June 05, 2005
Religion, practicality, and government control
Jack Mattel’s recent blogging introduces two dimensions for environmental viewpoints that I find quite thought-provoking - in fact, I wonder if they can be applied to other political problems as well. For instance, abortion. Are you religious, or practical? do you believe in government control, or “free-market solutions”? And have you ever heard of the “95-10 Initiative”?
This is not an attempt at satire. So far I've avoided the topic of abortion, as realistically few views are going to be changed by argument. However, Jack's "dimensions" reminded me of the 95-10 Initiative, a proposal with the goal of reducing abortions 95% in 10 years. The initiative includes a combination of ideas, like NIH-funded research on why women chose abortions, and additional funding for things like contraception, adoption tax credits, and childcare. In Jack's terms, it's based on being practical, not "religious", about how to reduce the number of abortions. And by relying on economic incentives rather than government-enforced rules, it is essentially a "market-based" approach not a regulatory one.
Jack's term "religious" is a little confusing here. Some people are opposed to abortion for sincerely held religious reasons. Of these people, many are also "religious" - perhaps I'd better say "ideological" - not only about why, but also how to stop abortion: they want to criminalize it. From a practical point of view, however, this is only a partial solution: even before Roe v Wade, there were still back alleys for the poor, and discrete trips abroad for the wealthy. And in today's world of blue states and super-saver airfares, replacing Roe v Wade with state-by-state legislation would most likely eliminate legal abortion for only the poorest women.
How well would a "market-based" approach work? Although the mostly wealthy Red Team might be skeptical, it might be quite successful. Although abortion is viewed as a moral issue, it is also an economic one. After reaching a 24-year low in 2000, abortions increased during Bush's presidency. This reversal, after a long period of declines, was probably due to the anemic economy: two-thirds of women who have abortions cite "inability to afford a child" as their primary reason, and half say they do not have a reliable mate.
No one can say if 95-10 would reduce abortion more or less than criminalizing abortion. (The 95% was chosen, btw, because about 5% of abortions are due to rape, incest, or maternal health concerns.) However, if you're going to be practical, it makes sense to pursue these initiatives anyway---even if abortions were make illegal today, then economic policies would be needed to reduce back-alley abortions. However, to my knowledge, this (Democratic) initiative has not gotten much support from across the aisle.
So, to return to Jack's dimensions: are you religious, or
practical? Do you favor market incentives to encourage people to act
responsibly, or new laws that force them to? Are you in a "different
quadrant" for abortion than for forestry (I certainly am!) and if so,
can you explain why?
Posted by William Cohen at June 5, 2005 11:09 AM
In general, I favor incentives to promote certain activities. However, let’s not forget that incentives are also usually a cost.
As to the “abortions increased during Bush’s presidency” statement, check out FactCheck for better information.
Posted by: nitpicker at June 5, 2005 11:49 AMWilliam Cohen,
At the outset of your piece you state “so far I’ve avoided the topic of abortion” yet the remainder of the missive is devoted to it. You have masked the abortion issue in your stated wonderment of whether “Jack Mattel’s recent blogging introduces two dimensions for environmental viewpoints that I find quite thought-provoking - in fact, I wonder if they can be applied to other political problems as well.”
I agree with your assessment that few views will be changed by discussion of the highly volatile abortion issue, yet you have invited the debate.
My opinion is that more abortions can be attributed to the economic standing of the participant irrespective of their religious convictions.
Sensationalizing that abortions “increased during Bush’s presidency” after having reached an all time low in the year 2000 and then stating that this was probably due to poor economic conditions and the unreliability of mates is an interesting way of conveying a “guilt by association” diversion.
You state that “two-thirds of women who have abortions cite “inability to afford a child” as their primary reason, and half say they do not have a reliable mate.”
This is interesting math. two thirds and one half would seem to equal more than the whole. Do you mean that half of the two thirds attribute the abortion to an unreliable mate?
Your piece is very thought provoking. It will be very interesting to see how it plays out.
Nice idea for an article. And thanks for the FactCheck link, nitpicker. I was wondering where that information came from. It makes some sense that abortions would rise in a period of economic downturn, but it doesn’t make much sense in light of better birth control methods.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 5, 2005 01:34 PMNo matter how you cut it abortion is wrong.
I donn’t support govenment funded abortions an I donn’t support government payoffs for not having one. The tax code allows for dedutions for dependants, and there is no need to give extra deductions not to have an abortion.
There are tax deductions for abortion? Really?
Posted by: d.a.n at June 5, 2005 02:50 PMWhat strikes me about this topic is the issue of when do we criminalize behavior — rather than trying to incentivize its opposite. To take an extreme example, none of us would (I assume) disagree with criminalizing murder, rape, etc. These are issues where there is a clear harm to an individual, and the well-being of our society would be at risk if it were allowed to continue. Interestingly, I think it could also be argued that a number of economic development programs also exist in an effort to “incentivize” alternatives to crime and encourage pro-social lifestyles.
On the other hand, there are behaviors that, while harmful to the individual involved (and arguably to society as a whole), we do not criminalize. Like eating ‘biggie sized’ value meals at various fast food establishments. Rather, we develop programs to encourage exercise, healthy living, etc. In this camp we tend to see a variety of behaviors that might be called unhealthy lifestyle choices — wherein the harm is not immediate and is viewed as inflicted upon onesself.
Then there are issues in the grey area. Like smoking in public places (where there seems to be an increasing tendency to criminalize), euthanasia (where there are some movements to de-criminalize), etc.
I would suggest that the issue of abortion (and whether people feel it should be criminalized or not) focuses largely around the notion of a “soul.” Those who believe that a cluster of several cells is already endowed with a soul by the Creator will naturally perceive the fetus as a human being — with the full moral equivalence of a child at full gestation. Those who see the issue that way naturally would call for such a behavior to be criminalized and would argue that abortion should be seen as morally equivalent (in most cases) to the murder of a child after birth. On the other hand, those who see a cluster of several cells as, well, a “cluster of cells” obviously would not create (in their mind) this type of moral equivalency, and focus on the mother’s right to control her own body.
There is a third option, of course, which is to view a cluster of cells as a nascent human being. Not the moral equivalent of a fully developed child, but as a potential human being, as something destined to become a human being.
My personal point of view on this is a practical one (and perhaps a bit cynical). I don’t think the politicians want to solve the problem. I think both parties want to have the issue so that they can play to their political bases — just like they want the minimum wage issue. But in such a polarized society, I feel we need to capitalize on areas of common ground. Everybody can agree that abortion is a bad thing, a tragedy whenever it occurs. So we can at least agree to work on minimizing its prevalance as much as possible. I can even see a pitch to conservatives where we ask them to join us in making a society where abortion clinics are closed not because abortion is criminal, but because it has become unnecessary. Ultimately, I feel this is what they (and the rest of us) would want.
Posted by: Steve Westby at June 5, 2005 02:51 PMThanx for the FactCheck pointer, nitpicker. I stand corrected on that point - although I think the broader question of how much economic conditions versus social mores affect abortion rates still merits discussion and study.
Incentives do indeed have costs. More to the point, the government offers many incentives for all sorts of behaviors, from farm programs to investment tax credits to mortgage tax deductions. New incentives would have to weighed against older ones to see if their worth while. Don’t forget, prisons are expensive too.
Steve, to clarify, I’ve mostly avoided abortion in previous postings, but obviously not this one. Also, the 2/3 and 1/2 are not mutually exclusive (obviously) - my bad for condensing the points in the article to abruptly.
The main point I’d like to pursue is the last one: following up on Jack’s remarks, when is it appropriate to use market incentives, vs government regulation and legislation? and when are we (left and right) kept from considering “practical” solutions because of an ideological commitment?
Posted by: William Cohen at June 5, 2005 02:53 PMFollowing up, from the factcheck article nitpicker quoted: From a later, less widely cited, but more broadly-based national survey, “the number of abortions decreased nationwide – by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which is the number of women having abortions relative to the total population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That’s not as rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a decrease nonetheless.” The average rate during the 1990s was 1.7%, as cited in the Houston Chronicle story.
Posted by: William Cohen at June 5, 2005 03:01 PM
No matter how you cut it abortion is wrong.
I donn’t support govenment funded abortions an I donn’t support government payoffs for not having one.
Ron, I’d claim this is an ideologically limited position. Rather than take practical steps to solve a problem, steps might have broad support - eg, disallowing insurance companies from classifying pregnancy as a “pre-existing condition” which isn’t covered if you change insurance companies - you’re considering only punitive steps, which might never get implemented at all.
Isn’t this viewpoint a lot like the tree-hugging radical environmentalists who won’t stand for any changes to their sacred earth mother - the ones that that Jack is gearing up to diss in column 3?
Posted by: William Cohen at June 5, 2005 03:17 PMWilliam
One “T” not two. The guys with two Ts make the Barbie dolls. I only wish I had a piece of that action.
Somebody beat me to the correction of abortion increasing under Bush. Do read the article, however. It shows a good case study exercise in disinformation.
I agree that the abortion debate is really religious in the sense I talked about. The religious extremists, both pro and con probably make up only about 5% of the population, but they run the rest of us into the ground.
Roe should be overturned because it was bad law, not because of what it does. After that the people, through their representatives, can decide what laws we should have. I suspect they would vary among the states. There would be some restrictions, but abortion would remain legal in most places. In short, it would represent what the 95% of us think. As Bill Clinton put it – abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
And yes, I diss anyone who won’t act reasonably. Keep your ideology. Let it inform your decisions, but be practical when dealing with others and generally trust that your fellow citizens are also trying to make good decisions.
Posted by: Jack at June 5, 2005 03:31 PMRoe should be overturned because it was bad law, not because of what it does.
Why exactly do you consider it bad law?
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 5, 2005 04:36 PMReed
I don’t think that we can find the right of privacy as applied in Roe in the Constitution. It is not necessarily a bad right and we could certainly pass a law or amendment to cover it, but we don’t have one now. I believe the Supremes erred in overriding elected officials in making this decision.
Beyond that, it froze in time abortion law. Medical advances have made it possible for very young babies to survive. We are now in the difficult position of knowing that we are killing babies that would indeed survive and that if the baby were wanted doctors would be obligated to save. Birth control methods and availability have also improved. We even have those mornings after pills (I disagree that this is a form of abortion). I would still advocate abortion in the case of extreme handicaps of retardation, but abortion is quickly becoming almost unnecessary. It has become more of a convenience or afterthought.
Finally, the Roe decision energized the pro-life movement. Had it gone through the legislatures, it would have the obvious consent of the governed. Opponents would have less of a hook. Roe has been a poison in our body politic.
I wonder what effect Clinton had on the decline of abortion?
After all he taught school children that “oral” wasn’t sex.
He wanted a legacy, I guess that can be his.
Posted by: Beagle at June 5, 2005 05:51 PMWilliam Cohen wrote :
“The abortion rate , which is the number of women having abortions relative to the total population” (excerpt from a sentence).
In my opinion the abortion rate % would be more meaningful if it were the result of calculating actual abortions relative to the number of births or, the number of pregnancies. I fail to see the value of an abortion rate calculated by using the total population. Other than doing so will necessarily result in a much lower percentage.
Your piece has done exactly what it was designed to do, start an abortion debate on all fronts. Religious, economic, political, legislative and, interpretation of when “life” begins.
Posted by: steve smith at June 5, 2005 06:28 PMAlthough I fall very much on the pro-choice side of things, Jack is correct in stating “Beyond that, it froze in time abortion law.” Medical advances have made the need for abortion decrease considerably, at least from a “health of the mother” perspective as well as the fact that we can keep a fetus alive much earlier than we could when Roe was handed down. However, there is still a legitimate argument in the privacy rights of the mother during the first trimester (others have and can make the argument far better than I). Moreover, as has been pointed out, the economic considerations can be and often are the overriding factor in the decision to abort. I don’t believe in abortion merely to retain the right, but I do think that taking the position of crmininalizing abortion is representative of what is the worst in us, rather than what is enlightened in us.
Posted by: ant at June 5, 2005 06:44 PMSteve Westby wrote:
What strikes me about this topic is the issue of when do we criminalize behavior — rather than trying to incentivize its opposite.
Yes, abortion is sad, but criminalizing it will do more harm than good.
Besides, we can’t run around watching every woman to make sure they don’t have an abortion, or don’t go outside the country to have it, or whatever. If a women wants an abortion, she can get it, and no one will probably ever know it. You can legislate laws for everything. Especially about how peoples bodies shall be used.
It is a serious issue, but we shouldn’t criminalize women for having abortions. We can’t just hypocritically make laws that ban it and leave women to carry the unfair burden that nature has saddled them with. I suspect many women are very indignant and angered by that very thing. It happens all the time. We should provide women with some potential alternatives, so that they don’t feel like that’s their only option. Isn’t it hypocritical to simply illegalize it, and not be willing to provide realistic options? Why aren’t people (especially the anti-abortionists) providing more options for those women? Are we just a bunch of hypocrites? How many of us are willing to pay what it takes to pay for the mother to live and carry the baby to term, and adopt their babies? Yeah….that’s the rub. It’s someone else’s responsibility. Some politicians want to put that on the backs of the tax payers. That’s many politicians answer to everything. Some politicians really think we can all live at the expense of everybody else, or just want to perpetuate the myth so they can saddle the tax payers with the burden.
To be honest, that’s a tax burden I wouldn’t mind. There would actually be plenty of money for it, if government could cut some waste and pork. Perhaps, Congress and the Executive Branch could even take a salary cut. Hmmm…come to think of it, has anyone in government ever got a salary cut? Oh…that’s right. The troops got a salary cut didn’t they? About the same time Congress got a raise? Folks, government is failing us.
We shouldn’t advocate a business in which mothers make a profit. That doesn’t seem likely anyway, since 9 months of pregnancy is an awful high price to pay just for room and board, and it wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) should provide an incentive to have repeat pregnancies. But, perhaps we should provide homes and aid to help carry their babies to term. And if they decide to keep them, then great! But, afterall, isn’t that what welfare is supposed to be for? The truly needy? Now, that doesn’t mean we need to return to the times when people lived indefinitely on welfare. There needs to be limits on the time and amounts available. We can’t make it profitable.
Especially, since I’m male, and I don’t have to carry it for nine months.
Why don’t we ask some women about this? Don’t they have a say in it? It’s really their choice, whether anyone likes it or not.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 5, 2005 06:46 PMI would still advocate abortion in the case of extreme handicaps of retardation, but abortion is quickly becoming almost unnecessary. It has become more of a convenience or afterthought.
I would love to know where you get this information. And how is abortion for “extreme handicaps” any more moral than any other?
If this is such a religious issue, perhaps those religious folks need to keep in mind that God gave us all the power of choice (and this IS a moral choice, since doctors cannot agree on when life begins), and He is to be the final judgement, not us. I think He and Jesus know, and society should know by now that you can’t regulate religious beliefs. Some things need to be left between the individual and their creator.
The best doctors cannot agree on when life begins, and God hasn’t let anyone in on the secret.
Education and support are the keys.
Posted by: Ruth at June 5, 2005 06:55 PMWe even have those mornings after pills
Jack,
I agree that these are not abortion. I don’t know why the Christian Community is not advocating for their use and is in fact opposing to their use. Wouldn’t more widespread use of these medicines decrease abortions? All they do, I think, is prevent the zygote from implanting itself in the uterus, it is just removed like every other ovum before it during a woman’s period.
Posted by: Warren P at June 5, 2005 07:02 PMBeagle said: “I wonder what effect Clinton had on the decline of abortion?
After all he taught school children that “oral” wasn’t sex.”
And therein lies the rub. If more teenagers/the poor/blacks…etc would engage more often in the alternatives rather than plain ol’ vanilla sex, I betcha there’ll be a drastic reduction in abortions. I just don’t think pro-lifers would go for this though.
Posted by: JennyW at June 5, 2005 07:05 PMI don’t know why the Christian Community is not advocating for their use and is in fact opposing to their use. Wouldn’t more widespread use of these medicines decrease abortions?
The “Christian Community” is too busy having their pharmacists refuse to fill regular birth control prescriptions. Never mind the morning after pill. Remember, sex is bad, immoral, and only for married folks, who shouldn’t use birth control either.
Posted by: Ruth at June 5, 2005 07:16 PMWith the world full of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, it is the age old Catholic tactic, go forth and multiply as many little Christians as humanly possible. The Pill was/is a major obstacle in this war for religious numerical superiority and is opposed today for the very same reasons it was opposed to in the early 60’s.
The intercooperation of Jews and all the denominations of Christianity never warmed as they did from the ‘60’s to today in response to the that one technological revolution called the Pill.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 5, 2005 07:37 PMWow, it never occurred to me that some anti-abortionists (and I’m not condemning anti-abortionists) were really worried about being out-numbered. Perhaps I’m naive.
However, I prefer to avoid pointing-out or denigrating things (e.g. religions, parties, party affiliations, petty partisan politics and bickering, religion, race, gender, wealth, age, nationality, level of education, etc.) that are cleverly used and abused to distract us from the real problem, which are some people that try to control others.
These and other things don’t harm people:
__________________________________
(01) Religions
(02) Race
(03) Color
(04) Level of Wealth
(05) Political Parties
(06) Level of Education
(07) Gender
(08) Nationality
(09) Age
(10) Heritage/Class
__________________________________
The things above harm no one.
People that seek to control others, use and abuse the things above to seduce and distract, harm other people.
What will they use next?
Abortion?
jack, ant,
RoevWade didn’t freeze in time the abortion law. It states that when the fetus is “viable” the states can ban abortion (with the exception of the health of the mother) The judges deliberately said that they understood that “viability” would change with the advancement of medical technology. And that this was a deliberate choice, so that the law would not be frozen in time.
Posted by: Julia at June 5, 2005 08:38 PMThank you, Julia, for that correction. I think I just found the section you refer to in the Roe decision. I’ll post it here for this thread’s reference.
‘With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.’
Posted by: ant at June 5, 2005 09:04 PMIt’s interesting how theories about why people behave how they do, or believe what they do, are proposed and accepted as fact with no basis. For example,
With the world full of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, it is the age old Catholic tactic, go forth and multiply as many little Christians as humanly possible.
I would bet any amount of money that if you were able to be a fly on the wall in any meeting of the hierarchy of the catholic church, you would never hear that sentiment expressed. Nor would you ever hear any except the most paranoid, abnormal member of that church feel that they have to keep reproducing to outdo the muslims.
I’ve written pages of arguments about abortion on this blog, and have heard repeatedly that anyone who favors limiting abortion hates women and just wants to keep them in the kitchen. Again, this is another nasty thing to believe to lessen your enemies in your eyes, but something with absolutely no truth in it, at least for anyone I know.
That being said, the 95-10 proposal looks fantastic. Thank you for the link; now I can direct people there who can’t understand why I usually vote Democrat. I think it’s easy to think about criminalizing abortion until you really think about the people who would be going to jail—mostly abandoned poor women (50% with an unreliable partner), who have already had to make a terrible decision.
I think it’s really time to put up or shut up about abortion. If you care enough about these aborted children to make that the basis of your vote, you should be willing to spend a tiny bit of money to prevent abortions from being necessary. Unless, of course a person just likes feeling self-rightous, but doesn’t really want to do anything to help the situation.
Posted by: brian poole at June 5, 2005 10:28 PMBrian said:
I’ve written pages of arguments about abortion on this blog, and have heard repeatedly that anyone who favors limiting abortion hates women and just wants to keep them in the kitchen. Again, this is another nasty thing to believe to lessen your enemies in your eyes, but something with absolutely no truth in it, at least for anyone I know.
Then you never met my father. Or most of the males I grew up with in Detroit or Saginaw. Nor, apparently have you read much about life in the Applachian mountains, or inner city ghettos a few decades ago. Yes, things are not so obvious today. We have all developed a sense of political correctness. Even many in the KKK don’t refer to blacks as Niggers in any public venue. But their values haven’t changed much, and thus neither has their behavior, fears, and intolerances.
We moved from having hosts of children in an agrarian society as a means of cost efficient labor, to fatherless families where having any children costs too much for some deadbeat dads and child support dodgers. Children are no longer an asset, they are a liability, which explains in great part why Social Security has so few workers supporting so many retirees. The current generations are not valuing large families like current retirees did.
I was being facetious when I implied Christians in general were trying to create their own population explosion to overwhelm other religious groups. But, the Catholic Church did in fact, have a procreation policy for maximum family sizes up to just a few decades ago.
But there is no question that Fundamentalist Right-Wing Evangelical Christians (FRECs) are in fact, engaged in a multi-pronged strategy to increase not only their own numbers through evangelizing and conversions, but the American population in general. This is indisputable because the direct consequence of their values and proposed legislation and policies would be significant increases in population growth.
Overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw all abortions, and the population would grow. Eliminate contraception, and the population would grow. Many FREC’s would argue that population growth is not the goal, respect for life is. But, consequences are consequences. You can shoot at a person to scare them off, but, if the bullet kills them, they are still just as dead. The results are the same.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 6, 2005 12:40 AMDavid,
But there is no question that Fundamentalist Right-Wing Evangelical Christians (FRECs) are in fact, engaged in a multi-pronged strategy to increase not only their own numbers through evangelizing and conversions, but the American population in general. This is indisputable because the direct consequence of their values and proposed legislation and policies would be significant increases in population growth.
All consequences of an action are not the motivation for the action itself. Even if a “side effect” is considered desirable, it is not necessarily the motivating factor. People do, after all, take asprin for headaches even if they aren’t worried about heart attacks. I bet most evangelicals are trying to convert people because they think they have the truth, and are against birth control because they think it’s wrong. Assigning sinister motivations without evidence is wrong.
I’m not saying that there are not men who want to control women, or who are mysogenistic in a variety of ways. I think that there is probably a pretty large percentage of such men. However, it is a massive disconnect to say that because a certain person is controlling and mysogenistic, in general, they are against abortions for that reason. You talk about deadbeat dads; I would bet there are as many (or more) mysogenistic men who pressure women to have abortions so they don’t have to deal with or pay for children as there are that don’t want women to have abortions so they will have to stay home.
By your logic in this post, everyone who is pro-choice revels in the death of every fetus, and are pro-abortion because they hate children. After all, fetal death and fewer children are the consequences of legalized abortion, and consequences are consequences, right?
Posted by: brian poole at June 6, 2005 01:24 AMI just had the weirdest thought… would the religious anti-abortionists be comfortable with the embryos being removed at an early stage of pregnancy and frozen, the way they are for in-vitro fertilization, but with no actual commitment to unfreezing and retrieving them? If they would, would this similarly be acceptable at later stages, if cryogenics advanced to the point where the same could be done with a whole organism (fetus) rather than simple tissues?
It’s skating through on a technicality, I realize, but I have yet to hear any anti-abortionist complain about the freezing of embryos for in-vitro fertilization, or even the disposing of the spare frozen embryos so long as they’re not used for stem cell research, and it made me wonder.
Posted by: Jarin at June 6, 2005 02:58 AMYes, Brain, you got it, nail on the head. That is right. Now, should women go to prison for exercising control over their choice to become a mother or not? Is it murder of a human being or a responsible decision? Should anyone citizen make such decisions for another citizen (minors excluded)? Should any one citizen make this decision for a group of other citizens? Should a minority make such decisions for the majority. Should the majority make such decisions for a minority?
Is motive important in answering these questions? Can motive even be answered by others. See, now we are at the crux of the debate. Ascribing motives to others acts or intentions for political purposes is the wrong debate. It gets no one any closer to a resolution, since ascribing motives can be any fictional fantasy an adversary can dream up and make palatable for propaganda.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 6, 2005 03:28 AMThis is what you get when Judges create things out of whole cloth.
Moral issue absolutely. sitting justices by design where supposed to interpret the law not create it. That is why social and moral isuues are to be fought out by the legislature because they represent the social and moral backbone of this country and can be held accountable for there actions. This was pushed on a country that did not believe in it then and still doesn’t now.
Moreover now with technology we know better than before.
Judges interpret law and the constitution and I can’t find a single word in the constitution about abortion. This is the reason the left is fighting for there life on the Supreme Court Nominations because it is the only way they can force there ideology onto the public is thru the courts. Why do you think you are losing elections? Could it possibly be that after twenty, thirty , forty years of this thay John Q.Public realizes this crap. Americans are not as dumb as you think. I haven’t seen a Elected Supreme Court Justice yet. They don’t have the voice of the American People at Heart. They are appointed to uphold the constitution and interpret the law not to care about the American peoples heart. They never where given the power to create law. Yet we now have to take that power back because for forty years Supreme Court Justices had willing accomplisses in the house and Senate. They let this happen by not exerting the seperation of powers that each branch has and by doing this they became willing accomplisses to the deception of a country. Now we reap this foolishness. Now they see that coming to an end and are scared to death of becoming extinct as a party. The Sole power to create Law is in the hands of the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH not the JUDICIAL branch of government. That is the bottom line why there is phony bologna garbage over the filibuster. It wasn’t created for use on judges it was designed to be used over Bills. Show me one time it was used and a compromised was not reached by the entire body of the Senate. Because each time it was used was because of a Bill not a nomination how can you compromise on a nomination it either up or down next. This has all been puffery by the Senate on a grand scale and it is absurd. It shows the weakness of this body of government because neither side has the BALLS to handle the truth correctly. I hope there is a pac forming for those fourteen so-called moderates because they have been made fools of. Please keep trying to use the courts to force your agenda down our throats you make it so easy. You created this bitterly devisive topic, other countries it’s not an issue because there legislative bodies handled it. The should have thrown it back down and said this is for the legislature, why do other peoples in the world think we are weak. takes some guesses and wonder why!
Posted by: Chris at June 6, 2005 07:36 AMSo which way do you want it you want to put people in jail for killing a fetus yet when it’s an abortion you call it ok? Seems a bit hypocritical. And if you wait to long to have that abortion you are breaking the law.
JUST KOOKY!
Posted by: Chris at June 6, 2005 07:42 AMJarin - there could be a whole blog about IVF and abortion. I predict that “kooky” will be the only reaction you’ll ever get. I believe that by many, at least, abortion is viewed as a safety net that encourages “irresponsible” behavior, and that’s a big part of the motivation for wanting to ban it - rather than simply discourage it. But IVF is viewed as a means to “responsible” behavior, ie, child-rearing. So people have very different emotional reactions, even though they both have similar moral implications.
Posted by: William Cohen at June 6, 2005 09:12 AMWilliam, I just want to hit that FactCheck article again, it sounds like most people didn’t get it: While the downward trend in abortions continued, it only went down at half the rate during Bush’s presidency.
Turn that around, and you can see that the abortion rate was going down twice as fast under Clinton. So William’s basic premise is still valid.
And the whole ideology versus practical solution always stumped me. If the goal is to reduce abortions, just outlawing them isn’t going to have a significant effect.
Democrats have some really good ideas on this. They even introduced some legislation in the Senate with the goal of making abortion unnecessary (S.20). I have yet to see a Republican offer an effective solution to this problem.
Regarding David’s posts about implicit discrimination: My wife’s friend got her a Rosie the Riveter matching apron and oven mitt. The irony had me rolling on the floor laughing.
I have not seen any discussion regarding the rights of the male in the abortion issue. I am not speaking of a rapist, incestuous situation, sperm donor, etc. I am referring to the male partner of the woman who has become pregnant as a result of a traditional sexual relationship and suddenly for some reason now wishes to terminate that pregnancy. I believe that this question applies more to the pro-choice advocates.
Do we ignore the rights of fatherhood in the entire abortion debate.
Posted by: steve smith at June 6, 2005 09:51 AMSince when was it a right to have a baby?
Posted by: American Pundit at June 6, 2005 11:00 AMOnce again we have the issue that people believe women are being forced into motherhood if an abortion is not readily available! Let us pretend abortions never existed…….UNPROTECTED SEX is what would be to blame for motherhood or better yet the woman herself.
It is a slap in the face to many a woman who escaped an unplanned pregnancy (myself included) to say that abortion is the only solution to save these women!
I am not anti-abortion but I do believe it needs to be severly regulated. Why does everything have to be one size fits all? If you’re raped…YES, health issues….YES! Stupid repeat offender…….HELL NO!
Many children fear what their parents will do or think only to find out that their parents support them no matter what. The issue of not informing their parents is frightening, especially when a minor cannot even admit themselves into a regular hospital!
My personal opinion is that abortions do nothing to empower women, taking initiative in respecting your body is what empowers women, and little girls wearing jelly bracelets that announce their sexual deeds at school is a sad commentary of where society has gone!
Posted by: Traci at June 6, 2005 11:22 AMAmerican Pundit,
“Since when was it a right to have a baby?”
Is this a trick question? Are you saying that two consenting adults who agree that having children is something that they want to do, that they do not have the right to do so.?
Unless you are going to produce some obscure tidbit that distorts the intent of my statement I suggest that you order a double the next time the bartender comes around.
Posted by: steve smith at June 6, 2005 11:30 AMI am referring to the male partner of the woman who has become pregnant as a result of a traditional sexual relationship and suddenly for some reason now wishes to terminate that pregnancy.
Steve, My sense is that while the occasional man may wants his partner to carry the baby to term against her wishes, it more often goes in the opposite direction. A woman asks a man if he’ll be there to support her and the child, and he says he’s not ready or he just takes off. There being few shotgun weddings anymore, many women feel an abortion is their only choice in these circumstances. Maybe there ought to be a law saying, “If you get a woman pregnant, and she wants to marry, then you must marry her.” Shotgun law. But I’m doubtful it’ll get through Congress anytime soon.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 6, 2005 11:50 AMReed,
What do you think the quality of the marraige would be for a Shotgun marraige, Especially if either person didn’t want to be married?
Posted by: SirisC at June 6, 2005 12:00 PMSirisC:
“What do you think the quality of the marraige would be for a Shotgun marraige, Especially if either person didn’t want to be married?”
Probably not much different than it is now (chuckle, chuckle).
Chris,
What is also kooky is that a person who is 17 years and 364 days old is not responsible enough to make the decision to risk their life in a war, but a person who is exactly 18 years old is. A person who is 20 years and 364 days old is not old enough to be responsible enough with alcohol, but a person who is exactly 21 years old is! How ridiculous is that? It’s illegal to leave a one year old in your car, but not a 13 year old!
What’s the difference between a one year old and a 13 year old?
We set legal limits on alcohol consumption according to the best of our ability. There was no complaint about a “slippery slope”. With driver’s licenses, we all know that a 20 year old is old enough to figure it out, and a 9 year old is always going to be too young. It’s just finagling that number in the middle that’s the problem.
Laws are different for people as their bodies and their brains change. It may be weird. But it works.
Posted by: Julia at June 6, 2005 03:04 PMReed~
So now were going to force men into fatherhood?
I was under the impression that the thought process among this blog was that abortion was a way to “save” women from motherhood? A little one sided isn’t it? Sounds to me like no one wins in the abortion dispute…everyone suffers.(By the way as a woman, it’s real easy to tell a family man from a non- family man, all you have to do is talk to them BEFORE you sleep with them)!
So now were going to force men into fatherhood?
Traci,
Actually, if the government makes women carry a fertilized egg to full term, the government is already forcing men into fatherhood. Or, depending on your belief system, the man is a father from conception.
So, why not go full bore? Let us force people into marriage as well. I say let’s keep pushing for government interference in our private lives until we all scream “Uncle Sam!!!”
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 6, 2005 04:19 PMWhat do you think the quality of the marraige would be for a Shotgun marraige, Especially if either person didn’t want to be married?
Poor indeed, SirisC. Sort of like the quality of motherhood and childhood once a woman is forced into having a child.
Sorry, I wasn’t being serious about the Shotgun Law. I hate abortion for a lot of different reasons but I don’t think it’s the government’s job to force women to carry a recently fertilized egg to its full term unless they wish to. There are better alternatives in a lot of cases and we should, on the right and left, be working together on them.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 6, 2005 04:32 PMAP,
My wife’s friend got her a Rosie the Riveter matching apron and oven mitt. The irony had me rolling on the floor laughing.
No, no, they were really for you, see? That way, when you’re in the kitchen baking muffins you can remember that your wife is now the one “bringing home the bacon.”
But in all seriousness, the person who made those should be shot.
Posted by: Zeek at June 6, 2005 05:02 PMI don’t think anyone would actually advocate legislation to “force people into motherhood or fatherhood”.
In my view abortion is not a topic, even when discussed by intelligent, well informed people with the inclusion of the religious and political arguments, will produce an answer or solution acceptable to the majority of the pro and con positions.
While the economic impact of motherhood in the absence of a father has been briefly mentioned I missed any discussion pertaining to economic sanctions levied on the “missing father”. Yes, I know that “deadbeat dads” owing fortunes in child support are difficult to find and prosecute but, if the deadbeats and other men who father children with no intention of actively playing that role could be held financially responsible we could see a positive economic impact.
This argument will result in the response that if that were the case there would be less dilligence on the part of some women to take or insist upon birth control measures. Their penalty for not doing so is the same situation they are in at present. Men however might be more likely to act more responsibly with respect to birth control.
Posted by: steve smith at June 6, 2005 05:10 PMif the deadbeats and other men who father children with no intention of actively playing that role could be held financially responsible we could see a positive economic impact
Steve, To my knowledge, this already occurs, though it generally requires mothers to hire legal help. Are you suggesting that the government fund paternity suits?
Posted by: Reed Sanders at June 6, 2005 05:37 PMZeek: My mother was welder during the war, maybe not exactly a Rosie the Riveter, but they should all be proud.
Traci: Hard for me as a woman to understand how you say some of the things you do. Some of the best scammers in the world could have you convinced in a heartbeat I suspect. The outcome would be the same when they abandoned you.
I don’t think this argument is about “saving” women, it’s allowing them a choice over thier own body. How is it up to you or anyone but the woman, her doctor and her conscience to make that kind of major health choice for anyone? This is amazing to me.
Getting men to “pay” for their fatherhood is a long and ongoing issue. Many of the problems of deadbeat dads isn’t refusal to pay, remember, you can’t get blood out of a stone. They must have the money to begin with.
This argument will result in the response that if that were the case there would be less dilligence on the part of some women to take or insist upon birth control measures. Their penalty for not doing so is the same situation they are in at present. Men however might be more likely to act more responsibly with respect to birth control.This boggles my mind too much to comment except to say that it takes two, so both should be responsible for the use of some form of birth control. Condoms are readily available to men without a prescription or the attendant health risks of taking the hormones in birth control pills. If they are so available, and probably much cheaper than birth control pills, why are so many women getting pregnant to want abortions in the first place??
Are the folks posting here aware that some women can’t take birth control? That some are allergic to condoms and spermicide? That there are probably other reasons for not using the so available birth control that is being claimed to be so readily available?
And before you all interpret what I have said, please be aware that I am a Christian, am against abortion but pro-choice.
Posted by: Ruth at June 6, 2005 07:52 PMI don’t think this argument is about “saving” women, it’s allowing them a choice over thier own body. How is it up to you or anyone but the woman, her doctor and her conscience to make that kind of major health choice for anyone? This is amazing to me.
Excellent post, Ruth. Nobody likes abortion, but the government should not force an individual into maternity against their wishes.
No, no, they were really for you, see? That way, when you’re in the kitchen baking muffins you can remember that your wife is now the one “bringing home the bacon.”
LOL!
Ruth~
“Traci: Hard for me as a woman to understand how you say some of the things you do. Some of the best scammers in the world could have you convinced in a heartbeat I suspect. The outcome would be the same when they abandoned you.”
I believe you already know that I feel the same about your comments!
My life has not been lived perfectly, but I believe (TRULY BELIEVE) in personal responsibility. I take full responsibility for every decision I make in my life!(if you are scammed that is still your fault for not digging deep enough, that is not to say that I am not compassionate, I can “feel” for the person and acknowledge their or my mistakes all at the same time)!
Also, lets not be foolish enough to now refer to abortions as “health choices”! I hate PC terms that make people feel better about the literal meaning of the action!
“Are the folks posting here aware that some women can’t take birth control? That some are allergic to condoms and spermicide? That there are probably other reasons for not using the so available birth control that is being claimed to be so readily available?”
Are you seriously kidding me with this crap????
Everyone has their own limitations….they are not get out of jail free cards!
but I believe (TRULY BELIEVE) in personal responsibility. I take full responsibility for every decision I make in my life!
And yet you’d deny other women the freedom to take responsibility for theirs. Don’t you think that’s a little hypocritical?
Abortion is sad, but there seems no way to reduce or eliminate abortion, until society provides better options.
Abortion is really a symptom of a selfish and cruel society, that too easily and hypocritically sits in judgement of women, without doing more to create a society where abortion is unthinkable.
I think the best we can do here is to agree to disagree on the procedure and move on to the common ground of doing everything we can to reduce the number of abortions that will occur.
Let’s make it so the procedure is unneccesary and women won’t be faced with this decision.
The debate that follows will involve more social/moral sub-debates about public funding of birth control, public funding of adoption services, counseling options, adoption perameters (ie, gay adoption, adoption by convicted felons, etc.).
Folks, there are still plenty of topics to argue about. Let’s agree on the common ground of finding legitimate ways of reducing the necessity/demand for abortions first, then maybe we can actually get something done.
BTW, I fall in the camp of prolife, but I do not believe in legislating mandatory parenthood.
Posted by: Chi Chi at June 7, 2005 11:22 AMAP~
I have never stated that I want to ban abortion. I simply hate all the excuses as to why it’s important, should be, necessary…etc.
It’s the same problem I have with other issues…seatbelt laws, drugs, and any other issue that the govt. wants me to truly believe that their sitting around ringing their hands worrying about poeople…………BULLSHIT, its about revenue call a spade a spade and I will go, “Alrighty then at least their honest”!
Posted by: Traci at June 7, 2005 11:25 AMYes, it is amazing how much bogus, righteous, hypocritical hand-wringing takes place on moral issues in which the solution is to simply make or change a law, and yet, no meaningful work is done to implement good, proposed, and/or acceptable solutions for our many pressing problems.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 7, 2005 11:36 AMHey d.a.n.:
Thank you for the link posted above.
As always,
wayne
Your welcome. Please let me know what you think of those solutions, and any improvements you can think of.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 7, 2005 03:06 PMI have never stated that I want to ban abortion.
Sorry, Traci. But you said, “I am not anti-abortion but I do believe it needs to be severly regulated.” I’m not exactly sure what that means. Would women have to get a government permit? Like a fishing license?
Let’s agree on the common ground of finding legitimate ways of reducing the necessity/demand for abortions first, then maybe we can actually get something done.
Haha! Then the GOP would lose a huge wedge issue, Chi Chi. There’s nothing more effective for Republicans than to say that Democrats are baby killers (and euthenizers, but that’s a different topic). That was the sermon at a mass I attended in Georgia right before the election, and even here on Watchblog there was a Republican operative pretending to be two women having a dialogue in which the “Republican woman” presents evidence that Democrats are baby killers, and the “Democratic woman” is appalled and announces that she can no longer support the Democratic Party.
If abortion were to become unnecessary, it would be a huge blow to Republican Party strategists. Creepy, but true.
Posted by: American Pundit at June 7, 2005 09:40 PMTrace wrote: Let’s agree on the common ground of finding legitimate ways of reducing the necessity/demand for abortions first, then maybe we can actually get something done.
Yes. Abortion is sad, but lets find solutions, instead of criminalizing it, or declaring condemnations of it to turn it into a vulgar political football. Especially, since abortion is really a symptom of a selfish and cruel society, that too easily and hypocritically sits in judgment of women, without doing more to create a society where abortion is unthinkable. Let us all find ways to make it unnecessary. We must not criminalize it. That will do more harm than good.
Abortion is a very contentious, and society has a long ways to go toward solving this problem. Simply making or changing laws will not resolve the problem. Unless we all work a lot harder to make this world a better place, who, of sound mind and body, would want to bring any child into this world?
Let’s move on to other very pressing problems. Then, maybe, the issue of abortion may someday become less of an issue.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 7, 2005 10:21 PMIf I understand most folks that have posted…no one wants to criminalize abortion, including Traci. I think her point is that it should not be a right…not, illegal, but not a right either.
I am against abortion but also against passing some federal law banning it.
Posted by: Tom L at June 8, 2005 12:08 AMAP:
I wrote:
“Let’s agree on the common ground of finding legitimate ways of reducing the necessity/demand for abortions first, then maybe we can actually get something done.”
You wrote:
“Haha! Then the GOP would lose a huge wedge issue, Chi Chi.”
You are correct again. Wedge issues are the ones that keep us (meaning the American people) from seeing anything done in Congress. In this case, the Rs want to see this perpetuated so it can distract us from seeing what else is happening in DC. I also think there are some fringe lib groups that want to see this perpetuated because this issue is how they make their living (ie, lobbyists, heads of fringe prochoice groups, etc.). Let’s face it. Taking an extreme stand on abortion can get you alot of press (con or lib) at election time.
The truth be told, I think most of us are in the middle (non-extremists from either side)—meaning don’t make abortion illegal, but do everything you can to make it unnecessary.
Unfortunately, I think the only things we will see done on abortion in the near future will be just more window dressing sprinkled with plenty of straw men arguements.
Posted by: Chi Chi at June 8, 2005 09:11 AMd.a.n.~
“Trace wrote: Let’s agree on the common ground of finding legitimate ways of reducing the necessity/demand for abortions first, then maybe we can actually get something done.”
No, I didn’t write that. AP switched to a quote from ChiChi.
O.K. here’s the deal:
I AM NOT anti-abortion, I believe that until society protects already born children from further injustices it may be a better solution.(I use that very loosely mind you, only because I believe a soul lost so soon will get another chance).
I just do not think it should be in any way shape or form glorified!
I am a single mother, so I realize that life does not always go as planned. But it amazes me in this PC society that we live in that people feel they should give me props, “Congratulations, you left your child fatherless!!!!” You see them on the talk shows also……various woman: “I’m a single mother”…..audience: cheers and applaudes!!!! I do not feel as though I (or anyone else) should be spat upon, but congratulations are definately not in order!!
No, I didn’t write that. AP switched to a quote from ChiChi.Ahhh…I see what you mean. My bad. My apologies to Traci and ChiChi.
At any rate, I agree with you both. We need better solutions to discourage abortion. Changing the law will not solve the real problem.
Posted by: d.a.n at June 8, 2005 02:51 PMDo you believe in ghosts?
I am pretty much a democrat/liberal.I highly disagree with just about anything republican/conservative/religiuos.Not to say I don’t believe in God.But I never go to church because I don’t believe so many things in the Bible.I believe in evolution,all that.
I had an abortion years ago.I figured, why bring another child into this world?There’s too many people already.
A few years later i started getting these dreams. A little girl was standing in a feild of flowers and asking,”remember me Mom?The one you didn’t want?” I would wake up and think,”what the hell?”
After awhile the dreams got more frequent. She was about the age she would have been if she was living.She had ash blonde hair and it was always the same girl.
I began where I realized I was dreaming and I started asking questions.”Are you my daughter?” “yes”. Also she told me people get reincarnated again and again, and that she had been my first daughter in previous lives.She had been waiting just a little under 50 years to be my next first child and since she missed her time this time, she would have to wait untold more years….
OK so by now you’re saying, “yeah, right.”
But if this story isn’t true,then are we supposed to believe the story of the whale that swallowed Jonah, that Abraham was told by God to take his son up to a mountain top and kill his son because he was “jealous” of him?
And are we still supposed to believe that the entire Earth was covered in water, and Noah got every species on the planet into a boat?And a woman got pregnant without a man?
And are we still supposed to believe that Jesus healed hundreds of people, raised a man from the dead,and got himself killed and rose again?
As I stated before,I am not particularly religiuos.But now that I have talked to the baby I aborted,I now think that every time a woman wants to get an abortion she should be given back the baby’s remains, and pay for a funeral,a headstone and a burial plot.
By the way, I voted for Kerry.
Posted by: egrassh at June 10, 2005 12:01 AM
