For John, BLUF: Some guy in a "Right Wing" newspaper says Obama, not Romney, is out of the mainstream on abortion. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Mostly Kad, Renee and I have been tossing back and forth the issue of abortion. There are serious issues involved and serious people can take opposing positions. And, we can use strong language to express ourselves. I think I may have been unkind in comparing Kad to Princeton's Professor Peter Singer, both because Prof Singer teaches at an Ivy League School and because Prof Singer is an extremist.
So, lest the ball touch the ground, here is the Senior political columnist for The Washington Examiner, Timothy P. Carney, asking "Who is the real extremist on abortion?". Again, it depends upon when you reason life begins.
I quote The InstaPundit in full (actually, Elizabeth Price Foley, blogging for Prof Glenn Reynolds, at 7:34 this morning):
ABORTION EXTREMISM: By the progressives. Timothy Carney’s column in the Washington Examiner explains why it’s the Obama, not Romney, campaign that is extreme on the issue of abortion. And I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again (because virtually no one understands this): Overruling Roe v. Wade would not–I repeat not–make abortion illegal. It would only make abortion something that would be decided state-by-state rather than imposed from the Supreme Court down, in a one-size-fits-all solution for the country.Regards — CliffMany lawyers I know oppose Roe v. Wade because–as Carney points out–it is a truly awful opinion, in terms of legal reasoning (or lack thereof). But they don’t necessarily, as a political matter, think that if Roe is overruled, their state legislatures should then make abortion unavailable.
The constitutional right ssue and the “legal availability” issue are apples and oranges.
21 comments:
Thanks.
Irony that righties can correctly see extremism in this one case, but not in so many others, like resistance to gun registrations and background checks, etc.
For the record, I am for prosecuting partial birth abortions as murder. If the baby is viable as a human being separate and apart from its mother, it deserves protection under our laws to the same degree. Concern that curtailing this would curtail legally reasonable autonomy of a newly-impregnated mother is exactly analagous to resisting thorough criminal background checks on firearems purchases over fear of ostensible invalidation of our Second Amendment.
We have reached a bizarre juncture, where warring over a woman's right to choose has produced a battle line across nearly-to-term babies, and not where it properly belongs, which is far prior to the point where life can survive on its own. Righties cry about killing babies, and lefties cry about killing (even raped) mothers. They are both right, but neither can reasonably budge one iota towards the middle becaues their "leaders" will not allow it. (By the way, I'm also a card-carrying member of the NRA, and I am offended that my membership dues are being squandered in opposition to Barry O who has done nothing to curtail my right to own firearms--though I do believe his administration's purchase of millions of rounds of hollow-point ammunition interrupts my supply of such).
Compromise in this country is long past dead, and it was killed by the Big Government party's left (Democrat) and right (Republican) wings. I would posit that a majority of Americans favors a woman's right to choose, (Rick Santorum's wife, Karen, thought enough of one particular abortion doctor to have an adulterous affair with one), and I would further posit that the majority of Americans opposes partial birth abortions, too. Why are these "opposing" viewpoints? Why cannot they become the shared viewpoint of an enlightened and compassionate populace?
Because getting us out of the business of arguing with each other over abortion would endanger their real business of looting our treasury.
Here's my request: Please, righties oh-so-concerned about abortion, drop your insane and mysoginist pogrom against (even raped) women and relax. We can all do better to protect unborn (viable) children if you would only come together to do so. And, for your part, lefties, have a clue and recognize the lazy and criminal pursuit of a murderous "abortion" (i.e. infanticide) in the third trimester of a pregnancy any reasonable person would have taken care to end months before, had they an inkling of human decency--women should be choosing before they are carrying a de facto and viable-outside-the-womb child.
Of course, righties will cry "how can we be sure when viability occurs", and double down to deny women basic civil rights. And lefties will dig in deeper to ensure that more children are possibly murdered in slavish defense to the hypothetical possibility that a woman somewhere might be inconvenienced to go to the doctor sooner.
Sad.
Kad
I think you summarized my position, except for the Karen thing, which I had missed. I blame the MSM for not making a big deal out of it.
I just can't find the past post, when I was not using the tag abortion. Careless of me.
We are talking what is politically feasible here and that does mean compromise. We are not a theocracy and we are not a society run by some intellectual elite. We are a nation governed by the People. They stumble and fall, but they do a better job than any other group. And they, as a group, know the difference between good enough and unattainable perfection.
Thanks
Regards — Cliff
I'll throw this in for measure.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html
In short - concern for the unborn is best served with free contraceptives, liberal sex-ed, and rejection of the pro-life movement.
Not all pro-lifers are 'righties'.
Half of all women define themselves as pro-life, I doubt we hate ourselves because the idea of killing our unborn child as a protect right is disturbing on many levels.
Mr. Lynne, but STDs rise.
Mr. Lynne, the problem is the idea of free contraception, promoted strongly and universally, is that people take no resonsibility, and the government believes people can not be responsible for themselves. Basically we're dumb.
Sorry. But yeah, we reduce abortion but only by intrusive means on our ability to be responsible for ourselves. We lose responsibility, we lose freedom.
I may get heat for Natural Family Planning, but it is free naturally. No cost on others, and I'm responsible for my own actions.
Renee, the statistics bear out the consequences of free and available contraception. If the measure is reduced abortions, then the choice is clear. Just like the choices of sex education - the consequences on STDs are clear there as well.
For the record, making contraception available isn't an intrusion on personal freedom to take responsibility. It's an expansion of choice, which is by definition an expansion of personal freedom.
Just to throw more wood on the fire in regard to Kad's point:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/alethianworldview/2012/10/25/a-dialog-between-materialists/
With regard to Foley's position that "The constitutional right issue and the 'legal availability' issue are apples and oranges.", while it is true that in principal they are unrelated, it is also true that state legislatures by their action can link them. When constitutional rights are restricted for unjustified reasons by method of limiting availability then the act of limiting availability can be said to be an attack on constitutional rights. This is why there is a scrutiny provision on evaluating the acts of the state with regard to inhibiting constitutional interests.
People have choices to have or not have sex. Are we saying we have no self control, that the government MUST step in and make people responsible? Demanding free contraception isn't liberating, it is embarassing.
"People have choices to have or not have sex. "
And when contraception is available that doesn't change. Just like free speech - just because the government ensures that I can say X doesn't mean the the government 'makes me' say X.
Statistics show, however, that something probably will change significantly - the number of abortions. Knowing this, we can weigh the relative value we have on limiting the number of abortions against cultural concerns about controlling other's personal sex choices.
Towards Mr. Lynne's points, and, remarkably, toward the goal of reducing the number of failed zygotes: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html
The math is very straightforward, and the sources well cited. Nowhere is "forcing" birth control on women required for this math to work, either. Please read.
No we have more reckless unhealthy damaging sex, as cited in the previous thread.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/default.htm
Fun. Fun. Fun.
It is a scary mentality that our government has come to the conclusion of public policy, that even if they can not force it on women, it promotes the idea that somehow her lady parts should be under constant suppression with contraception, that something must control our lady parts because we're idiots incapable of using our brains to control our actions.
There is nothing wrong with lady parts. They are perfectly normal, just as there is nothing wrong with gentleman parts as well.
This isn't just about zygotes, but the woman and man as well.
It is about full understanding and respect for each other, with complete knowledge in what they are engaging.
And I should note, because we have such an ingrained mentality in acceptance the contraception is the cure all of every social ill, I get it that almost everyone will disagree with me. Going off contraception for good, wasn't scary for myself.
Still there is a logic and understanding, that contraception doesn't really solve a human problem. In fact it just creates new ones.
FYI-
The Pill and the Prostate
A fascinating study published in the BMJ last year found that countries with high oral contraceptive use have higher incidence and mortality rates of prostate cancer, the second leading cause of death in American men.
Precisely how oral contraceptives have this effect remains unknown, but it was suggested that this “OC effect may be mediated through environmental oestrogen levels,” through the increased amount of artificial hormones released into the water supply.
http://www.1flesh.org/argument_page/the-pill-and-the-prostate/
A government that is data driven isn't a vice.
"This isn't just about zygotes"
Obviously. If it were the policy prescription would be obvious.
Do you have data that where contraceptives are reasonably easy to obtain and that sex education is comprehensive that STDs occurrences are more prevalent? I have seen, by contrast, that comparisons among states seem to indicate a correlation between comprehensive sex education and lower STD incidences. I seem to also remember a study about condom availability in NYC schools showing that increased availability didn't result in increased STDs.
If it were my kids I'd go where the data lead.
Um yes, the previous post.
Oops wait it is an older post here. Sorry.
I linked your study, that was mentioned in the HuffPost as well.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3046628493283608233&postID=8687698080728056914
"The Contraceptive Choice Project, conducted by researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Mo., enrolled 9,256 women and teens from 14 to 45 years of age in the St. Louis area between 2007 and 2011. The participants were all uninsured, low-income, or otherwise determined to be at risk for unintended pregnancy.
Each woman was given a choice of birth control methods, ranging from long-term and more expensive contraceptive devices, such as the intrauterine device (IUD) or an implant, to more common methods, including birth control pills, the ring and the patch. Since price wasn't an issue, about 75 percent of participants chose the implanted methods, which are more effective than short-term methods"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-abortion-rate_n_1942621.html
Wait...
http://www.stlouischildrens.org/our-services/emergency-medicine/hiv-testing-faq
Saint Louis City sexually transmitted diseases data
Gonorrhea rates are 7 times the national average
Chlamydia rates are 4 times the national average
Syphilis rates are 3 times the national average
------
How can you protect yourself from getting HIV?
Abstain from sex
Use a protective barrier, like a condom
Do not share needles for injection drugs
Maintain a mutually monogamous relationship with your partner
---------
Well.... all the free contraception can't do that... especially in Saint Louis, MO.
And here is another look at is.
http://marysaggies.blogspot.com/2012/10/studies-science-and-media-how-pro.html
"The conclusion is: well, since people are sensitive about abortion, this study shows that we can pay women to not have the babies they didn’t want to have anyway, and thus we can reduce the abortion rate. I’ll actually add a bonus conclusion to the study (at no charge): if you pay women not to have kids, all of a sudden, there will be a lot more women who don’t want to have kids, and thus we can further reduce the birth rate as well. Oh, wait a minute, if more women are using contraception since we are paying for it, and since there were still abortions resulting from the study even though the study participants were using contraception, doesn’t that mean that abortion rate might possibly go up? Looks like we might need another funded study. "
For example the study I was in for Natural Family Planning, the study group was so narrow, that yes indeed the researchers were going to get the best results. Find a bunch of Catholic moms, wanting to avoid pregnancy for a year to use the Clear Blue Fertility Monitor. Of course they are going to get great results compared to random 100 women.
Condom Use Drops When Young Women Use Hormonal Contraceptive
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121013174125.htm
At the beginning of the study, 36 percent of the young women used condoms consistently. Condom use dropped to 27 percent by 3 months later. Over the year, some women discontinued using hormonal contraception. More than half did not resume using condoms after they stopped using other contraception, according to Rachel Goldstein, M.D., of Stanford University School of Medicine and lead author of the study.
And this is the saddest part...
"It appears that her partner's feelings may be more important than her perceived risk of a sexually transmitted infection or her own beliefs about dual method use," said Goldstein. This finding underscores the fact that a woman's decisions about contraception and preventing STIs may depend on factors over which she has little control. "Although a woman feels like she is at risk for an STI, she may not be able to advocate for herself and successfully negotiate condom use with her partner,"
If a woman can get a man to put on a condom, or do something like Natural Family Planning in which they both have follow the rules, she has her share of control in the relationship.
Post a Comment