posted
That's the name of a dialogue starting up over at Slate between two pro-choicers: William Saletan and Katha Pollitt. Saletan is arguing that pro-choicers should employ, or perhaps recognize, a morality that says abortion is bad. Similar to Hillary Clinton's statement that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare." Pollitt is taking the other side, that by admitting abortion is wrong in most cases (or at least morally ambiguous) the entire pro-choice movement will be hamstrung. Should be interesting to follow.
Anyway, here's a link to the dialogue.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
By morally ambiguous I didn't mean morally debatable; I meant an admission that there are at least some circumstances in which abortion would be immoral. I don't think Pollitt will admit this. In her mind aborition is never "wrong"; there's no ambiguity about it. Saletan's whole point is that this stance is politically defeating, and that to survive, or thrive, the pro-choice camp needs to admit that abortion is sometimes (frequently?) the wrong choice.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but there are pro-choicers who are so zealous that they view any admission that any aspect of abortion is bad or even just "not good" as an assault and a threat on the entire movement.
Same for the other side with different issues, really.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: I really doubt that the majority of pro-choicers think that abortion should be used as a primary method of birth control in all circumstances.
And I think that's exactly the point Saletan is making. By allowing idealogues like Pollitt to control the agenda, the pro-choicers are alienating a significant political bloc. His argument isn't moral, it's political.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An example of overzealous nonsense in action from Katha Pollit's piece:
quote:On the New York Times op-ed page, William Saletan argues that prochoicers should concede that "abortion is bad, and the ideal number of abortions is zero," and calls for "an explicit pro-choice war on the abortion rate." Sounding a "clear anti-abortion message," prochoicers should promote a basket of "solutions" to unintended pregnancy: the Prevention First Act, which calls for federal funding for family planning programs; expanded access to health insurance and emergency contraception; comprehensive sex education. "Some pro-choice activists" are even "pushing for more contraceptive diligence in the abortion counseling process, especially on the part of those women who come back for a second abortion." Give those sluts the lecture they deserve.
Now it seems to me that in any other situation, expanded healthcare, greater access to contraceptives and emergency contraceptives, and comprehensive sex education are things most liberals are clamoring for at every opportunity-and rightfully so. But offer those things with the intent of slowing the abortion rate? Good heaves! You're victimizing those poor women!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there was an article in The Nation (got a gift subscription from the in-laws for the holidays), that explains this lack of flexibility because of the fear of the earnestness of some of the pro-life folks. I think the argument is somewhat true, but it still didn't pull me from the "safe, legal, and rare" camp. The fear is that if the pro-choicers start moving to the middle first, some of the well-funded, more radical sections of the pro-life movement will see this as capitulation. They may pay some lip service to expanding some of these other preventative options, but ultimately, the pro-choicers will concede to allow some restriction on abortion availability, and won't get any reciprocal funding for family planning programs in return.
The fear is the pro-life movement will get 75% of what it wants for very little in return. I think this is true, to a greater extent than many (particularly here) pro-life supporters admit. There is a sizeable segment of the pro-life movement that not only doesn't want abortions legal, but would also prefer sex education dropped, or significantly slanted, contraception made harder to get, and to bring back the social stigmas that can tend to exacerbate the situations of people who have made bad decisions so that they make them over and over again (you get called a whore or gigilo enough, some people start to believe it and act out unhealthily, for instance).
quote:They may pay some lip service to expanding some of these other preventative options, but ultimately, the pro-choicers will concede to allow some restriction on abortion availability, and won't get any reciprocal funding for family planning programs in return.
I fail to see why it's required there be a leap of faith like you're talking about. Laws could be passed which both limit abortion and increase funding for contraception, health-care, and sex-ed in the same law.
It's not as though either movement must submit to changes and then pray a double-cross doesn't happen.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a pro-lifer, I think the biggest problem is when people think abortion is not only legal, but a perfectly acceptable alternative to birth control or abstinence. It's the attitude that it's no big deal that is so disturbing to me. And there are just as many in the "pro-life" camp that are more "middle" than extreme, as there are in the "pro-choice" camp that don't favor abortions at any time for any reason. I really think the majority of us are in the middle - the middle is just never as vocal as the extreme edges on either side.
I would consider it a good thing if abortion was treated like smoking is nowadays - legal, but considered by almost everyone to be a bad idea, and with lots of support from doctors, media and politicians to avoid it. Then, when a woman was in a position where she truly needed an abortion, it would be available to her; but people would be less likely to treat it lightly, or to make that decision thinking it was no big deal, just another "option".
If I felt society in general recognized what a big deal it is, and encouraged others to avoid it whenever possible, I would be less gung-ho to allow the government to legislate against it, because there are cases where it is needed.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that there are few women indeed who, on having an abortion, view it as "no big deal".
However, I do have a serious problem with the pro-choice movement's acceptance of abortion as a de facto method of birth control. Given the effectiveness and low cost of the wide variety of birth-control methods, that's what acceptance of abortion outside rape / disability / mother's life in danger amounts to.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I agree with you, but here is the thing: It's now publicized that some pro-choicers, particularly some politicians, would be willing to meet somewhere in the middle, but I have yet to read anywhere of pro-life supporters, outside of individual opinions (and certainly not any high profile politicians), would do the same. If it is published, it certainly hasn't been publicized. I think that makes many people who may be willing to compromise a bit nervous. Because if the olive branch is held out, with a bill as you outline, and then certain pro-life lobbies try to strip some pro-choice desired items out of it, such that the pro-choicers remove the proposal from the table, in this political climate I could see these lobbies using the retraction of the proposal as "proof" that the pro-choicers aren't _serious_ about their "safe, legal, and rare" principles.
That is the hurdle the must be passed, on both sides, even though I agree that it's a stupid hurdle.
Also, do you admit that there are certain powerful, if ultimately minority opinion, pro-life lobbies that would balk at such a bill, because of the characterization of their motives that I made? I freely admit that there are some pro-choice lobbies who slavishly support abortion as de facto birth control; but as the opening post implies, there is a strong movement to not listen to them, to find a third way. I don't see that sort of thing happening on the other side of this issue, and I think that scares people, rationally or not.
posted
Abortion is not evil. It helps to control already bulging population of humanity. Let those who would choose to find that they are not ready for children do so.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see that sort of thing happening on the other side of this issue, and I think that scares people, rationally or not.
I cannot comment on what the pro-life movement as a whole is doing or not doing because I'm not informed enough about the precise opinions to have an opinion on what they actually think.
All I can say for certain is that I am pro-life, and have communicated with many other pro-lifers and among them, the people who oppose all abortion and want to restrict access to health care, contraceptives, and sex-education are a minority.
But as for specific pro-life big-shot politicians having a more nuanced view...aside from this article, you haven't given examples of many pro-choice big-shot politicians with a more nuanced view either, actually. I'm looking, but my Internet search skills aren't so good and a search on wikipedia.com revealed that many of the politicians whom it had listings on, when I searched the entire listing for "abortion" or "life", didn't have a single mention, so it wasn't much help.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Your position is nonsense. By the reasoning given in your post, any action that reduced the burgeoning population of the world wouldn't be evil.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The world doesn't have a "bulging population" problem. There are more than enough resources in the world to look after us all. And I'm not talking about already overconsumed and producted food in some countries, instead of being used by them, being handed to others, richer people donating to poorer people, or anything else they've currently got going by means of distribution. The potential is there to produce the food (and shelter, money, etc.)themselves, there's just a lot of people in there way.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think that there are few women indeed who, on having an abortion, view it as "no big deal".
However, I do have a serious problem with the pro-choice movement's acceptance of abortion as a de facto method of birth control. Given the effectiveness and low cost of the wide variety of birth-control methods, that's what acceptance of abortion outside rape / disability / mother's life in danger amounts to.
I fail to see how acceptance of abortion outside those possibilities is absolutely unacceptable. A woman who has taken precautions and still gets pregnant has CLEARLY not chosen abortion as her primary method of birth control and has CLEARLY decided that she does not want children at this point in her life.
quote:Well, there was an article in The Nation (got a gift subscription from the in-laws for the holidays), that explains this lack of flexibility because of the fear of the earnestness of some of the pro-life folks. I think the argument is somewhat true, but it still didn't pull me from the "safe, legal, and rare" camp. The fear is that if the pro-choicers start moving to the middle first, some of the well-funded, more radical sections of the pro-life movement will see this as capitulation.
I think it is an extraordinarily bad idea to pretend true things are false just in order to avoid giving ground towards some larger false viewpoint. No solution can ever be reached that way.
A better strategy is to admit the truth of everything you find to be true. If your viewpoint is correct, then admitting other truths should not harm it. And if your viewpoint is false, admitting other truths may help you realize it is false. Unfortunately, I don't think "movements" get this. They often aren't concerned with learning what is true or false. They are concerned with winning - and when both sides care more about winning than actually finding the truth, it becomes likely that both sides will lose.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
My problem lies in the fact that just because someone utilizes protection or birth control does not mean they're utilizing them properly. Given the effectiveness of condums and the presence of redundance options (short of surgery), the percentage of women with unwanted pregnancies who properly used birth control must be very small.
Or there are some major inaccuracies about just how certain our protections and birth-control methods are.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I fail to see how acceptance of abortion outside those possibilities is absolutely unacceptable. A woman who has taken precautions and still gets pregnant has CLEARLY not chosen abortion as her primary method of birth control and has CLEARLY decided that she does not want children at this point in her life.
Clearly? If by "taken precautions" you mean she has not had sex, then I agree. But if you have sex, yet are not willing to have a child, then you have implicitly accepted that the immediate fulfillment of certain desires is worth a possible abortion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, we're back to pregnancy as a punishment for having sex, then?
When I get in a car, I take precautions not to be involved in an accident. However, the possibility for an accident still exists. This doesn't mean I shouldn't ever drive.
posted
Pregnancy is not a punishment. Pregnancy is a natural consequence that visits a tiny minority couples who engage in properly protected sex or birth control.
In almost all cases those who would view it as a punishment could have easily avoided that punishment entirely by being a little better educated and prepared.
An accident isn't punishment, either. An accident is one possible consequence of driving, no matter how careful you are, because there will always be some things that are entirely out of your control. Because there are swarms of other people who are making choices that you have no control over when you drive, the situation isn't analogous at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not kidding on the expansion rate of how many human beings are born every year, our world is already falling apart because of how many of us there are. If there were fewer human beings then our resources would not be spent so quickly.
And I agree, pregency is not a punishment, though it should be better controled by those who participate in its creation.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I get in a car, I take precautions not to be involved in an accident. However, the possibility for an accident still exists. This doesn't mean I shouldn't ever drive.
But it also doesn't mean the fact that you took precautions should absolve you of the responsibility for the accident. If there was any fault on your part, your insurance rates should go up, you should be responsible for medical care for the injured, etc.
Similarly, when an act of yours results in the creation of a helpless human life, regardless of your initial intent, you are still responsible for protecting the life you created.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Do you think some abortions are immoral? Should those abortions be restricted?
Rather than deciding where to draw the line, I think we should first try to build consensus that a line needs to be drawn. Advent doesn't think so. Neither does Katha Pollit (or Daily Kos, or NARAL, or ...).
The point of the thread is more to point out that there exists a significant middle ground of support for legal but restricted abortions. What the restricions should be aren't clear, but I think it's worth those of us in the middle taking the discussion out of the hands of the idealogues on the fringe (no offense, Advent). The first step (to my mind) is to agree that not all abortions should be illegal, but that some abortion should be.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A good example Rat, but I have seen circumstanses first hand in which abortion was the best choice. My friend still regrets his drunken mistake.
And no, I am not speaking of myself in third person.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: Similarly, when an act of yours results in the creation of a helpless human life, regardless of your initial intent, you are still responsible for protecting the life you created.
Except, not always, right. Don't you believe that sometimes (health of the mother) a woman could choose to conceive, but then be morally justified in aborting the fetus?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that abortion should be the preferred method of birth control. However, I DO think it should be available. And I don't think restricting it to cases of rape or disability is the right thing to do.
The thing is, I don't really see a way to keep all people from using abortion as a primary form of birth control by force of law without denying it to women to whom I think it should be available. I think education is far more important.
posted
Whatever happens, abortion should always be the choice of the mother. It should be hers and hers alone, no one should be able to tell a woman what to do with her own body.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You scare me Advent. I read once that the population of the entire world could fit in the state of Texas if the population density was that of New York City. I wish I could find the link.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, the fact that is being discussed, in liberal magazines (I'll check when I get home about particular folks the author worries about), as well as Salon, as well as Bill and Hillary both at least saying they support "safe, legal, and rare". As does the new (admittedly more conservative) Democratic governor of Virginia. Here's an article from the liberal Working For Change; the article does build a strawman against the pro-life movement, I'll admit, but includes Sen. Ted Kennedy a year ago supporting this more moderate stance... This article from liberal AlterNet, actually takes the more radical pro-choice stance, but mentions various places, like Harpers, The Atlantic, democratic operatives like Paul Begala also supporting this moderate stance.
But then, like I mentioned above, you get an article from townhall.com like this: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/benshapiro/2005/11/30/177147.html This is the first result from googling: "abortion safe legal rare support politician". Not too promising, considering this line: "The fact of the matter is that mainstream pro-choice liberals are lying through their teeth when they mouth the "safe, legal and rare" mantra."
Where are the Republicans? I want to know, because I want to work with those folks for this more reasonable, for the time being, middle ground.
posted
The Republicans as a party just ain't there yet. Lately I've said this so often it feels like I'm getting repetitive, but it's relevant: another reason I'm a registered Independant.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bao, that may be true, but if you include the area you need to cover with constructions that would allow everyone to live in Texas it would likely cover the entire Western Hemisphere
There's only so long a person can subsist on cactus
posted
Rakeesh, if that is the case, then you should at least understand why there is some resistance to this middle ground from the more radical pro-choice groups. I think it can be overcome, so don't have much sympathy for them, but that doesn't mean I'm not a little wary myself.
posted
I understand the hesitation, but also don't sympathize and think that for the purposes of actual legislation, it doesn't hunt very well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny, Bok, I was going to make the same point. I did an almost identical google search and was astounded at the reactionary nature (to the right and left) of everything I found. Both sides of the commentary, whether it's townhall or Working for Change, seem to think the idea of compromise is just a trojan horse.
Is the lack of Republicans breaking rank due to the ascendency of the Southern bloc in the Republican party? If Western Republicans seized power I think there would be more statements of compromise.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I think, politically speaking, why it hasn't happened yet may be two-fold:
1) These moderate Democrats have not found moderate Republicans willing to start a dialogue, for whatever reason. This is the sort of behinds the scene stuff that never is made public, which can allow my second point to be more successful
2) Until there are people on both sides of the aisle speaking similar language, there's always the chance that when one side starts making demands without compromises elsewhere, and as a result the originators of the dialogue leave the table, the side making demands can point, with some plausibility, and say, "See! They didn't really mean it!" This political fallout can and has shown to be, in the recent past, very real, and it can freeze future attempts for years. Some trust needs to be built up, somehow.
--- Personally, I'd start a dialogue by saying outlawing abortion, wholesale, is off the table, and any comprehensive sex education program attached to an abortion limiting bill must devote some amount of time (that goes beyond mere mention) to abstinence. I realize that the later condition may not be enough to start, but I admit to being somewhat ignorant as to what the pro-life side would accept, if anything, to allow the first parameter.
posted
2) Is fraught with peril, both from a cost, and from a "will the people who could use it most actually be able to use it". I'm thinking of towns where neighbors know each other, like, perhaps, the local pharmacist.
Romney is part of the problem, I'm afraid. If people can get over his religion (which was never a major issue with him here in MA, laudably), I think they'll like his more well-spoken, neo-conservative political stances.
EDIT: By people, I mean conservatives, particularly primary voters.
The budgets may get under control, but I think the social schism will only get worse.
quote:So, we're back to pregnancy as a punishment for having sex, then?
Pregnancy isn't a punishment, but it IS a consequence of sex. If you make the choice to engage in sex, the first thing you should consider is whether you are prepared to accept that possibility of that consequence.
If you think "I'll just have an abortion if something goes wrong" then it's debateable whether or not you're taking responsibility for that possible consequence, depending on what rights you think your unborn child has. To many who believe the fetus is a full person, you might as well be saying "It's okay if I have a car accident, because I'll make sure to kill the other driver and nobody will ever need to know about it." That would not be a responsible assessment of the risks of driving.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a note that Katha's response is up. I haven't had time to read it all, and probably won't until tomorrow. Follow the original link to read what she (?) has to say about Saletan's proposed pro-choice anti-abortion stance.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok, what has Romney said specifically is his position on abortion?
Most of the people I've talked to, whether they label themselves as pro-choice or pro-life, are really somewhere in the middle. They would favor reducing abortions, although they disagree on whether or not it should be done through making them illegal. Even those who support a ban usually only support a partial ban.
I'd be surprised if most congressmen are not also in the middle, although I admit my ignorance on their individual polital stances on the issue. I'd think those who support personal freedom on the issue would love to find a way to reduce abortions without limiting freedom, and those who oppose abortion would love to find any way to reduce abortions. I guess it's too much to ask that they talk.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenna, his position while running was that he wasn't going to "change the laws" of the Commonwealth. In fact his whole campaign de-emphasised social issues and focus on fiscal responsibility. He has since become more outspoken, publicizing, as far as I can tell, a pretty non-nuanced pro-life stance. No big surprise there. He's gone so far as to remark that he is "a red speck in a blue state" while at a meeting of a conservative think tank here in MA. Not exactly diplomatic for an acting governor.
Of course he really is running for president, so it isn't surprising at all.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
