55 Comments

1. Sandy P:

You’re right, it is over, but not for the pro-lifers.

You’re looking at it thru a generation lens.

The wrong generational lens – you’re listening to the 60s screamers.

You got a whole generation or 2 who are the chosen ones.

Wasn’t there a study/survey done w/in the past year or 2 of HS kids and the majority were against it?

Americans have consistently been against it by around 60% for the past 30-35 years, but it is a private matter.

Won’t tell you what to do, won’t pay for it. I think the country will finally settle on 3 months, sonoscans prove it’s a baby.

Jul 10, 2007 - 10:45 pm 2. blinkNoodle:

“irregardless” — eck. And you a “novelist” …

Jul 11, 2007 - 4:36 am 3. Roger:

“Eck,” indeed. Excised.

Jul 11, 2007 - 7:00 am 4. Mike K:

The abortion issue has been badly contaminated by politics and the Roe vs Wade decision was at fault. Abortion was legal in California in 1969. I was doing a few at that time, so I know what I am talking about. There were restrictions that would eventually have adjusted to public morality and common sense. For example, the requirement that the mother’s health be at risk resulted in a pro-forma psychiatric ruling that was never, to my knowledge, denied. That would eventually have been dropped. Instead, the entire process of evolution of public opinion was trumped by a poorly reasoned Supreme Court decision with no basis in the Constitution. This has left us with a lingering resentment on the anti-abortion side (somewhat like the resentment toward the USSC decision ending the ballot counting in Florida in 2000) and a radical agenda of abortion on demand by the pro-abortion side. Had the states been able to work out a solution that was acceptable to the public opinion in each state, there would be far less animosity today. The advocates of abortion have a sneaking realization that their side did not win the public debate fair and square, hence the militant refusal to accept any restriction. The LA Times is firmly entrenched on the pro-abortion side and it shows. There is no nuance in their reporting or editorial opinion. The anti-abortion side knows the deck is stacked against them but they also know that the Roe decision was not legitimate. How much better it would have been to work this out the way democracies do things. Instead we have a quiet civil war going on that will not end anytine soon.

Jul 11, 2007 - 7:02 am 5. David Thomson:

Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney promise to appoint only strict constructionists to the U.S. Supreme Court. This will ultimately result in Roe vs. Wade being overturned and the abortion debate being sent back to the voters. That is the very best the pro-life forces can hope to achieve. Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas, and other theologians have always taught that compromise in the secular realm is often required. The religious believer should be innocent as a dove while still being wise as a serpent.

The post-modernist Democratic Party “elites” are the enemies of the United States. They are utopian socialists who intensely hate their own country. This is why they wish for us to be defeated in Iraq. We must do everything legally possible to prevent them from capturing the White House in 2008. America may not be able to survive such a horrible tragedy. Religious conservatives must make sure that they have their priorities straight. We are living in very dangerous times.

Jul 11, 2007 - 7:28 am 6. Steven Mitchell:

“That is the very best the pro-life forces can hope to achieve. ”

Short to mid-term, yes. Long-term, putting abortion back to the states will immediately make it more rare than it is now. If it is more rare, the opinions will move *somewhat* that this is the way things should be. It only seems “settled” because the law as enforced a certain way for over a generation. The only way it will ever become truly rare is if people are convinced it is wrong.

This is what the rabid pro-abortion folks fear. They know that a great deal of their “support” is only because of a bad ruling that puts the law on their side. Remove that ruling, and a great chunk of the middle will gradually turn against them.

I suspect that post-Roe, after the political shake up, we will see something similar to what existed pre-Roe. There will be enclaves where abortion is quite common. The difference between pre-Roe and post-Roe will be where those enclaves are located, and whether public funds support them or not. (You’ll see enclaves in many red states, but not publically funded ones. Pre-Roe, they wouldn’t have been there at all.)

“It’s over – and I suspect most people already know it.”

Roger, your progressive roots and assumptions are showing again. Human nature doesn’t change, but human society does move. It moves on a pendulum, not a straight line, though.

Jul 11, 2007 - 7:55 am 7. Anthony (Los Angeles):

This shouldn’t be surprising, coming from the Times. They tried smearing Arnie in the 2003 recall election, and they regularly ignored Davis’ bizarre behavior while in office.

Jul 11, 2007 - 8:39 am 8. Andy Freeman:

I’m confused. Why is the LAT damning Thompson for having a position that they basically like?

Jul 11, 2007 - 8:45 am 9. dclydew:

Sandy P.,

You got a whole generation or 2 who are the chosen ones.

Dunno what generations you’re talking about, but I can tell you that the generations my age and younger(32 and below) (at least in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Washington, California) seem to hold the opposite view. Most of those groups that I talk to are either rabid liberals, agnostic to the whole political process, anarchists that think they’re libertarians or Republican on the War, economics, guns and small government. There does exist a small minority of religiously active

Jul 11, 2007 - 9:16 am 10. Lem:

Advocates of abortions on demand have in ‘privacy rights’ a life saving (pun intended) querencia; they know if they leave it, it dies.

Why does privacy fall apart when argued on behalf of hard drugs?

Shouldn’t my privacy right to drugs trump any other community compelling interest?

I suspect abortion on demand is really environmentalism in disguise with a bit of elitism.

This issue to me is as (if not more) important as fighting the islamists.

Jul 11, 2007 - 9:34 am 11. David Thomson:

“I’m confused. Why is the LAT damning Thompson for having a position that they basically like?”

The very fact that he would likely appoint only strict constructionists to the U.S. Supreme Court scares them. That alone is sufficient to bring out the big guns. Also, the leftist establishment is doing its best to dissuade religious conservtives from casting their ballots. Heck, this scam operation worked spledidly in 2006. Will it work in 2008?

Jul 11, 2007 - 9:46 am 12. dclydew:

the leftist establishment is doing its best to dissuade religious conservtives from casting their ballots. Heck, this scam operation worked spledidly in 2006. Will it work in 2008?

I kind of hope so. I don’t want laws passed based on some persons interpretation of an unsubstantiated biography and old Jewish myth. I’d love to have as many “conservatives” vote as wish to… but if they’re specifically hoping to enact laws based on myth and legend, then I’d be happy if they stayed home and prayed for God to just come fix everything.

Jul 11, 2007 - 10:06 am 13. Steven Mitchell:

In recorded history, no mass movement has *ever* been stable over 3 generations, if it takes as a central part of its dogma that members of the movement should have less children. It doesn’t matter whether this is overt (celibacy) or a side effect of something else (changes in social norms that lead to less children in that demographic). You can’t recruit your way out of this dilemma, either. Recruitment can slow down the inevitable, but not stop it.

In a modern republic, such as the United States, there are of course mitigating factors. For example, the openness of the country socially leads to more chances for recruitment for the pro-abortion folks, and the nasty side of the welfare state creates a constinuency. OTOH, the nature of the electoral college and the Senate mean that long-term trends do not need to tip very far to exert a generational effect.

As for the LAT, they are merely doing what the MSM has done since the 60s. With Dems, they focus on issues that unite the Dem base and try to ignore or even sugarcoat issues that divide the Dem base. With the GOP, they do the opposite. It’s naked partisan politics, and nothing else. It would be more pernicious, if they weren’t so laughably inept at concealing what they are doing.

Jul 11, 2007 - 10:09 am 14. Steven Mitchell:

“I’d love to have as many “conservatives” vote as wish to… but if they’re specifically hoping to enact laws based on myth and legend, then I’d be happy if they stayed home and prayed for God to just come fix everything.”

That’s a trifecta. You managed to combine a gross misunderstanding of religion, politics, and society into one sentence.

Free hint: The vast majority of religious conservatives have considerably more nuanced views of the borderline between church and state than their detractors, and usually because they’ve been taught them by their ministers. This is because the “separation of church and state” was originally seen as a way to protect minority religions from the state. So called “social conservatives” are not a blob, but members of a vast array of religions, some of which are in a distinct minority. They only move as one when provoked by being confronted with something as silly as that sentence.

Jul 11, 2007 - 10:14 am 15. dclydew:

SM

Jul 11, 2007 - 10:20 am 16. newscaper:

Roger,
Kinda, sorta agree.
I think if abortion gets thrown back to the states there will only be a few where there is a complete ban. Elsewhere there will be varying degrees of limits.

I think these are the positions around which a substantial majority could solidify if the polarizing all-or-nothing stakes of Roe v Wade could be set aside:

1)On demand, no questions asked in 1st trimester (but NO tax$$!) Perhaps later until genetic and other testing can be done sooner, reliably.

2)No abortions for minors w/o parental consent, of course barring a court order for special cases — but getting in trouble with the parents for being stupid is NOT a sufficient reason for exception.

3)No partial birth abortions. 3rd trimester abortions only for [physical] danger to mother (possibly late discovered severe abnormalities).

4)of course the usual exceptions for rape/incest.

Not so sure of the level of support for these:

5) An overnight waiting period. This is met with horror by the usual suspects, yet I always respond that the majority don’t seem to have a problem with short waiting periods for gun purchases which, unlike abortion, ARE specifically mentioned in Constitution — usually met with sputtering.

6) This is more ticklish and might not fly — *spousal* notification (not permission!).
IMO married fathers should have *some* rights with respect to their children too — they sure as hell have all the responsibilities (actually married or not).
I’m old fashioned int that legal marriage should actually *mean* something (rights as well as responsibilities), same way that I think citizenship should mean something — responsibilties/duties/loyalty as well as rights/entitlements.

Jul 11, 2007 - 10:41 am 17. dclydew:

I concur with pretty much everything newscaper said.

Jul 11, 2007 - 10:44 am 18. Mike K:

“My point was that I (as in me personally) don’t want people voting on issues if their determining factor is “What does the Bible/Pope/My Preacher have to say on the matter?”"

How do you fel about Al Gore and global warming ? Seems like a religion to me.

The waiting period issue is amusing since the same people who are opposed to any such wait for an abortion, mandate a 30-day wait for sterilization. Seems counterintuitive. In the 1960s, at the County Hospital, we would get these Hispanic women coming in for their seventh or eight child. We would ask if they would like their tubes tied. It was never offered to women with fewer than four children. They agreed and post-partum tubals were common. Then the ACLU stepped in and we got the 30 day waiting period. That was the end of that. These women were never seen for care except when they were in labor. The husbands were not about to get vasectomies. Another feminist triumph.

Jul 11, 2007 - 11:24 am 19. ras:

Long-term, putting abortion back to the states will immediately make it more rare than it is now.

Wouldn’t sending abortion back to the indiv states result in it being banned in some but allowed in others, in varying degrees of course?

Presume a split, for sake of arg, of 30 against and 20 for. Wouldn’t that mean that the anti-abortion groups would then have to successfully lobby 20/20 states to change their laws, rather than lobby just 1 federal govt? It’s no big deal for a woman to cross a state line these days.

The above doesn’t address funding, of course, just the legality of the procedure, but distributing the law across multiple jurisdictions would seem to make it harder to eradicate abortions completely, an all or nothing situation.

It would seem that the anti- groups should prefer to keep abortion as a federal issue while lobbying for an updated legal definition as to the start of human life, otherwise they run into the all-or-nothing scenario.

One other thought: Terry Schiavo. Here was a situation where the definition of life was basically a definition of sentience, of what her mental capabilities were. The overwhelming majority of people seemed to agree with that part, as did the court. The arg boiled down to how sentient she was or was not.

But if sentience is how human life is to be defined, then neither conception nor birth makes sense as the cutoff point for abortion, but rather it leads to some point in between as the child develops. Back to the old “when the mother feels the baby kick” guideline?

Jul 11, 2007 - 11:55 am 20. Steven Mitchell:

“I fail to see what your talking about. My point was that I (as in me personally) don’t want people voting on issues if their determining factor is “What does the Bible/Pope/My Preacher have to say on the matter?”

And my point that such people, as a percentage, are vanishingly small in “social conservative” circles. Your statement was an implication, worthy of the LAT, that they occur in enough numbers to worry about–perhaps even represent “social conservatives” more than not? That is, it was blatant stereotyping, without any basis in facts. If you knew more “social conservatives” well, you’d know this.

Now of course, in raw numbers, even a small percentage of “social conservatives” is a lot of people. However, the actual kind of thinking that you disdain occurs far more often (as a percentage), in the greens, and other such movements. Mike’s example of Gore was dead on. There are, in my humble opinion, two reasons for this:

A. The aforementioned *focus* on the political basis for the separation of church and state. If one believes in that as a necessary and critical part of life (e.g. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s), then one tends to spend some time pondering the boundaries. On the other hand, a person that takes the simple-minded approach characterized by “keep that icky religion hidden in churches, never to see the light of day in public at all”, then one does not tend to reflect on it much.

B. The set of people that feel compelled to some kind of faith is bigger than the set of people that are overtly religious (that is, believe in something that most people recognize as “religion”). People that are overtly religious typically know that they are. They are conscious of the difference between faith and reason–or at least are often told about it by competent clergy. On the other hand, people that act on the instinct without joining an overtly relgious movement typically feel the need to cloak their faith-based beliefs in whatever system garners esteem in their day.

Or to use your example, there is an immense difference between:

R1: I’ll think about what my faith says on this issue, and then try to reconcile that with my role as a citizen, in a way that is acceptable to both, vs,

R2: The preacher said X was the devil’s work, so I’ll vote no.

Likewise:

G1: I’ll think about what my faith in the need for conservation or stewardship or “green” environmental policies, and then try to reconcile that with my role as a citizen, what science says about it, etc, in a way that is acceptable to both, vs.

G2: Algore said X was the Great Satan’s work, so I’ll vote no.

A lot of people in G2 pat themselves on the back for not being R2. If a G1 buys into that propaganda, then he just got stampeded into stupidity.

It would help a lot if the schools still taught logic as a separate discipline, instead of letting people pick up a bare smattering of it from math and science classes. Then they would know that faith and reason aren’t incompatible, but complementary. The failure to learn that leads people to exercise faith unconsciously, and then rationalize it as reason. There are high profile exceptions, but most churches teach *conscious* faith.

Jul 11, 2007 - 12:00 pm 21. Steven Mitchell:

“Wouldn’t sending abortion back to the indiv states result in it being banned in some but allowed in others, in varying degrees of course? ”

Yes.

“Presume a split, for sake of arg, of 30 against and 20 for. Wouldn’t that mean that the anti-abortion groups would then have to successfully lobby 20/20 states to change their laws, rather than lobby just 1 federal govt? It’s no big deal for a woman to cross a state line these days.”

From the anti-abortion POV, a 30/20 split of that nature would be more than they could ask. Because it won’t be that clean. Some of the 20 will have abortion on demand, and some will have various restrictions. Some of the 30 will have a “ban” with significant loopholes, that allows those abortion “enclaves” I mentioned earlier.

However, most of the permissive states *already* have defacto “abortion on demand”. For example, the laws in CT and AL aren’t really that different. CT has a third of the population, and far more publically funded abortions. Part of it is because of the culture producing doctors willing to do them, and part of it is because of the nature of the bureaucrats with say. “Health of the mother” reason can always be obtained in CT. Not true in AL.

Since most of the truly large population centers are in blue states, the short to mid-term effects will be minor. Blue states will have a mild uptick in abortions and redstates will have a mild downtick.

Since demographics favor the red states, the long-term effect, however, is that more and more people will grow up and live in areas that are more restrictive on abortion than is the case today. The demographic-bomb nature of abortion on demand enclaves will accelerate this change. Thus, less abortions.

“It would seem that the anti- groups should prefer to keep abortion as a federal issue while lobbying for an updated legal definition as to the start of human life, otherwise they run into the all-or-nothing scenario.”

There are, roughly speaking, two camps in anti-abortion groups on the best way to eliminate abortions. I’m grossly over simplifying for discussion purposes:

1. Hold out for the big ban. This group gets smaller every year. They would generally agree with your logic.

2. Do what you can, now, as we live in an imperfect world. This groups gets larger every year. They believe that the only *real* way to stop an abortion is to convince the parents of the child that they don’t want one.

The big ban guys would accuse the the incremental guys of being sell outs. And it is pretty much a given that the incremental guys are conceding, as a practical matter, that abortion will never be eliminated.

On the other hand, the incremental group will note that, as a practical matter, the big ban guys will never get what they want, either. In the meantime, a lot of abortions happen around the edges. Furthermore, the tactics of holding out for the big ban would seem to reward NARAL, loud mouth TV evangelists, as well as inciting abortion doctor murderers and the like. If you are in a “culture war”, then a few people get excited. Or, if you get down in the dirt with your opponent, you get dirty. It’s polarizing in a way that plays into MSM stereotyping of anti-abortion folks.

And then, my big beef in all this is that abortion (and racial and statist) politics have contaminated adoption way past what is necessary in our diverse civic body. The biggest way to reduce abortion, that pretty much everyone but a pro-abortion, NARAL-style zealot could accept, is to make adoption more palatable.

Jul 11, 2007 - 12:28 pm 22. ras:

Steven Mitchell,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

Jul 11, 2007 - 12:55 pm 23. stu:

Steven touches on a tragic dimension of abortion on demand when he speaks of adoption. The number of native born adoptees has dropped dramatically since Roe and now many must go to eastern Europe or the Orient to find an adoptable child. I have friends who would love to adopt impoverished orphans from Nicaragua but find the challenge of dealing with the gov’t. too daunting.

Jul 11, 2007 - 1:06 pm 24. markus:

The problem isn’t that The Lobbyist is a “phony conservative” the problem is he looks to be a bad liar, claiming he never lobbied the first Bush administration, despite a record of him being retained by for that very purpose.

Lobbying John Sununu and then denying one did it is a lie. Collecting money to lobby John Sununu and not doing it is a crime.

Better whack the person who produced this document:
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-07/31063804.pdf

Jul 11, 2007 - 1:10 pm 25. Lem:

Interesting reading on abortion. signaling subtle shifts towards the pro-life position.

Jul 11, 2007 - 2:14 pm 26. dclydew:

Steven Mitchell,

I agree on the issue of Logic, I also agree on the issue of Global Warming (or any dogmatic stance) as equally dangerous.

The difference, of course, is that science can help us figure out the actual impacts of carbon etc. and at some point, there will be a consensus one way or the other. The beginning of Life however, is a metaphysical question and will not have any sort of consensus answer.

IF Global Warming is ever supported by the facts, it seems like something that government will have to be involved in. Metaphysics, doesn’t seem like anything the government (or the voting booth) should be anywhere near.

Jul 11, 2007 - 2:28 pm 27. Mike K:

Adoption is a victim of the abortion lobby plus the meddling of social workers who want to make sure that everyone’s rights, except the child’s of course, are protected beyond reason. The result is “open adoption” with birth mothers taking the child back after a year or two and other horrors that discourage any potential adoptive parent. Black social workers, for example, are opposed to trans racial adoptions on general principles. Again, the child is ignored. China has finally tumbled to the demographic catastrophe they created with the “one child” policy and are starting to oppose adoption of female children.

Jul 11, 2007 - 2:49 pm 28. Steven Mitchell:

“Metaphysics, doesn’t seem like anything the government (or the voting booth) should be anywhere near.”

Well, that’s the rub, isn’t it. Government can’t help but be involved in metaphysics, if it touches our lives at all. Let’s reward your formulation to include a subset of metaphysics:

“Ethics, doesn’t seem like anything the government (or the voting booth) should be anywhere near.”

Like that one? I didn’t think so.

So then I think all will agree that the government is involved in some parts of metaphysics. So then the question becomes, what parts of metaphysics will the government address and how far will it address them? The constitution seemed to be pretty clear on the religious aspect: The government can’t favor an established religion and it can’t inhibit the free exercise of any religion. Despite being clear, we’ve had plenty of arguments as a nation about where the lines are drawn.

Also, I defy you to provide a case for no metaphysics in government that does not itself defend on metaphysical premises–even if only simple utilitarianism.

Or is it your position that the metaphysics was find for the founders, but off limits for the voters?

Jul 11, 2007 - 3:10 pm 29. Steven Mitchell:

Ugh, “reword”, not “reward”

Jul 11, 2007 - 3:20 pm 30. ricpic:

Murder is now a choice. What a great advance for civilization.

Jul 11, 2007 - 3:29 pm 31. markus:

Abortion rates have been more or less droppoing for the last fifteen years. More effective and easier to use contraception – particularly the kind that does not require daily attention – is in all likelihood a big part of the drop. An over-the-counter morning after pill will reduce the figure even more. But God forbid this “pro-life” president do anything to decrease the number of abortions performed.

Adoption certainly should be encouraged, but it will always take someone with a high moral calling to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term.

And with regard to Afro-Anmerican foster children and other unwanted babies, the main problem is not stigma against transracial adoptions, but unfortunately, lack of demand:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91834&page=1

Discrimination against parents who seek to adopt transracially, btw, is prohibited by the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) of 1994.

Also, Mike K, how can you possibly call China’s one-child policy a “demographic disaster”? There is an overabundance of males, and this is a problem, but it is nowhere near a disasterous problem. A disaster would have been continuning with Mao’s “China can survive nuclear war if we all have large families” policy.

Jul 11, 2007 - 5:54 pm 32. Ken:

Roger:

“It’s over – and I suspect most people already know it.”

Unfortunately, not.

I helped my girlfriend obtain an abortion at an inconvenient time for me. (Inconvenient means I was not looking forward to parental responsibility.) I was 32 years old at the time.

I am now 61 years old. I regret that decision more than any other I have made in my lifetime.

Jul 11, 2007 - 6:27 pm 33. Mike K:

“Also, Mike K, how can you possibly call China’s one-child policy a “demographic disaster”? There is an overabundance of males, and this is a problem, but it is nowhere near a disasterous problem. A disaster would have been continuning with Mao’s “China can survive nuclear war if we all have large families” policy.”

They recognize it as such. There are millions of Chinese young men who cannot find wives. There are issues about them kidnapping Thai girls for wives. Some Chinese parents evaded the rules, especially if the first child was a girl. One of my students a few years ago was from China. Her mother was a professor at Beijing University. Her father was a physicist who worked as a mechanic because he was Christian and could not get a job in his profession. She had a lot of interesting insights on China. The Chinese have realized that they have a serious problem with demographics almost as serious as the Japanese problem. You might even read read this.

Jul 11, 2007 - 8:10 pm 34. Sandy P:

Let’s see if you guys can wrap your heads around this one.

IIRC, the majority of abortions are women in their 30s and 40s.

Do you think that if the American public actually that, and that they’re using it as birth control it would really fly? At some point in time, the American public would put their foot down.

But, only an anecdote, our former neighbor worked in a fertility clinic, so I asked her 1 day what the average age was.

Women in or near their 40s who married younger men who wanted their own kids.

I agree w/newscaper, too.

As to states deciding their own laws, well, IL will codify abortion on demand – MO has said, fine, if they’re MO teenagers, go ahead, we’re not reimbursing you.

—-

As to China’s demos, it’s going to be a huge issue. – What Mike said.

Markus, where do you come up w/this stuff? I’m waiting for another health care topic to pose a question to 1 of your responses on Cuba.

Jul 11, 2007 - 10:31 pm 35. Peter Boston:

Should not the abortion issue turn on whether or not a fetus is a human being? If the gestation period is 270 days then nobody can deny the fetus is a human being on day 271. Who can say for sure that the fetus is not a human being on day 269 or day 59 or day 9 for that matter.

Wrapping abortion in a pro choice euphemism helps to avoid the central issue but if you accept the humanity of the fetus then abortion is really a kill-for-convenience issue. And what makes you so necessary for society anyway?

Jul 12, 2007 - 4:02 am 36. Mike K:

There was an article several years ago by a feminist writer whose name I can’t recall right now that posed a very good question. She asked why pro-abortion advocates were so insistent on the non-person status of the fetus. If they would only acknowledge the fact that an abortion results in the death of one individual for the benefit of another, the moral issues would be much clearer. A pregnant woman should have the right to end a pregnancy prior to viability of the fetus but she must accept that she is ending a life. The fetus is another individual, albeit one that is not yet capable of independent existence. She suggested, and I agree, that the advocates of abortion insist on the “clump of cells” argument to avoid a moral issue that makes them uncomfortable. That’s why they are so opposed to pro-life groups showing women ultrasounds of the fetus.

Hitler never visited a death camp. Stalin lived a near recluse and never saw the millions he ordered killed. It is so much easier to deal with abstractions. Reality is messy. Better to deal with euphemisms like “a clump of cells” and “pro-choice” rather than the true situation. Even being pro-choice, I am offended by women who use abortion as birth control. I have seen women in my medical career who have had seven abortions. I can certainly see why they would rather avoid the reality of what they have done.

Jul 12, 2007 - 5:55 am 37. markus:

At some point, it is a clump of cells. Maybe within forty days of conception? (The Catholic Church tolerated abortion within this period prior to 1869.)

I see 2nd and 3rd term abortions being less and less morally and legally accepted in the future. I see no similar consensus emerging on first term abortions.

Mike, I didn’t say that China doesn’t have a gender disparity problem…I just said it wasn’t as serious of a problem as the nation would have had if they hadn’t adopted the one child policy. (By the way, Chinese farmers are now allowed to have two children, not one, if the firstborn child is a daughter. And anyone is allowed to have additional children if they are willing to pay a (very large) fee.)

Jul 12, 2007 - 7:38 am 38. Mike K:

With respect to China, Mao almost solved the population problem with his five year plans and The Great Leap Forward. Most third world countries find a dropping birth rate once they get to a level of prosperity that reduces infant deaths and allows some prospect of security in old age. My great grandparents had 12 children, nine sons. That was a common practice in the 19th century, especially in farming families. The Chinese peasants considered childen to be wealth, especially sons. That is changing and would have changed without the terrible tyranny that mandated the one-child-policy. The result of Mao’s policies will be a population crash in 50 years. If central planning worked, the USSR would still be with us.

Jul 12, 2007 - 7:50 am 39. Andy Freeman:

> there will be a consensus one way or the other

Scientific consensus has a weak relationship to truth and no relationship to good policy.

Jul 12, 2007 - 9:43 am 40. newscaper:

(Sorry, but this a long one.)

Chiming in again…

Too often people’s views on what is “moral” (per their own ‘religious’ views) get tangled up with law. That is NOT to say that in advocating adoption (or repeal) of particular laws, that morality should not be a part of it. Obviously ‘American’ society requires that people, shall we say, ‘back off’ a little when it comes to agitating for others to follow their *particular* religious views — but to say that people’s own religion should be irrelevant when they think about social issues is absurd, apparently intentionally designed to make the field be ceded to the pure ’secular progressives’. Cheating IOW.

Something else about morality versus law I have noticed, with respect to the so-called ’social issues’: those farther to the [religious] right tend to feel that ‘bad’ things should be illegal, banned. Yet IMO *liberty* requires wiggle room, that some things which may be ‘bad’ that fall short of real crime (violence, fraud) should be legal (though perhaps regulated — example: alcohol)
OTOH, those farther left seem to reverse it sometimes — that which is legal is *good* and so should not just be allowed but should be protected in the private/individual sphere and indoctrinated as ‘good’ and *encouraged* (subtly or not) using the club of the public schools and other government agencies. Think ‘alternative lifestyles’ as one obvious example.

The people wih views in the middle (many things should be decriminalized but also NOT forced down people’s throats, that there is a place for things to be ‘legal’ that can/should still be discouraged, socially) tend to get screwed from both directions.

Back to abortion in particular, first, regarding adoption:
After an argument with hardcore pro-choicers on the moderate views I espoused in an earlier comment, I took it upon myself to spend an hour or so deeply browsing the Planned Parenthood website. The site purports to be balanced, in a sense, as a source for a variety of information about not just abortion and birth control, but also about the choice to *have* a pregnancy and useful medical information in that regard. But in reality the site is pro-abortion — not just in the sense of ‘abortion must remain legal’ but in actually pushing women with unwanted pregnancies *toward* getting an abortion.
TWO things hit me over the head: NOWHERE, even in the *non*-abortion parts of the health site did I *ever* find so much as a cutaway line drawing of a fetus/baby in the uterus. Can’t risk giving the marks second thoughts! FWIW I find the bait-and-switch pregnancy centers that go the gory route in trying to dissuade the woman from an abortion to be sleazy, but for PP to claim the high road while denying minimal basic facts (that the ‘fetus’ actually looks, you know, like a human being) to be utterly despicable.

I know it would be problematic insofar as abuse goes, but in allowing (as I said in the earlier post) 1st trimester ‘on demand’ I think that some required content in the pre-procedure meeting should include some very basic biology including drawings or photos — NOT the bloody scare-tactic stuff, but the simple facts.

{FWIW I find the “…stops a beating heart” to be a bit fatuous in and of itself — the same thing is true of a cow fetus.}

Bakc to the *active* “you should get an abortion” stance of the PP site… the most despicable thing of all IMO is the section devoted to adoption. If you red carefully, it is very clear that PP is *discouraging* adoption, focusing on all the difficulties. They are very clearly pushing that abortion is easier. These bastards *want* women who are considering possibly adopting to give it up and go with an abortion, I presume so as to inflate the ranks of women who’ve had an abortion and will presumably support them.

{sorry for the length of the rant, Roger}

Leaving PP behind, now on to that ‘clump of cells’…

I think there is very much something to another commenter’s remark that it is a dodge on the ethics. Furthermore, it result in some more cognitive dissonance. At least in public, even the most die-hard pro-abortion advocate will say that abortion as a primary form of birthcontrol (as opposed to the backup plan) is not a “good” thing, even though it must be legal. Many pro-choicers say this, and even sincerely believe it, but given the insistence on ‘just a clump of cells’, they have no possible basis for justifying that view. Yet they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge an embryo as having any value (other than perhaps subjectively) because then one of the foundations for their insistence on virtually no limits starts to crumble.

On a related note, many try to dismiss efforts to place some value merely as trying to [illegitimately] impose their own religious views, as some sort of First Amendment violation.

However, to act like religious (and in their view off limits) concepts like a “soul” are the only basis for saying that clump of cell have value, is ignorantly, if not dishonestly, wrong.

If you want to be a material reductionist, the DNA argument is staring you in the face. In that sense a healthy embryo is human (note I didn’t say a person). Of course, how is that different from a nail clipping? Well the embryo, or even the earlier zygote (fertilized egg) has something the nail clipping does not, the ability to grow into a complete individual organism. Better yet, it is actually already on that path, and will do so, barring complications (or intervention).

To take a more psychological turn, one might naturally be more inclined to put a premium on sentience/consciousness rather than mere genetics. Clearly the embryo (much less the zygote) is not sentient (or no more than that cow embryo), but what is the threshhold? Clearly that fetus at 8 months is pretty damned close to the finished product, and one might argue, depending on the threshhold, that it is not crossed until well *after* the baby is born. WTF? Clearly that criterion is no black-and-white guide.

Which starts to bring me to my more philosophical (not religious!) point: in conjunction with a pretty commonsense/empirical point of view, in terms of the fetus/baby in its own right, a few weeks short of birth it is viable and not innately, biologically, substantially different from the full term, born baby. We consider it a “person”, legally, just fine if it is born prematurely. The early embryo OTOH clearly has much less in common with the finished product, by any functional measure, the zygote even less. But that does NOT mean it is just a clump of cells, with no particular worth. Why? Because, ’soul’ questions aside, even though it is not a ‘person’ (I’m not using the legal sense), it is in fact a *potential* person — BTW in a way that ova and sperm are not: its already on the path, with a unique ‘identity’.

So, therefore, while it may not have ‘rights’ in any sense, that does not mean it does not have a a value, a value that law should consider protecting — however not as an absolute, but as one factor in the ethical/moral equation. The mother is after all the other part of the larger issue, and the dependence of the baby/fetus/embryo is a huge factor. Again, in the real world common sense view, the zygote does NOT have the ‘value’ as the mother, for what should be obvious reasons — hell, even the Catholic Church allows the unborn baby to be lost as a direct consequence of surgery to save the mother. It does not ultimately consider them equal in practice, here in the real world.

Yet all of that does not mean it has NO value as a sort of proto-person( the way some of the stem cell crowd would have us treat it). Clearly an embryo and fetus have even more, because they are less ‘proto’ and more ‘person’.

It’s the kind of messiness that does not perhaps lead to neat slam dunk law, but I think that;s where we end up, on a sort of spectrum of increasing “personhood” — which is ultimately the only foundation for saying that an earlier abortion is better (or, rather,less bad) than a later one. That’s again one of those views pro-choicers would tend to agree with, even as the harcore among them deny the only thing that would justify it.

I consider myself a libertarian-conservative who considers the stock libertarian pro-choice view to be flawed. They say government has no business meddling in private affairs, this is purely individual choice, yet, assuming one is not an outright literal anarchist, that same argument, taken alone, would justify ‘honor killings’, infanticide, and so forth. Of course it doesn’t in practice because even libertarians recognize a duty of government is to protect life. So the question of “when does life begin” is totally relevant, and the issue is not truly a slam dunk one, even for libertarians, no matter how much they may want it to be.

Some libertarians and Objectivists take it a step further and are at least totally honest in approach — they say that regardless of the ‘life’ of the unborn baby, the dependent, even parasitic nature of the relationship runs into the core principle of the self-ownership of the woman, which *property* right means nothing if it does not include full control of her own body. No one has a “right” to live parastically off another, whether welfare frauds or unwanted pregnancies in this view.

But this is too simplistic: the welfare recipient with their hand in your wallet is truly parasitic, but the baby/fetus has one key difference: it was the woman’s action, intentional or otherwise, that created the pregnancy. One of the other core libertarian values is responsibility for ones actions. Same reason libertarians don’t think parents can walk away from *born* children. So there IS real tension.

Finally, with regard to the general question of weighing property versus life, I’ll just point out that, in contrast to the case of abortion, the same people come down on the other side when it comes to the abolition of slavery in the 19th Century (then legally acquired property).

Jul 12, 2007 - 11:41 am 41. LarryD:

Lem yesterday pointed out a study that again supports James Taranto’s “Roe Effect”.

The dynamic is simple:

Children tend (~80%) to share their parents values.

Pro-abortion women are more likely to abort than pro-life women, or even women who aren’t either. For that, and other reasons, they are less likely to have children at all, and if they do, they’ll have fewer. (Blue states have fertility rates like Europe, well below replacement, Red states are well above.)

This means that natural selection works against pro-lifers. Evolution in action.

Jul 12, 2007 - 11:53 am 42. Lem:

We have stats on practically everything from baldness to tattoos icluding the likelihood of death as a result of “remedies” to both.

It’s my impression there is nothing like that when it comes to abortion. (mind you I have not researched it)

If abortion is only a choice why is the abortion industry so secretive?

Is Cheney a stockholder?

Where is my abortion reality show?

Jul 12, 2007 - 2:06 pm 43. Knucklehead:

…ive their private lives as if they were pro-choice – meaning that as intelligent adult males in our society that have had to deal with a “woman’s right to choose” for decades now.

I haven’t softed throught the commentary yet, but IMHO, that pretty much sums it up, Roger. As an individual I have some concerns (I take them seriously) about abortion. But none of them matter to the anything. The matter is settled except, as you point out, around the margins.

What the people want, in an overall sense reflected in law when possible, may change over time (long times for this sort of thing) but for any foreseeable future my opinion regarding abortion is meaningless. That goes for all matters about which an individual disagrees with a clear majority.

If we agree with the majority then we’re happy and feel that justice has been done. If we differ we are free to work to alter the laws or majority opinion but without the latter the former is unlikely. Democracy sucks when you disagree with the majority. Funny how that works.

Jul 12, 2007 - 2:10 pm 44. Terrye:

Roger is right.

I am childless. I spent years hoping and praying for a child that never came. I can not imagine myself ever getting an abortion.

However, I know that under certain circumstances there needs to be a legal and safe way for a woman to terminate a pregnancy. That does not mean I like it.

I think that the candidates will do the same thing with this issue, that they will do with the issue of illegal immigration, they will try to say whatever they have to do avoid getting people agitated.

I think the LAT is just trying to make trouble. With Fred Thompson’s past there will be opportunities to do that because he is not a strong social conservative. However, neither are most Americans.

Jul 12, 2007 - 2:56 pm 45. Mike K:

“Something else about morality versus law I have noticed, with respect to the so-called ’social issues’: those farther to the [religious] right tend to feel that ‘bad’ things should be illegal, banned. ”

You mean like smoking and eating junk food ? The “religious right” is mostly a myth. I know very religious people (I’m not one myself) and they have been totally defensive for decades. All they try to do is shelter their kids from the dominant culture that is making the public place a trash heap. You might read Theodore Dalrymple’s books. We are about 25 years behind England in the destruction of culture. Thanks to the “religious right” we might avoid it. The real threat to freedom is the left.

Jul 12, 2007 - 7:52 pm 46. Barry Dauphin:

Well, it takes two to tango on the abortion issue, and it is not just social conservatives who make an issue of this. The Dems regularly suggest that this isn’t settled law and that if you elect fill-in-the-blank republican, there will be back alley abortions with rusty knives performed by drunkard doctors before you can say Bushitler. So chiding one side for not accepting this as settled is only half right I think.

Jul 12, 2007 - 8:45 pm 47. Mike K:

I’m not a big fan of Ralph Nader but he did say that NOW and NARAL are purely fund raising organizations. They no longer serve any useful purpose.

Jul 12, 2007 - 10:14 pm 48. Knucklehead:

Barry,

The Dems regularly suggest that this isn’t settled law and that if you elect fill-in-the-blank republican, there will be back alley abortions with rusty knives performed by drunkard doctors before you can say Bushitler.

Just goes to show who the reactionaries really are. The “liberals” treat this issue as if it is still 1973. They haven’t moved and inch in 34 years. In them meantime methods of birth control, as well as abortion, have moved forward as have public opinions and attitudes.

Jul 13, 2007 - 10:11 am 49. dclydew:

Andy Freeman,

> there will be a consensus one way or the other

Scientific consensus has a weak relationship to truth and no relationship to good policy.

I don’t disagree… I would however, put forth that any consensus on metaphysical issues (like when does life start) will have an even weaker relationship to truth and (like much of the scientific ’standard’) no relationship to good policy.

Jul 13, 2007 - 10:47 am 50. dclydew:

“Ethics, doesn’t seem like anything the government (or the voting booth) should be anywhere near.”

Like that one? I didn’t think so.

Ermmm, I agree that ethics, in general isn’t something the government regulates (nor should it). Obviously to survive, we have basic issues that the government deals with (murder, robbery, rape). However, these issues have a direct impact on citizens that are protected by the Constitution. There is no metaphysical issue involved here.

The metaphysics of ‘when does life start’, on the other hand… is not clear cut, its not simple and it relies mostly on belief in some magic invisible guy in the sky, or the concept that humans are nothing more than some random cells mushed together (to generalize both extremes).

The state government, if it felt so inclined might make some rulings on such a thing (hopefully through a public vote)… but the Federal government should really stick to managing the economy and national security… until it becomes competent at those things, I don’t think we should be handing it anything else.

Jul 13, 2007 - 10:53 am 51. Neo:

All eyes are meanwhile on Fred Thompson, who was a supporter of campaign-finance restrictions in 2002. Mr. Keene of the ACU says he’s already been getting calls from activists asking about Mr. Thompson’s record in the Senate, and that he’s been telling them that while the overall picture was good, “it would be better if he hadn’t been a chief water-carrier for McCain-Feingold.”

This should be an awkward tact for Democrats to take.

Jul 13, 2007 - 11:37 am 52. Steven Mitchell:

“There is no metaphysical issue involved here.”

Like hell there isn’t.

“… but the Federal government should really stick to managing the economy and national security… ”

How about instead it stick to managing the things given to it by the Constitution, which did not include “managing” the economy? Of course, if it did that, it would practically be stuck making decisions that uncomfortably close to metaphysics every time it turned around–which is why politicians look desperately for ways to tinker around the edges, rather than face up to hard conflicts.

Jul 13, 2007 - 11:43 am 53. Neo:

Results in 1992 were largely in step with what study authors Christopher Blunt and Fred Steeper call the “self-interest hypothesis.” Women and men under 30 were the most ardently “pro-choice” (39 percent) and the least likely to be strongly “pro-life”( 23 percent).

Today, by contrast, among the current generation of 18- to 29-year-olds, 36 percent say they are strongly “pro-life,” while just 18 percent say they are strongly “pro-choice,” the study authors said.

The trend was particularly evident among women in that age bracket. Forty 40 percent identify themselves as strongly “pro-life” and only 20 percent as strongly “pro-choice.”

Don’t get too ahead of yourself now.

Jul 13, 2007 - 12:27 pm 54. dclydew:

“There is no metaphysical issue involved here.”

Like hell there isn’t.

Murder, Robbery and Rape are physical issues. “When does life begin” is a metaphysical issue.

“… but the Federal government should really stick to managing the economy and national security… “

How about instead it stick to managing the things given to it by the Constitution, which did not include “managing” the economy?

You’re correct, I misstated… instead of economy that should have been ‘interstate commerce’. I agree completely that the overall economy is not the governments to manage.

Jul 13, 2007 - 8:01 pm 55. Steven Mitchell:

Define “murder” without using metaphysics. Or you can go back to my previous challenge earlier in the thread. You can’t get out of this bind with semantics, either.

Jul 16, 2007 - 6:53 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: