« Fraud and the Rule of Law | Main | Bolton (and Hayek) »

April 21, 2005

Comments

The fact that they don't convinces me they're playing a game here.

truth.

examples of other similar games abound, but they're all basically ways to enflame The Base during times of political necessity.

during times of political necessity ?

i hate when fragments of other sentences get left over...

end the above at "... The Base."

I dunno. I think that some politicians are clearly using these issues for political gain, but I also think that lots of them, and lots of other people, sincerely believe it, for reasons that I don't think amount to being 'bamboozled'. To me, the mystery, and the locus of potential bamboozlement, has always been not pro-life stands themselves, but the failure to generalize the principles that presumably underlie being pro-life to other areas of life.

I also think (mind-reading foul against large chunks of the electorate coming up) that there is some general sense of something being under threat, something tremendously important on the verge of being lost, that attaches itself to a lot of these issues and helps to drive them.

hilzoy, overall I agree with you, but I think there can be a useful distinction between those who sincerely oppose abortion and those who divisively tout the rhetoric of the sham called the "culture of life."

Clearly there are folks for whom abortion is a nightmare (I'm not that far outside that group myself), but when their arguments rely on patent falsehoods, I begin to smell a power-grabbing rat.

Steve Malynn has another take (worth reading) on the Brooks column on Tacitus in which a commenter coins a phrase I hope gets traction:

It does seem there's a "culture of whining" in our national legislature. And that's a nonpartisan observation.

"in the hand of politicians and hacks, this issue is merely a diversionary tactic in their quest for power"

just this issue? :)

Abortion statistics like the ones you cite are notoriously question-specific. In general (and I'll try to be as fair as I can):

There is a medium-sized plurality who wouldn't allow abortion except in the cases of rape or incest. A small minority wouldn't allow it at all. A large majority wouldn’t allow it in the third trimester except in extreme cases where the mother’s health is seriously compromised by continuing the pregnancy. A large number wouldn’t allow abortion in the second trimester except in cases of rape or incest or in serious health exceptions. A large majority thinks that the health exceptions are for life threatening complications only, misinformation that I’m sure NARAL doesn’t ever want corrected.

Summing all that up as broadly agreeing with the liberal point of view is not accurate. One of the reasons abortion is still so controversial is that the Supreme Court has crystallized the abortion debate in a form that does not closely reflect the US public understanding of the issue (to say nothing of closely reflecting the Constitution).

I also think (mind-reading foul against large chunks of the electorate coming up) that there is some general sense of something being under threat, something tremendously important on the verge of being lost, that attaches itself to a lot of these issues and helps to drive them.

I don't think you're far off the mark there. Given the historical trends towards liberalization, globalization, and scientific rationalism, people whose belief systems are threatened by these things are going to feel increasingly like dinosaurs staring down an oncoming asteroid. They feel threatened, I imagine, because they believe in the absolute revealed truth and morality of their beliefs, and that it's their duty to deliver those beliefs to others. Seeing the way America and the rest of the world have been liberalizing, realizing that they can't stop it... the march of progress must sound like the beating of war drums to them.

It's sad, in a way. If they weren't so actively engaged in trying to repress and destroy people and things I hold dear, if their policies didn't have such a malignant effect on the world, I'd almost feel sorry for them, because I don't want to destroy them or stop them from believing whatever they want to. I just want them to stop behaving as if they have a God-given right to impose those beliefs on everyone else.

"the country will never have domestic tranquility until Roe v. Wade is overturned and the states legislate the issue individually."

Do people still believe this line? The instant Roe v. Wade is overturned the House of Representatives will introduce a bill to ban abortion on a federal level. The republicans' commitment to alleged federalist principles has been a bit tenuous of late and they idea that they would allow this to become a state issue is laugable.

Michael Berube has a great response to Brooks. It begins:

"Justice Earl Warren did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Brown v. Board decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since, and now threatens to destroy the Senate as we know it..."

The thing is, I think that Berube's parody is closer to the truth than Brooks' column.

Summing all that up as broadly agreeing with the liberal point of view is not accurate.

It is accurate. Here's the hard statistics regarding that:

87% of abortions in the US occur within the first 13 weeks
0.01% of "elective" aborations occur in the last trimester
Almost half of American women (43%) will have an abortion sometime in their lifetime

These stats seem to confirm that the liberal point of view is very much in line with the majority view (or at least the majority practice).

Oh good, so we can ban all the other ones in line with majority opinion right? Somehow I don't think you're going to sign up with that.

Interesting. At the same website, a 2005 poll shows the following: 55% sometimes legal; 23% always legal; 20% always illegal.

And a different poll states: 37% stricter limits; 35% general availability; 25% no abortion access.

So, of the sometimes legal group, about 1/4 feels that the law is fine the way it is and about 3/4 thinks that stricter limits are necessary. I don't see any analysis of what the stricter limits should be (parental notification, 3rd semester bans, etc.)

Cites for your post, please, SH.

Oh good, so we can ban all the other ones in line with majority opinion right? Somehow I don't think you're going to sign up with that.

I supported the so-called "partial birth abortion" ban and would increasingly support pushing back the cut-off date as technology advances (without getting into the gruesome arena of harvesting fetuses and gestating them in fishtanks). I think there are very important questions about supporting unwanted children we still need to address, but I do feel viability is a good benchmark in general.

What makes me suspicious is things like the partial birth ban.

Durbin's version would've:
1) outlawed all post viability abortions
2) been upheld by the federal courts

Santorum's did neither. If the courts are going to strike down the law, it's not going to do any good. It doesn't matter if you want them to strike it down. It doesn't matter if they're wrong to strike it down (IMO the lower courts, constrained by the Supreme Court as they are, were not wrong).

It's things like this, to say nothing of the 60% of Reagan and Bush Supreme Court appointments who vote to uphold Roe, that make me suspect the Catholic Church and some members of the evangelical right are getting completely and cynically played by the Republican party.

There is a medium-sized plurality who wouldn't allow abortion except in the cases of rape or incest.

This I'm very surprised by, unless I'm misunderstanding 'plurality'. The group of people who favor a total abortion ban other than in the case of rape or incest is larger than the number of people who hold any other view on abortion? Where is this from?

(I do think Roe was a tragic mistake.

I also think that if abortion opponents had acted more wisely, compassionately, and reasonably, it would have probably been overturned by now or be well on its way. And certainly the number of abortions would be much, much, much less.

You can argue that "Harry Blackmun started it" but it's not real mature. I wish we could move beyond whatabouttery but it seems impossible.

I have seen pro-choicers make sincere efforts to outlaw post-viability abortions. I have not seen many pro-lifers make sincere efforts to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Sebastian, Mr. Police Your Own, you are in complete denial over the extremism about the birth control pill and the morning after pill and the harm that it does.)

This I'm very surprised by, unless I'm misunderstanding 'plurality'.

Given that Sebastian didn't cite his source, you're free to interpret that in any way that suits your argument LB.

<;-p

One of my co-workers voted for Bush because she, in her words, "votes for life". She is anti-abortion. It is the only issue she cares about. Hilzoy was wondering why people don't have a broader sense or application of the idea of culture of life, which is a good question. In my coworker's case a lot of it has to do with Hilzoy's post about internal narratives. She likes to see herself as the Christian Crusader full of rectitude and striving for perfection in this evil world. Ambiguity, moral dilemnas, shades of gray all blur her vision of her self as the One Who Seeks the One Truth. I appreciate her desire to be good but she has mistaken goodness for adherence to a doctrine. I don't know how many people have her narrative, but clearly some do. Another aspect is simply the the time and energy factor. Lots of people don't have the time and energy to think carefully about politics so they vote based on the word of someone they trust. If that person dumbs down the culture of life to anti-abortion, then the voter does too. I also think the culture of life thing got presented to the voters in an oversimplied way deliberately by the current Republican leadership because, of course, they can't afford to have their other activities (like the bankruptcy law) structinized. The Democrats need to be vocal leaders on redefining the culture of life as a broader principle. Lastly, many people are concrete operations thinkers, not abstract thinkers. Abortion and the emotions attached are very concrete. It is much more abstract to think about changes in laws that will affect someone else some day.

"This is why I'm convinced, as much as some folks sincerely oppose abortion, in the hand of politicians and hacks, this issue is merely a diversionary tactic in their quest for power."

That cuts both ways... and I think that is a point that is missed in your post.

Lily and Catsy,

U so smart... everyone else so dumb.

"I also think that if abortion opponents had acted more wisely, compassionately, and reasonably, it would have probably been overturned by now or be well on its way."

By whom?

"Sebastian, Mr. Police Your Own, you are in complete denial over the extremism about the birth control pill and the morning after pill and the harm that it does.)"

Good heavens. A) On this board I am typically the one who trys to police his own. The number of police your own pieces I see on the left is quite small.
B) It isn't obvious what this extremism is alleged to have done. You think it caused liberal judges to make up Constitutional rules? Did NARAL and NOW support Durbin's proposal? I think not. Furthermore, the language in question "certifies in writing that, in the physician's medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before the physician, the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health;" is the exact same loophole that has caused problem for years at the state level because all pregnancy at all times has some risk for grievous injury to physical health. Not a large a risk. But a risk.

And that is because of your extremists, Ms. Don't-Police-Your-Own.

The number of police your own pieces I see on the left is quite small.

hey, I was doing them back when our side was making mistakes...now that we've reached perfection, however, there's been no need.

;-p

Quite.

Making abortion illegal would be a mistake. It would not cut down on the number of abortions in the long run, but it would make them much more dangerous. See the Romanian experience.

However, there are steps that could be taken to reduce the abortion rate. Increase the availability of birth control of all types. Real sex ed that teaches abstinence as only one of a number of choices--one with advantages and disadvantages like everything else. Increase public spending on schools, daycares, welfare, etc so that women feel more able to support their children and therefore less desperate to not have any. Allow longer maternity leave, with pay. Increase spending on prevention of birth defects and pregnancy complications. Set up a universal health care system so that all pregnant women get healthcare during their pregnancy and therefore have a lower risk of problems. I know none of these suggestions is as sexy as illegalizing abortion and they don't punish women for getting pregnant the way some think they ought to, but they're much more likely to cut down on the abortion rate than a simple ban would.

sh -
some of us are still out here waiting for a source on that staggering "plurality in favor of only rape/incest" assertion, especially since the abc poll Edward cited shows, to take only one contrary example, that 88% think it should be legal to protect the health of the mother. So, let me guess...media bias? Activist liberal judges making up Constitutional rules? Which tired, shopworn excuse gets rid of this unfortunate result?

"I also think that if abortion opponents had acted more wisely, compassionately, and reasonably, it would have probably been overturned by now or be well on its way.

By whom?"

Pick two of three of Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter. Probably Kennedy and Souter since O'Connor's so damn results driven & seems to feel it's a feminist issue.

If given the choice between giving up the entire Warren Court legacy including Roe, and keeping the entire Warren Court legacy including Roe, most judges are going to keep Roe. If the only choices are Brennan & Blackmun & Stevens and Scalia & Thomas & Bork, most judges are going to go with Brennan & Blackmun & Stevens. The reason people keep waving "the bloody shirt of Brown" at Scalia is that his theory says that Brown was wrong. I mean this mainly as a matter of legal theory, but Brennan being a mensch & conciliator and Scalia's contempt for his colleagues don't hurt either.

For a sample poll see this ABC poll .

Highlights which don't fit the liberal paradigm:

Abortion should be legal to terminate an unwanted pregnancy 42%. Should be illegal to terminate an unwanted pregnancy 57%.

Pregnancy is 6+ months. legal- 11%, illegal- 86%.

Physically impaired baby only 54% think should be legal (I thought it would be much higher).

General summary:

At 57 percent, support for legal abortion in all or most cases is about what it's been on average in polls that have asked it this way since 1995. Most Americans eschew the extreme positions: 23 percent want abortion legal in all cases, and 17 percent want it illegal in all cases. About a third say it should be mostly legal; a quarter, mostly illegal.

Most Americans eschew the extreme positions, but the extreme NARAL position is what dominates the law at this time.

I don't know whether NARAL and NOW supported Durbin's version but a majority of Democrats in Congress did and Clinton would have signed it.

Conservatives are desperate, in this whatabouttery game, to talk about anyone but the actual politicians who have immediate control over these decisions--the actual legislation.

The Democrats were prepared to take what steps the courts would allow when it came to late term abortions. The Republicans are trying to deny everyone access to emergency contraception, including rape victims. And forget about Harry Reid's bill ever coming to a vote.

The fact that your side will be attacking contraception as soon as legal abortion falls--yes, they WILL, pay attention to the ACTUAL ACTIONS of the ACTUAL POLITICIANS instead of the interest groups--is no excuse for us not to work towards a sane abortion policy. Unfortunately, in the current makeup of Congress, it WILL make our attempts to do so impossible.

You are willing to call out powerless commenters on a discussion board, but vote against any Republican ever? Nope.

P.S. I see from Ladies Against Women that "neither NARAL nor Planned Parenthood objected to the "Durbin Substitute."

This of course cited as a reason why it's a total fraud. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The rest of the press release is a bunch of lies. Durbin's amendment required two doctors to certify that it would risk the mother's life or grievous physical injury, and there were penalties for doing so fraudulently. The first offense was a fine & possible loss of your license; the second offense was a definite loss of your license.

Pregnancy is 6+ months. legal- 11%, illegal- 86%.

How does that not "fit the liberal paradigm"?

0.01% of abortions happen in the third trimester...deal with reality, not perception.

What makes me think that people who claim to believe in a "culture of life" (and I'd like to interject how utterly annoying it is to keep dealing with these contrived political soundbites as though they have a definition) are inconsistent is that I don't hear very much about taking care of children.

I hear a lot about abortion. I don't hear about day care for children so that women can continue to work. I don't hear about pre-natal care being provided to all women regardless of income, geographic circumstance or race for example. I don't hear about good nutrition programs in schools. I find it disingenuous at best to claim that you care about "life" but only until it is born and never care about the woman carrying that "life" or the circumstances in her life.

The only direction that people who claim a "culture of life" seem to go is back...from birth to conception. They have ideas about what sorts of control should be exerted by those who are not pregnant on those who are or could become so. So contraception, emergency contraception, abortion...they have ideas about those. (Well, idea...since its basically "no.") What to do to take care of women and babies...not too many ideas that I hear about in that realm.

I have no problem with people being "anti-abortion"...heck, I'm anti-abortion because I think it must be one of the worst things a woman can have to decide about and have done. I think its awful that anyone ever has to consider it as an option. I also think that if we had effective sex education that taught people about how to use condoms things would be a bit better from the standpoint of unwanted pregnancies. If we made birth control pills more widely avaialbe and less expensive, that would help reduce unwanted pregnancies. For much more on this line of thought see this page on the Planned Parenthood site. Reducing Teen Pregnancy

If we made good medical care the standard for pregnant women and made it possible for women to continue to work once they had a child that might reduce the numbers of people who feel forced to choose an abortion.

There are about 1.2 million abortions a year right now in America. I don't have time at the moment to research what the breakdown is demographically on that but it seems like preventing unwanted pregnancies would be a good way to reduce the numbers of abortions. When someone who claims the "culture of life" will get on board with taking care of people, I'll listen more. Until then, I'll keep working on it myself.

And Durbin's amendment didn't ban second trimester partial birth abortions, but it did ban ALL post viability abortions rather than focusing on the procedure.

I would think this would be preferable, especially as it's the only way to get through the courts. But some people are more interested in being able to paint Democratic politicians as murderers than in reducing the numbers of legal abortions, illegal abortions, late term abortions, deaths in childbirth & unwanted pregnancies.

"If given the choice between giving up the entire Warren Court legacy including Roe, and keeping the entire Warren Court legacy including Roe, most judges are going to keep Roe."

I don't understand what this has to do with your argument. O'Connor and Kennedy are both willing to play the "make up complicated and previously unknown tests to avoid the appearance of overruling precedent" game so why in the world would the only choices available to them be all-of-Warren or non-of-Warren. Scalia and Thomas could write an opinon and the could join in the decision but write their own concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion. You are grasping at straws here. And you say I'm the one in denial. Cute.

"Conservatives are desperate, in this whatabouttery game, to talk about anyone but the actual politicians who have immediate control over these decisions--the actual legislation. "

The Durbin amendment didn't close the medical execption loophole that is a gaping hole for all possible abortions to jump through. It was a sham. That is why Democrats could support it and that was why Republicans could not. As usual you see everything through the "my team idealistically beautiful--your team playing politics" lens. Your team was playing politics by proposing a bill that pretends to limit late-term abortions, but in fact doesn't. You can be fooled by Democrats' crass political gamesmanship with that amendment if you like, but trying to beat me up with it is just silly. Republicans have been concerned with the wording of the health exception for a reason. The reason is that it has turned into an exception which swallows all other rules. Durbin's proposal did not change that.

And please don't pretend that Durbin's proposal is really popular among Democratic congressman. That is complete crap. If Democrats wanted that kind of bill to pass, they had decades of control of Congress to do it. They are willing to make tactical votes like that when they don't matter, but not when a bill might actually pass. I'm pretty sure you are aware of the tactic.

"And Durbin's amendment didn't ban second trimester partial birth abortions, but it did ban ALL post viability abortions rather than focusing on the procedure."

No it didn't. It purported to ban them, but provided a health exception that could easily swallow the rule. You are either being fooled by the Democrats' game or you are continuing the fraud. An exception which provides for 'a risk' is not an exception when there is ALWAYS risk.

"0.01% of abortions happen in the third trimester...deal with reality, not perception."

How many murderers are subjected to the death penalty? Would I ever be so crass as to suggest that no one should worry about it because it is less than 100 per year?

I don't understand something the ABC poll - the results seem to be inconsistent: 57% approve of "legality of abortion in all or most cases". 57% oppose legality of aborting to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. But isn't it true and also common knowledge that the vast majority of abortions are performed "to terminate an unwanted pregnancy"?

The only way to reconcile this is to say that "in most cases" was understood to mean "in most scenarios", not "in the largest number of cases". Which would indicate that Sebastian is exactly right in his assessment of where the public broadly stands on this.


Your entire argument against the Democrats today depends on what they did in the 1980s. When it comes to the behavior of ELECTED OFFICIALS in office TODAY, you have nothing substantive to say and never have. Who cares why they would have voted for it? They would have voted for it. It was defeated by the GOP. If the "grievous physical health" thing was a loophole, that's a matter of statutory drafting that could have been fixed by adding in "more likely than not". Santorum was utterly, utterly, utterly uninterested in doing this. He was too busy calling Durbin and fraud and a mass murderer & getting the entire religious right to go along with it.

Edward, this post is for the most part absolutely right, except that some people are quite sincere but are letting themselves get exploited out of bitterness towards liberals or self deception. The moderate left is going to have to do it ourselves. Fortunately, the two Senate Democratic leaders get it on this issue, as does Senator Clinton, as I think does Senator Obama. There is also increasing doubt about Roe among liberal academic at law schools if not liberal judges. The trick is not throw out the entire Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment along with Roe. This is quite possible to do, though.

It purported to ban them, but provided a health exception that could easily swallow the rule.

I'm wondering here -- is there a specific level of health risk to the woman that you would consider justifying abortion, or do you consider health risk an illegitimate consideration? And if the former, how differently would you like a law prividing for such an exception phrased?

Assume I do know how to spell 'providing', if you would.

On the Durbin Amendment:

There are six Senators who voted against both the Durbin subsitute and Santorum's partial birth ban:
Maria Cantwell, John Corzine, Mark Dayton, Jim Jeffords, Patty Murray, and Charles Schumer. I would guess they opposed any Congressional restriction, but I can't say for sure.

There are eleven Senators who voted for both the Durbin substitute and Santorum's partial birth ban:
Byrd, Carper, Daschle, Edwards, Johnson, Landrieu, Leahy, Lincoln, Pryor, Reid, Spector. All Democrats except Specter.

If I were concerned solely with reducing the number of abortions, I would say that the last group did the best job on this bill, followed by the majority of the Democratic caucus who voted for the Durbin substitute & against final passage, followed by the overwhelming majority of the Republican caucus who rejected the Durbin substitute & voted for final passage, followed by the six Senators who opposed both forms of the restriction.

some people are quite sincere but are letting themselves get exploited out of bitterness towards liberals or self deception

Yup.

I also think Lily put it quite well: ...the culture of life thing got presented to the voters in an oversimplied way deliberately by the current Republican leadership because, of course, they can't afford to have their other activities (like the bankruptcy law) structinized.

The politicians and their lapdogs exploiting passions here (rather than looking for realworld compromises), driving yet another wedge between Americans who by all statistical measures widely agree that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare, deserve the scorn of all of us.

Abortion is a horrible choice. I don't know why some corrupt MALE politician in Washington is supposed to make that choice for the mother, specially when said politician refuses to provide her with health care.
Men know nothing, nothing about getting pregnant or having babies.

"When it comes to the behavior of ELECTED OFFICIALS in office TODAY, you have nothing substantive to say and never have. Who cares why they would have voted for it? They would have voted for it."

In recent history, Democrats controlled the Senate from 1987 till December 1994. Democrats controlled the House from 1955-1995. Clinton, a Democrat, was president for two terms beginning in 1992. Was abortion a controversial topic in 1992, 1993, or 1994? Yes. Were Democrats offering such proposals in 1992, 1993, or 1994 when they controlled both Houses and the Presidency? No. Why not? The same reason why Republicans don't pass balanced-budget rules now. When the votes actually mattered, their true colors are revealed. Majority parties don't like to restrict their own spending, and Democrat Congressman don't vote for abortion restrictions when the vote counts. You hang your judgment of me on show-votes by Democrats.

"If the "grievous physical health" thing was a loophole, that's a matter of statutory drafting that could have been fixed by adding in "more likely than not". Santorum was utterly, utterly, utterly uninterested in doing this."

Durbin was well aware of the decades-long Republican concern about the physical health exception and the problem of allowing 'risk' to be interpreted as 'any risk'. As usual you fail to even consider the idea that Democrats could be playing a political game while simultaneously trumpeting a certainty that Republicans are. Your constant dogmatic attacks in that vein make criticism of a certain recently elected pope rather humorous.

Here is the Senate debate. The link will break soon, so--pages 3456-3482 of the 108th Congressional Record. You can also see the Republican caucus unanimously shooting down amendments on rape victims' access to emergency contraception & on prenatal care for mothers through Medicaid.

If you think Sebastian and I don't like each other on this issue--it is clear from the debate that Durbin and Santorum despise each other, though they do their best to conceal it.

I would ask people to remember the Schiavo case & the erotoxins fiasco in evaluating whether to trust Reid & Durbin's opinions on what medical experts think, or Santorum & Brownback's & Lott's. There's some nice diagnosis-from-the-Senate-floor moments from the GOP that should bring back fond memories.

It is possible that Durbin's amendment had a loophole in it. There was no attempt to do anything to close the loophole or do anything other than portray Durbin as a baby killer. There was no attempt to write a bill the courts would uphold. None.

I won't deny that I trust Durbin and distrust Santorum and that affects my view of it. Relentless demagoguery on judges & the Schiavo case & gay bashing make me trust people less. Being close to the strongest voice in the Senate against torture, for AIDS prevention in Africa, for civil liberties, for stopping the genocide in Darfur, etc. etc. makes me trust people more.

Here is what one pro life person had to say:

During the debate on the bill, Senator Durbin proposed an amendment that would have banned all types of abortion on "viable" infants. The amendment added an exception to allow any abortion procedure, including partial birth abortion, to preserve the mother from "grievous" physical injury. The Senate rejected Durbin's amendment in a 60-38 vote, going on to pass the bill by 64-33.

I have examined the bill, Sen. Durbin's amendment, and the debate on the amendment. It seems to me that the anti-abortion senators missed an opportunity to gain important ground by not taking the amendment more seriously. The pro-abortion senators were willing, apparently for the first time, to consider banning all types of medically unnecessary late term abortions; not just partial birth abortions. There were important objections to some of the wording of the amendment, but the anti-abortion senators made no attempt to explore alternate wording to answer the objections.

One problem with the wording of the amendment was that there is no standard to determine the meaning of "viable." When no definition is provided, any interpretation might be acceptable in the courts. It seems that it would have been easy to add a definition to the amendment, answering that objection.

A related problem was that many partial birth abortions are performed during the second trimester of pregnancy, when there is an increased likelihood that the child would not be considered viable. Since the goal of the bill is to outlaw partial birth abortions, using viability as a standard would defeat the purpose of the bill.

think that those of us who oppose abortion should consider outlawing a larger number of abortions (all medically unnecessary late-term abortions) to be a bigger step in the right direction than forbidding a particular method. As medical science advances, the stage of pregnancy at which a child is viable will gradually be pushed earlier and earlier. The prohibition against abortion of viable infants would be pushed back along with the stage of viability. This is a trend that I think any abortion opponent should see as positive.

Even the partial birth abortion procedure itself is more barbaric than alternative methods only in the eyes of the beholder, since it occurs within view of the mother and anyone else who might be present. It surely is barbaric, and abominable murder, but not more so than any other abortion procedure. In fact, I consider it less inhumane than the alternatives: attacking the child in the womb with tools or chemicals, to dismember or chemically burn him to death. If I were faced with those choices for myself, I'd prefer to have my brain sucked out of my head.

The final objection to Sen. Durbin's wording is that, while the potential harm to the mother that he seeks to avoid is strongly worded ("grievous" physical harm), the degree of risk of that harm is not specified. If someone could say that there is any risk at all of such harm, the prohibition would be nullified. That's an important point, but how hard would it have been to discuss adding some wording about the permissible degree of risk? As far as I can tell, no one tried to resolve this issue either.

The main benefit of banning partial birth abortion will be to salve the conscience of the nation. Murder of unborn children will continue, from the moment of conception almost to the moment of potential birth. I for one am not satisfied that the crime will be required to be committed out of sight. The anti-abortion forces in the Senate missed an opportunity to seek a compromise with much greater benefit than the bill they finally passed.

It goes beyond that: the partial birth ban will not do anything if it is struck down the courts as unconsitutional.

I am sure that some Democrats were politically motivated in voting for the Durbin amendment. I don't believe that Durbin himself was playing a game. I don't really think that Santorum and Brownback were either--I think Brownback is very sincere and very credulous, and Santorum is too much of a Latin-for-[body part] to ever allow himself to believe anything that's politically disadvantageous.

"Real sex ed that teaches abstinence as only one of a number of choices--one with advantages and disadvantages like everything else."

But why is this the state's job? My kids' public schools didn't teach it, but the material was well-covered at home. I'm on the side of these are things the kids need to know to be responsible adults (or even responsible teenagers), but question whether the state really has a compelling interest in including it as part of public schooling.

(also see page S3560-S3608).

But why is this the state's job?

Whether sex ed at all is the state's job is a good question, but PC sex education or any variation thereof that doesn't give kids a realistic sense of the advantages/disadvatages of the entire spectrum of options is irresponsible. Teaching abstinence only is worse than teaching nothing.

You know, the whole abstinence issue is simply a substitute for teaching adolescents how things work. I had this discussion with my wife just last week, and even though she hews much more closely to religious doctrine than I do, she agreed with me. Here's my position: people who don't want their kids to get sex ed in the schools are kidding themselves. Sex ed in public schools shouldn't be how their kids find out about sex; if they were doing their jobs as parents, sex ed should be all review. It's like having a will: by accident or on purpose, you have a will*. Which do you prefer? If you want to teach your kids abstinence, fine. Just don't do it instead of telling them about how sex works. That way is just a freaking cop-out.

*The by-accident kind is whatever probate says your will is.

That's what I come to this blog for -- the sheer unadulterated pleasure of seeing someone on the other side of the aisle say something on a contentious issue that I unreservedly agree with.

What Slarti said.

SH: you're largely arguing against a strawman. No one here, even Katherine (thought foul!) thinks that the Dems are the party of pure sweetness and light while the Rs are satan's forces made real.

But in the last 20 years, the pressure to change abortion laws has come solely from the right. why should the dems move right on an issue that's been a winner until just recently? And in recent years, like during GBush I and especially GBush II, the republican legislature has preferred to put forward bills that are unconstitutional.

I hereby pose a standing challenge to any, including SH, who want to take it up: In the entire state and federal judicial system, please identify ALL cases where an appellate/supreme court struck down an abortion law, on health-of-the-mother grounds, which you believe was wrongly decided.

As Redstate loves pointing out, the democratic party is in disarray, beaten back across the country. So, let's see those activist judiciaries striking down state laws that have overly narrow health-of-the-mother exceptions.

If the Rs don't want to be reasonable on finding ways to prevent abortions of viable fetuses, I see no reason why the Dems should be.

"But why is this the state's job?"

Because not all parents teach it and all adolescents need to know it.

wise words Slarti.

"If the Rs don't want to be reasonable on finding ways to prevent abortions of viable fetuses, I see no reason why the Dems should be."

I disagree completely here. The right thing to do is the right thing to do. I don't expect us to get anywhere but it can't hurt to try. It may also have political benefits. If politicians do well by doing good I say--well, that's how democracy is supposed to work. Frankly I think the people who vote on this issue have their minds unalterably closed to the Democrats. Why would you not work with Harry Reid & Dick Durbin because you're mad about Tip O'Neill & George Mitchell & Harry Blackmun? It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. Durbin used to be pro life, and Reid still is.

"Men know nothing, nothing about getting pregnant or having babies."

I know! Especially those male obstetricians. When we had our first baby my wife had to deliver it herself, as our obstetrician and I were alternately scratching our heads and fainting. We had no idea what was going on! And I just slept through all of the Bradley classes, and read the Cliff's Notes version of the Sears books. What chance do I have to understand any of it? The penis bisects my brain.

I know! Especially those male obstetricians.

Heh. I was cranky.
Seriously, theoretical knowledge is one thing, going through the experience is another. Sorry. Maybe in your next life.

And I think the Democratic Congressional delegation is much better than the GOP delegation, which is not the same thing as we're angels and your devils. I'm saying that they're better and worse, and abortion is not as clear cut an exception as you think it is.

Frankly I think you caricature my view because you can't actually defend today's Congressional delegation on the merits, because they're for the most part quite embarrassing. But let me tell you--as manichean as I can get when describing Democrats and Republicans in Congress, you are ten times that when it comes to Supreme Court Justices.

Btw, reminds me, why do men get to vote at all on abortion anyway? It should be put to an all-women referendum or something.

one last thing Sebastian: I have truly engaged with and changed my thinking about Constitutional Law and abortion based on our discussions here.

I really don't think you've ever done the same. In the case of the torture stuff, you budged based on a sheer accumulation of data & government documents, not based on any argument. You have the same contempt for Amnety International and the press as you always did. It doesn't seem quite the same to me. So to paint me as being an inflexible ideologue--I don't have much patience for it. I've changed the way I thought about these things. You haven't even a tiny bit.

Because not all parents teach it and all adolescents need to know it.

And not teaching children about how things work is criminally negligent. It is impossible to take seriously someone who claims to want to reduce abortions and teen pregnancy on one hand, but who opposes sex education or access to birth control on the other.

As to why it's the state's job to teach it, I counter: why is it the state's job to mandate /any/ education? The answer is that we have decided, as a society, that a certain basic level of education is an irreplaceable good that in most the government is better equipped to provide than individual parents. And sex education is an essential part of the education necessary to make responsible, mature decisions about one of the most important aspects of one's body.

To add to the confusing poll data, this study "Fifty-one percent (51%) support abortion only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman, or not at all."

So far as I can tell, the center which did this survey was pro-choice--in the introduction they seemed somewhat alarmed by the findings.


Katherine:

one last thing Sebastian: I have truly engaged with and changed my thinking about Constitutional Law and abortion based on our discussions here.

I really don't think you've ever done the same. In the case of the torture stuff, you budged based on a sheer accumulation of data & government documents, not based on any argument. You have the same contempt for Amnety International and the press as you always did. It doesn't seem quite the same to me. So to paint me as being an inflexible ideologue--I don't have much patience for it. I've changed the way I thought about these things. You haven't even a tiny bit.

Two things on this. First, I have changed based on all sorts of conversations here and elsewhere. Second, as a conservative who has always attended liberal schools and been in liberal circles, I have engaged and changed my mind (or not) based on the arguments you offered years before they came around to me.

You haven't seen my change from hard-core death penalty defender to tepid-wouldn't waste much of my time on it and has worries about procedural safeguards-psuedo supporter because that happened 15 years ago. You haven't seen my change from active standing outside the clinics pro-lifer to the position I have now because that took place 10 years ago.

I don't know how to phrase this, because I'm not trying to be insulting--this is a point about what I've been exposed to by environment, but many of your arguments I've heard and hashed out a decade ago. With those that I didn't, I've softened my view on certain decisions as an 'emergency' basis (such as some on race) but perhaps you have forgotten that. I wasn't here when Moe was here, but it seems as if you haven't had many conservatives who were really willing to engage you before--especially when you get rather hateful. I've been engaging with liberals for quite some time. It shouldn't be shocking that I did much of the changing that I'm going to do in response to the first ten years of that rather than now. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe my picture of you in a relatively liberal (though initially Catholic) environment is incorrect. If so, I apologize for my presumption.

Also I really don't see the change in your views, but that isn't because I don't think it happened. I haven't seen it because in our initial conversations on jurisprudence I had no idea what you thought on a non-superficial level. I suspect what you see as changes appear to an outsider as mere clarifying explanations. Perhaps the same is happening with your reading of me.

As usual on this issue, there's a lot more heat than light.

The most important thing to understand is that in some regions of the country, the vast majority of the population is opposed to abortion and in other regions, it's at least tolerant of abortions and sometimes very strongly supportive.

Those who have strong opinions mostly live in places where the bulk of the population supports their position. As a result, it's quite easy for both left and right to convince themselves that the bulk of the population supports their position.

If you live in Texas, it's easy to believe this country is predominantly opposed to abortion. If you live in New York, you'll think everyone supports it.

Attempts at national opinion polls vary according to how you phrase the question. My own take on it is that there is a strong majority which dislikes abortion and wants to see it restricted or abolished, and a strong majority which thinks it is necessary and wants to preserve some degree of access to it.

Because these opinions overlap, there is a large middle segment of people who think some degree of access to abortion is necessary, but also want to restrict that access in various ways. Depending on how you phrase your questions, these people may say they support or oppose abortion, depending on the context.

This is complicated by the fact that there has been a tendency to interpret restrictions on abortion in such a way as to effectively negate the restrictions, thus inducing more paranoia and hard-lining on the part of foes of abortion. At the same time, any effort to restrict abortion tends to cause the strongest supporters of it to become more paranoid and view even relatively mild restrictions as attempts to destroy abortion rights.

The result of all of this is that you can't really make a clear, unequivocable statement that 'a majority of Americans back the right to an abortion' or 'a majority of Americans oppose abortion'. But it's quite possible for both sides to easily convince themselves that is the case, as most of us operate in an environment congenial to our own views on the issue, and depending on which poll we look at, we can draw our own view of it.

Btw, reminds me, why do men get to vote at all on abortion anyway? It should be put to an all-women referendum or something.

Um, you know, I'm pro-choice, but I don't think this is a road we want to travel down.

"So to paint me as being an inflexible ideologue--"

I don't think it's Sebastian that's painting that picture. I'm pretty sure it's a self-portrait.

"So to paint me as being an inflexible ideologue--"

I don't think it's Sebastian that's painting that picture. I'm pretty sure it's a self-portrait.

Right. That's why Katherine freely states that she thinks Roe is a bad legal decision even though it produced her desired outcome. That Katherine, what a results-driven legal mind she has.

Next ignorant statement, please.

I'd like to clarify, because I think the vocabulary actually matters. I am not "pro-abortion" and I don't support abortions as such. I support the ability of people to choose their own course in their lives and to make decisions about their own bodies. Thus, pro-choice. I think I'm smart but I don't think I'm smart enough to make decisions for everyone all the time.

ah, here they are, in alphabetical order--actually not exactly the same as the Darfur group:

Lamar Alexander, Sam Brownback, Dick Durbin (continuing his efforts as my middle aged midwestern Senate alter ego), Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Hagel, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Joe Lieberman (credit where due: Joementum is rock solid on immigration issues), Dick Lugar, John McCain, Ken Salazar, John Sununu.

Let's hope one of them makes it onto the conference committee.

Forget all the usual arguments against the consistency of "Culture of Life" positions, such as, those who monomaniacally vote "pro-life" are also most likely the same people who support the death penalty and pre-emptive wars...are generally the same people who eschew efforts at universal health care and other measures aimed at actually preserving and/or prolonging life...are often the same people more interested in ensuring the system's designed to enrich them as much as possible than they are in providing any sort of social safety net.

Yes, do forget that argument, as it's quite a crude and inaccurate stereotype. (Not to mention completely illogical: it's obviously an ad hominem fallacy.)


Now someone new to this country reading this would be forgiven for assuming then that working-class Americans do not value a decent minimum wage, or tuition assistance for their children, or protecting the environment, or making sure they have health care, or safety in the workplace, or equal opportunities for minorities, or fiscal responsibility, or international diplomacy, etc. etc. etc,

Here's the key difference: On every one of those issues, liberals actually allowed people to have a vote. Democracy, you know. Liberals haven't spent the past 30 years depending on and defending to the death an extremist Supreme Court decision that mandated a minimum wage of $50 per hour for every worker. Even civil rights, where the only real progress was made once Congress got involved in the 1960s.

But not on abortion, no sirree. Abortion is so popular that it simply must never be put to a vote. Right.

Forget the usual argument against protecting endangered species, such as, the people who pretend to be concerned about every insignificant species of animal at the same time want the Constitution to protect the act of puncturing a human baby's skull and suctioning out the brains.

Is that a good argument against protecting endangered species? No. The fact that some liberals are terribly inconsistent and/or irrational does not mean that endangered species are fair game.

Abortion is so popular that it simply must never be put to a vote. Right.

Talk about ad hominem fallacies. The meme that abortions are "popular" is not only libelous, it demonstrates a stupefying lack of imagination. Is that the only reason you can imagine people in a free society would fight to preserve the right to make decisions about their own body (however that right came about)? Because having an abortion is a popular activity? That's too gruesome to give any credit.

Forget the usual argument against protecting endangered species, such as, the people who pretend to be concerned about every insignificant species of animal at the same time want the Constitution to protect the act of puncturing a human baby's skull and suctioning out the brains.

I can see you're passionate about this, but you're close to crossing the line and risk violating the posting rules (which will get you banned) with such rhetoric. Bring it down a notch if you're really interested in having a dialog. There are plenty of very thoughtful people here who believe ending abortions is something to work toward, but not by outlawing it. Others would rather outlaw it. None of the people here fit the cartoonish portrait you're trying to paint, though.

If you want to quibble over wording, I'll happily modify my sentence:

The right to have abortion is so popular that it must never, never, never be put to a vote.

Anything substantive to say about that? As I pointed out, that attitude is not only, well, a bit contradictory, but very much opposed to liberals' approach towards all the other issues where they have allowed and participated in democratic resolution. Liberals haven't asked the courts to step in and set a minimum wage, or write an environmental code, or conduct foreign policy, etc., etc.

And as for the latter portion you quote: I thought I was making it clear that I was offering an example of a BAD argument. BAD. That means the argument isn't good. It is fallacious. It is wrong. It is incorrect. It is an invalid argument. What can I do to make that more clear?

The only reason I brought it up was to make an analogy to your initial argument, which was invalid, inflammatory, and inaccurate as well.

Um, you know, I'm pro-choice, but I don't think this is a road we want to travel down.

Just as a thought experiment, why would it be bad to let women decide?

Well, just as a thought experiment, how do you like the idea of banning abortion? That might happen (at least in some states) if only women voted on the issue. See the poll that Sebastian linked above, which found (much to the sponsoring organization's dismay) that 51% of women support banning abortion except for rape/incest/life.

Votermom,

When women can self-procreate then I say let them decide. As long as men contribute to the survival of the species men should have a voice.

It would be bad because it would be unfair to have no voice in the situation.

Since, Republicans control all three houses (House, Senate and Whitehouse). Why don't the Democrats just keep quiet and let them be in charge?

What you think the Democrats should have a voice?

Men do contribute to procreation, but it's hardly a 50-50 effort biologically. Men only need, biologically, to commit to as little as 10 minutes of pleasure. If the man is healthy and the woman has no communicable diseases, there is practically no health risk to the man in this commitment.
Where as a woman will commit to 40 weeks gestation, involving significant health risks in itself, terminating in what can frequently be a fatal event. Even a healthy, uncomplicated pregnancy and birth is said to take anything from 2 to 7 years off a woman's life expectancy.
So why is it fair that men would get an equal vote in this?

You've got it backwards though, Functional. Liberals (meaning all liberals) did not ask the courts to rule on Roe v. Wade, a relatively small group of Americans were involved in that. Once the decision was made, however, you can't expect those who agreed with the decision to willingly forfeit a right they felt should be theirs all along, though. Arguing that Liberals haven't asked the courts to step in with minimum wage or other issues is ludicrous...it's not like we have monthly meetings and elect someone to take a case to court.

And let's be honest, the reason you want it to be put to a vote is you're hoping that the abortion laws would change, no? All this noise about activist judges could be directed at other cases, like, oh, I don't know, Bush v. Gore, or Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow or some other case where the outcome was fine by you so you don't care if the issue is (re)decided in the voting booth.

Don't get me wrong. I believe legislating change is the best overall approach, but (and I'm not talking Roe v. Wade here, just generally addressing why not all change can be legislated) there are times when clearly what's right will not come about that way. Take for example Lawrence v. Texas...when would that have EVER been decided in the voting booth? It was the right decision, but it would have never made it through the legislature of Texas.

I'm not a lawyer...you'll get much better informed opinions on law from lawyers who post here.

My point in this post was that "Culture of Lifers" need to address the reality of the situation if they want to be taken seriously. So far, you haven't contributed much toward that tend.

or "toward that end" even.

I'm hoping that Roe is overturned because I'm hoping that abortion laws will change? Absolutely. So what?

But if you (or other liberals, such as quite a few Senators) are so sure that the abortion right is mainstream/popular/appealing, why be so vehement that the people must never be allowed a vote? The obvious answer is that liberals know full well that a lot of abortion restrictions would emerge if people were granted the right to vote here.

Anyway, your reference to liberals' litigating strategy is completely irrelevant. The thing is, if you went up to the average liberal and asked, "Is there a constitutional right to earn $11 an hour," or "is there a constitutional right to block the Alaska pipeline," most liberals would say, "Huh?" Whereas if you ask "is there a constitutional right to abortion," most liberals respond, "Yes, and there better always be a right to abortion, which is why we are blocking certain judges," etc., etc. On that issue, liberals do NOT want democracy. THAT is the difference between abortion (which Brooks was addressing) and the long list of issues that you presented.

"When women can self-procreate then I say let them decide."

It could happen. Actually, if all men disappeared off the planet tomorrow, there are enough sperm banks around that the species would survive using frozen sperm as a source of babies, no trouble at all. (Assuming that whatever got the men was a one time event and the male babies will be able to grow up, have kids, and resupply the sperm banks, just in case the event recurred.) If men and all y-chromosome bearing sperm disappeared, there's always oocyte fusion. It works in other mammals, and doesn't seem to have the nasty epi-genetic problems that plague cloning. With a crash research program it could be made to work in humans, most likely.

Having said that, I do think that men should have a voice in the abortion debate, but not in the decision of whether any particular woman is going to have an abortion. A woman who is contemplating abortion might reasonably discuss it with her husband, partner, boyfriend, close male friend, doctor, family member, etc, but in the end it's her body that is at risk and her decision.

And that's why it is misleading to say, as you did, "Liberals have had a conversation about the values driving those concerns with working-class voters and continue to."

Yes, liberals have had a conversation about those values. But for the issue of abortion, the conversation is entirely one-way. The liberal message is, "You agree with me? Great, I like your values. You disagree with me? Too bad, I win, because a few judges on the Supreme Court made up the right to abortion. Go home, you 'forces of intolerance.'"

On that issue, liberals do NOT want democracy. THAT is the difference between abortion (which Brooks was addressing) and the long list of issues that you presented.

You don't want "Democracy" either Funcational. You want a ban on abortions.

Put to a vote in the south whether African-Americans should be equal under the law. Put to vote in Utah whether polygamy should be legal. Put to a vote in Virginia or Texas whether gays should be allowed to have sex. If you have a point it's drowned out by reality.

I'm not at all sure the majority would vote to ban abortions, but when it comes to individual rights, the system was designed to protect minorities from the sort of thing you're insisting Liberals are against, and you're right. I am against the tyranny of the majority.

Wrong. I want a democracy to vote, and I hope that it would vote to ban abortions. But if they don't vote the way that I want, too bad for me. I lose. That's life.

But if they don't vote the way that I want, too bad for me. I lose. That's life.

I don't believe you.

Wrong. I want a democracy to vote, and I hope that it would vote to ban abortions. But if they don't vote the way that I want, too bad for me. I lose. That's life.

I still don't believe you and I'll tell you why. If the vote didn't go my way, I'd be upset, I woldn't say "That's life." I'd keep working to change it. As passionately as you're making your case here, I suspect you'd do the same. So, in the end, it's not about "Democracy" ...that's just an argument against how we got to this point...it's about banning abortions.

This is ridiculous. How on earth would you know what my inner beliefs are, other than what I say? And who cares anyway?

Oh ok, you're just saying that I wouldn't quit the abortion debate forever if I lost a single vote. Well, of course not. Who would? The thing is, UNLIKE most liberals, I'm not looking for the Supreme Court to invent a spurious "right" to be free from abortion (i.e., such that all 50 states have to agree with me no matter how they vote).

This is ridiculous. How on earth would you know what my inner beliefs are, other than what I say?

Here's what you've said:

I'm hoping that Roe is overturned

Put to a vote in the south whether African-Americans should be equal under the law. Put to vote in Utah whether polygamy should be legal. Put to a vote in Virginia or Texas whether gays should be allowed to have sex.

Your first example: There's this part of the Constitution known as the 14th Amendment. It was passed in the wake of the Civil War. It says that all states have to give all citizens the "equal protection" of the laws. It is genuinely part of the Constitution; it wasn't invented by free-wheeling judges.

Your second example: Doesn't fit here. There is no constitutional ban on polygamy. CONGRESS imposed a ban as a condition for letting Utah in the Union. If Congress VOTED to let Utah vote on polygamy, there would nothing in the Constitution to stop that.

Your third example: I'm with Justice Thomas here. The laws were "uncommonly silly," in his words, but that doesn't mean that the Constitution bans them. Anyway, the laws were barely ever enforced, and were 99% out the door before the Supreme Court gave a slight nudge and then slammed the door.

Functional,

again, I agree that legislative paths are best, but I can't get past the suspicion that if you didn't desire a very clear outcome for that path, you wouldn't be arguing so strongly for it. There are other issues you could argue it for. My ENTIRE point in this post is that the "Culture of Life" rhetoric is not consistent enough to convince many liberals it's about anything more than power (including the power to control other peoples' bodies). If it were really about preventing abortions, it would argue that soundly.

UNLIKE most liberals

I've never met most liberals. You must get around.

"but in the end it's her body that is at risk and her decision."

I sort of agree in the end it's the babies body that is at risk from abortion and both parents should have equal say.


the laws were barely ever enforced, and were 99% out the door .

Ah, but it was still the law.

Personally, I think that a limbo like that is the best approach for abortion too. Work to make abortion rare, but keep it legal. That's the best balance to respecting everyone's concerns.

I was taught that abortion is murder.

How can you defend murder?

Functional,

Should wars be fought by referendum?

now wait a moment, we're missing a key point here, made in votermom's comment.

10 MINUTES! and i thought 90 seconds was plenty!

Functional, whenever most constitutional rights are put to the vote, the right loses. Sedition laws, gun control laws, search and seizure laws etc. The point of the BoR is that it protects the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

Personally, I think that a limbo like that is the best approach for abortion too. Work to make abortion rare, but keep it legal. That's the best balance to respecting everyone's concerns.

Just to clarify, I don't think a limbo like that was good for Lawrence v. Texas. Clarity was needed there. But leaving abortion "legal" while making concerted efforts to ensure it's never needed seems the best approach to me.

10 MINUTES! and i thought 90 seconds was plenty!

Yeah, I want my 8 and a half minutes!

I agree that legislative paths are best, but I can't get past the suspicion that if you didn't desire a very clear outcome for that path, you wouldn't be arguing so strongly for it.

Again, so what? What's new about the observation that conservatives who want Roe overturned actually (gracious me!) have an opinion about how they would vote if they had the chance? What's your point?


My ENTIRE point in this post is that the "Culture of Life" rhetoric is not consistent enough to convince many liberals it's about anything more than power (including the power to control other peoples' bodies).


So the "Culture of Life" idea is not "consistent" enough? I thought you began your whole post by saying "forget" the supposed inconsistencies. Anyway, all you're saying here is that conservatives talk about preventing abortion while liberals use terms like "power to control other peoples' bodies." That is a completely obvious and banal observation.

* I say "supposed inconsistencies" because there is nothing inconsistent about believing that (1) wars are sometimes necessary evils; (2) brutal murderers can be executed after a fair trial; (3) people in general should pay their own way in society; but (4) innocent babies shouldn't be offed. As it happens, I don't necessarily agree with 2 or 3, but even if I agreed with 2 or 3, that wouldn't contradict my desire to protect innocent life from being deliberately killed.

I thought you began your whole post by saying "forget" the supposed inconsistencies.

Which is why I said to forget them.

Well, yeah, so why are you now (at 11:36 am) saying that the whole problem is that the "Culture of Life" isn't "consistent enough"? You're contradicting yourself.

The comments to this entry are closed.