Sunday, March 2, 2014

The War Against Women, Part CIV


For John, BLUFYou want compromise?  Look elsewhere.  Nothing to see here; just move along.



In today's edition of The Boston Globe Columnist Joan Vennochi has what I think is a fairly balanced take on the "Abortion Issue."  She notes that the Mass GOP has come out with its platform for 2014 and it addresses the issue.  From the Column:
“We affirm the inherent dignity and sanctity of human life,” the Republican platform reads.  “We believe that every instance of abortion is tragic.  We advocate policies that will assist a woman during a crisis pregnancy.”  The GOP platform also states support for “traditional marriage.”
There you have it.  The Downtown Republicans, probably assisted by the Candidate Charlie Baker Team, trying to show that they think abortion is bad, but that it is legal and the Mass GOP accepts that.

With all the trite conversation about political parties needing to compromise, the reaction of Democrats and Democrat surrogates, as reported by Ms Vennochi, would suggest that there are some things that are just not suitable for compromise.  Better another Civil War than cutting a deal.  We did that once, and a hundred years later we started to see results.  Do we wish to do that again?

I was struck by something from National Review about what Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said:

The president of the country’s largest abortion provider said she didn’t think the matter of when life begins is pertinent to the issue.

“It is not something that I feel is really part of this conversation,” Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood told Fusion’s Jorge Ramos on Thursday. “I don’t know if it’s really relevant to the conversation.”

I expect there is not a court in the country that would rule against a pregnant woman's wish for an abortion to save her life, regardless of when in the pregnancy it happened.  On the other hand, I think a woman with a couple of months to go having an abortion for her personal convenience—say a Caribbean Cruise—is a tragedy.

And, if we can't cut a deal on abortion, how are we going to decide between Keynes and Hayek?  The $800 Billion compromise at Keynesian stimulation at the beginning of President Obama's term, vice the proposed $1.4 Trillion doesn't appear to have done the job.  What are we going to do in the future?

Lets cut a deal on abortion.  It will be easier.  Let us not try to drive our opponents into a corner.  That often misfires and the results are ugly.  So, where today is the common ground?

Regards  —  Cliff

That said, I have heard the argument that a woman with much of her life behind her has less call than a baby about to embark on life.  That is sort of a Professor Peter Singer argument and I (1) don't think it would sell well in the us or (2) pushes me over the edge toward its favor.

2 comments:

Neal said...

So.....raise the white flag of compromise......let's legislate a limit on abortions....say....only 50% of the current rate for the next 10 years and then we'll revisit the matter...and we'll fund PP to do a study to find out if we are "successful"

Let's strike a deal with murderers.....say.....we'll only prosecute the really BAD ones. Let's not drive murderer's into a corner.

What's a life or two or 500,000? After all.....they aren't REALLY God's children until they reach age three.

C R Krieger said...

Well, that is the conundrum.  When does life begin and when has it passed over into murder.  I think it is fairly obvious that the majority of people (75% or so) believe the abortion is wrong and the majority of people (75% or so) believe abortion should be legal.  It is not like abortion hasn't been around since the dawn of time.  People will be having abortions well into the future.  The question is, what can we do to ameliorate the situation?  I tend to reject options that are all or nothing, when there is a chance to gain a majority of what I want by cutting a deal.

Regards  —  Cliff