is overly loaded. There really isn't an intent to kill people with abortion. Therefore a kind of response that could be justified against a genocide does not make sense here.

Further I don't think a fetus has the full rights of an adult anymore than an infant does. At 60 weeks after conception babies don't speak, use the press, assemble, vote, or freely travel. Their rights are almost totally determined by their parents, excepting life."

Thanks. In short you agree with me that American lifers are full of shit when they pretend that fetuses have equal status with actually-born humans.

That's what I've been saying all along.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 11:59 PM

"In short you agree with me that American lifers are full of shit when they pretend that fetuses have equal status with actually-born humans." ML&J

TR: In so much as I agree that infants do not have equal status with children and children do not have equal status with adults. (Sixty weeks after conception should be a five-month-old baby if I calculated it right)

The idea that pre-lingual post-natal humans have rights is not universally accepted even now, see Pete Singer. In traditional Japan, China, Greece, and Rome fathers had the right to abandon newborns to the elements. At times the Japanese preferred infanticide to abortion because lactation added a period of lowered fertility after the birth thereby lowering the chance of another unwanted pregnancy.

In the West opposition to infanticide largely arose as a Christian notion. Going by neural interconnectivity, utilitarianism, and such a baby in the first six-months post-natal is quite possibly not sentient. Therefore bans on terminating these beings is partly based on them "looking like us" and being biologically human.

So if you want to argue that the 60-week-post-conception baby has little rights and can be killed based on parental needs I guess that's your right. After all we both agree they don't have equal status on rights and responsibilities. This is true even of a human 200 weeks post-natal. If they wander off they can be tracked down by authority figures so do not have full freedom of movement. They also can't vote or stand for office.

Posted by Thomas R | June 9, 2008 1:18 AM

TR replies: "So if you want to argue that the 60-week-post-conception baby has little rights and can be killed based on parental needs I guess that's your right. After all we both agree they don't have equal status on rights and responsibilities. This is true even of a human 200 weeks post-natal. If they wander off they can be tracked down by authority figures so do not have full freedom of movement. They also can't vote or stand for office."

No, I'm being quite specific. The wingnuts have turned the fetus into a fetish, and I'm pointing out that they're full of shit. Thanks for playing.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 3:20 AM

You're opinion they're "full of" is your right. Although it's just your opinion. Considering your behavior and intellect I don't think this opinion is worth that much. I guess I've mostly been "playing with you" to avoid work or just out of a train-wreck fascination.

Posted by Thomas R | June 9, 2008 4:44 AM

Thomas R replies: "You're opinion they're "full of" is your right. Although it's just your opinion. Considering your behavior and intellect I don't think this opinion is worth that much."

It really is amusing to have my intellect slighted by a goober who starts off with "(y)ou're intellect." Run along and play with your sky fairy, Tommy boy. I've got 30 IQ points on anyone in your inbred family.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 9:15 AM

Read the chapter on faith in Obama's Audacity of Hope. It's a form of compromise. Not one I agree with, but not what is being dismissed here as Obama's "doctrinnaire" liberal position either.

Posted by Paul Allen | June 9, 2008 2:05 PM

TrackBack

Comments (118)

Today's Headlines From The Atlantic

VOICES

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives

Categories

A Movement That Can (And Cannot) Compromise

Not So Wonderful Now