Political Hay
A More Perfect Union
Newsweek’s official take notwithstanding, abortion did play a central role in the past election and will continue to do so in future elections.
With the first wave of “what should conservatives do next?” essays out of the way, climbing routes up the Cliffs of Insanity have closed for the season while Rodents of Unusual Size plead with their cousins in Congress for bailout money. Those of us who wade through commentary can now follow the example of beachcombing birds, and my own flock still finds good hunting in the tide pools to the right of the Ronald Reagan Memorial Lifeguard Station.
For every Newsweek reporter who wondered why there was no “central debate” over abortion in the presidential campaign, thousands of other people saw that debate spotlighted more glaringly than ever before in the warp and woof of the rival tickets, with a pair of pro-life candidates facing off against their decidedly ambivalent counterparts.
Like other conservative bloggers, the winsome “Bookworm” knows that the biggest fault line in our society runs through Roe v. Wade. She recently posted an essay about how to heal the rift between pro-life conservatives and those who think abortion looms too large in American politics.
Newsweek-level campaign analysis might suggest that abortion came up only three times (in Obama’s pledge to approve the “Freedom of Choice” act, in the “pay grade” answer he gave Rick Warren at the Saddleback Civil Forum, and in the last of the debates), but all three of those instances combined with the well-known positions of the people running for office to reverberate through wide swaths of the American electorate.
One wonders how Newsweek would explain the name recognition that little Trig Palin now enjoys. Or, to put this another way, had abortion not been a significant campaign issue, the endorsement of Obama by Catholic law professor Doug Kmiec would not have made the splash it did. Instead, Kmiec abandoned past service in Republican administrations to parlay off-the-scale approval ratings from Planned Parenthood for Obama into a cottage industry, defending the idea that electing a president who has never supported even modest restrictions on abortion rights would somehow reduce the level of abortions nationwide. (With arrogance masquerading as magnanimity, Kmiec now says he would change his mind if the Pope personally corrected him.)
The preeminent position of legalized abortion in any catalog of national blemishes cannot be denied. In James M. Kushiner’s angry summary, “Roe v. Wade, like Dred Scott, and slavery, is a contradicting of the constitution of the organism in which it thrives.” Kushiner is right and Kmiec is wrong, which is why I question the practicality of federalist solutions to the rift in conservatism.
Bookworm proposes a neo-libertarian approach to rebuilding the Republican brand, with local governments doing a lot more, national government doing a lot less, and social issues quarantined because they play out on at least fifty small stages rather than on one large one.
Another favorite blogger put the challenge similarly: “Conservatives would do well to frame the debate in a way that both educates the public and focuses on what Congress and the President actually do,” she wrote, in the apparent hope that with the federal government “out of the business of legislating personal and sexual morality,” conservatives can argue questions about abortion and gay marriage as “freedom issues” while holding fast against the kind of one-size-fits-all thinking that looks to the Supreme Court for social policy.
But emphasis on smaller government will not by itself resolve the tension between militant and conciliatory wings of the conservative movement, not with abortion enshrined as the status quo in too many precincts and a self-consciously progressive administration coming to power. Another commentator has it more nearly right, I think, in ignoring intramural differences to spotlight people who are not socially conservative themselves, but trust the rest of us to keep the home fires burning.
We live in an “ambiguously Christian Babylon” (the phrase comes from Fr. Richard John Neuhaus), so trying to stifle or reframe abortion talk amounts to a dereliction of duty. It was not pro-life activism that took abortion to the Supreme Court, or convinced a majority of the justices to look more to King Herod than to Pontius Pilate for precedent in deciding Roe v. Wade.
Apart from its moral weight, the pro-life point of view also serves as a useful proxy for other conservative positions, winning allies of the kind who say things like “Look, if I were playing the Wishing Game, I might suggest that conservative judges give a pass to Roe v. Wade (just to not upset the political applecart) while ruling conservatively on every other issue. But I’m not playing the Wishing Game. In reality, judges who favor Roe v. Wade favor just about every other example of liberal judicial legislating, and judges who are against Roe v. Wade are against every other example of liberal judicial legislating.”
There is more than a hint of truth in that observation. It should also be noted that if reframing arguments is a prerequisite for conservative victory in subsequent elections, then reframing ought to proceed on our own terms rather than those of the progressive Left. We could start by arguing that the protection of human life at its most vulnerable is never a matter of “legislating morality,” because the state has no business mandating good behavior, but compelling reasons to curb suicidal behavior.
Anyone who needs a refresher on the difference between incentives and disincentives might look to the Bill of Rights, where imperatives (“shall make no law,” “shall not be infringed,” “shall not be construed to deny or disparage”) function more like guardrails than like harnesses. Surely Sarah from Alaska is not the only conservative who understands that.
About the Author
Patrick O’Hannigan is a writer in North Carolina.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (57) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Patrick O'Hannigan
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/11/21/a-more-perfect-union
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
frost| 11.21.08 @ 8:06AM
Forgive me for my intolerance, but, candidly, I'm becoming so sick of the constant, never-ending, overwhelming emphasis on that old Social Conservative Zealot Bugaboo, abortion/Roe vs. Wade.
Hey, I don't like abortion, but WHERE ARE THE PRIORITIES? A terrible president who couldn't keep his own party from massive spending and government growth, a leaky border with probable amnesty, an economy that sucks, and we're still paying for everything in Iraq while they count the oil revenue? A socialist president-elect and the lefty congress, with cheerleading supplied by most of the media? An educational system that fails to teach, and the Political Correctness that makes one ill....?
And, another column on abortion?
This Terminal Angst is getting old, the priorities need a little adjustment maybe, and I've grown tired of the constant repetition while this once great country is falling apart.
Sorry if that upsets the evangelical right, but, enough already...
Jason | 11.21.08 @ 8:45AM
I suspect that Obama will be in office for eight years, giving him the opportunity to appoint several judges, pushing the abortion issue much further to the left.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
Andy| 11.21.08 @ 9:37AM
It seems to me that we as the GOP must pull the party back to the foundational principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The first among them being Life.
The GOP has THE monopoly on this principle, and must begin hammering it home. However, equivocation on the death penalty, offensive war, and other actions cannot logically fit with pounding home the message that the GOP (or what is left of it) is the party of Life. It is our duty and honor to protect Life, from the start to the end. It is also our duty to ensure that those who would trample that right are accurately and rightly called out.
It is ours for the taking. Can we do it?
Paul | 11.21.08 @ 10:32AM
Principled conservatives are ALWAYS pro-life. Period. We must defend America from criminal gangs on our streets, terrorists both here and abroad, and pirates on the high seas. Every one of those groups are vicious murderers, and we must oppose them without mercy or letup. Likewise, we must do everything in our power to stop thwart and stymie the baby killers here at home, who have raped and bastardized our constitution to cloak their mad pursuit of power with a veneer of respectability.
forgive me for saying this frost, but you're dead wrong. If we stop being a pro life party, we will end up being another sad sack bunch of me too Republicans. I'm all for "choice" in the context that our party is "a choice, not an echo"
Thomas| 11.21.08 @ 10:45AM
Frost's laundry list of national problems is accurate. And I am relatively certain that anyone from the evangelical right would agree with his list wholeheartedly. But, they and a lot of other people, in this country, also add abortion to that list.
I believe frost when he says the he doesn't like abortion. But, he has no desire to even discuss it, let alone address it as a practice that should be corrected. He is not alone. After 35 years, many people have come to accept abortion as a part of the world that can not be changed, like hunger in Africa. Yet, you would be hard pressed to find anyone, in this country, who would advocate ignoring starvation anywhere in the world. So why should we ignore the continuing practice of abortion?
I will not go into all of the reasons for electing an anti-abortion candidate, but I will say that a true anti-abortion office holder would probably favorably address all of the other problems on Frost's list. Just a thought.
frost| 11.21.08 @ 10:59AM
You, Paul, may, most assuredly, speak for yourself and Republicans every/anywhere, and that's terrific. I, however, do not fancy myself as a Republican - - an independent Independent with very strong Libertarian leanings, yes. Absolutely.
I simply don't feel that it's in my job discription to lecture you, nor pontificate in sanctimonious fashion what you should think or be doing, that's all. You may be in (or part of) the "pro-life" party; I prefer that people have the CHOICE to determine their own paths, whether in becoming a parent or picking a brand of car, deoderant or whatever. And, candidly, I resent those who assume that they might lecture/chastise my daughter as to how she must think or behave.
For myself, I won't presume to suggest that YOU think in any prescribed manner - - there are far too many other problems which, in my opinion, outweigh the abortion question.
That final quote ("a choice, not an echo") was, if memory serves, from Barry Goldwater, also pro-Choice. So, feel as you will. But, kindly, don't inflict your opinions on the rest of us, okay? That might be construed as a tad presumptious...
Sheryl| 11.21.08 @ 11:19AM
frost--no one, including the dreaded pro-life people, cares to lecture you or your daughter as to how she 'must think or behave'--we only state that it is wrong that another human being pay for those thoughts or behaviors with his life.
Jeremiah| 11.21.08 @ 11:40AM
I wonder if being defined as Pro-Life constrains one to believe that there should be a federal law -- or Constitutional amendment -- banning abortion.
There are separate issues to be considered. I'm a Pro-Life Liberal Democrat. Honestly, I cannot imagine how anti-abortion laws would be enforced without a nightmarish expansion of government power. Blaming and punishing only doctors, as many pro-life people support, is irrational and morally incoherent.
Overturning Roe V Wade would make me happy on several levels. Primarily, it would result in fewer abortions -- an unquestionable good. It would NOT, however, result in a legal or morally coherent abortion policy.
Then again, I think overturning Roe V Wade would lead to a Democratic majority in this country. It would end the Republican hold on a vast segment of middle class white America -- particularly Catholics. The Republicans would have to go back to being honest about what the point of their party is: tax cuts for very, very wealthy people.
Jeremiah| 11.21.08 @ 11:43AM
Re: my last, crucial point.
Why do Republicans run as Pro-Life crusaders and then do NOTHING or virtually nothing about abortion once they are happily ensconced in their DC offices? Roe V Wade keeps Republicans in the game.
frost| 11.21.08 @ 11:59AM
Thomas said I had no desire to discuss the abortion issue? Welllll, how'bout this can'o'worms: "Babies" (per se) are not destroyed by abortion. EMBRYOS or FETUSES are. There is a considerable difference between a POTENTIAL baby... a protoplasm-of-potential, and a Viable being. There are a bunch of other arguments which I'll skip, for now. If anyone wishes to pursue the issue, okay, but I'd rather not waste a lot of time with a lot of other things...
So, okay – I don’t like abortion. But, for whatever reason the courts decided, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land until such time as the Supreme Court may reconsider the ruling. The Supremes interjected itself into what should have been a legislative matter; the Constitution doesn’t address the issue – and, on topics where the Constitution is mute, we have state and federal legislatures to write our laws. It’s their job!!! Still, even though I don’t like abortion, I’m certainly no fanatical zealot. My wives and I were/are pro-Choice, but we did have seven kids between us. Personally, I’m fiscally conservative and pretty much a Libertarian. And, while I don’t like abortion, but I’m pragmatic about it. Do I think that we’re actually going to go overturn Roe v. Wade? Possibly, but then it becomes a state issue, and it will play out however it plays out. I mean, who really likes abortion? That said, I once read a quicky quote: "Mandatory motherhood is totalitarianism." Comments?
Frankly, I'm a lot more concerned with the stuff that matters more (to me, at least), like Jerry's painful and ultra-stupid assumption that "tax-cuts are for the very, very wealthy people..."?
Right out of the Obama/socialist songbook...
Alan Brooks| 11.21.08 @ 12:02PM
Frost, even putting the abortion issue aside-- which you can't do-- social conservatives are trying to inculcate America with the slightest smidgeon of moralilty.
Roe v. Wade is here to stay; however at least social cons are making a stand.
Priorities? why is gay marrtiage such a priority for gays? Is it so important to this nation that gays marry? I don't know.
Do gays know?
Jeremiah| 11.21.08 @ 12:48PM
Frost --
At least you admit with abortion removed as an issue (say by the overturning of Roe, which would return the issue to the states), Republicans and Democrats would then be left to duke it out over basic questions of governmental involvement in the economy and tax policy.
There'd be a more wholesome, honest battle to be had. Frankly, I'd love to be able to debate you on tax policy without you being able to dismiss me as a baby-killer ever time I start to win the argument. Which by the way would be frequently.
frost| 11.21.08 @ 1:01PM
Fine, Alan - have it your way. It just seems that (aside from the public's dubious attention span, if any), that Jeremiah illustrated the point with the aforementioned comment on taxes/wealthy. As one who not-too-fondly recalls those pre-Reagan withholding statements (in excess of 50% deducted from my check by IRS, in ADDITION to Social Security, insurance, et al.) -- (I mean, it really sucks when you EARN, say, $7,000 and get a check for $3,100 or so, get it?) destroying incentive....
Compound that with Dubya's amnesty ambitions (as well as Obama's/McCain's)and lack of border security, union auto workers making as much as $81.18 hourly, and that other stuff covered in a much earlier letter - - THOSE problems seem to overshadow gay crap, stem-cells and abortion - to me anyway...
ds80| 11.21.08 @ 1:02PM
Frost - you're just too smart by half. Please identify for me any instance of a human EMBRYO/FETUS/PROTOPLASM-OF-POTENTIAL that, when born, was NOT a baby?
Pragmatic about abortion --- one might just as well stick one's fingers in one's ears at every little "uncomfortable" issue that comes along. This stance is on par with those qualify their moral statement "I oppose abortion" with the caveat "but I support a woman's right to choose". One could equally say "I oppose abortion but I support a woman’s free will". The caveat is meaningless since free will is inherent in the nature of the human creature. "Supporting" an integral part of human nature is as profound as supporting the earth's rotation.
One suspects these proclamations are attempts to demonstrate “sophisticated”, or “nuanced” moral reasoning, yet in truth they are exercises in obfuscation: they are intended to hide the inherent evil in making a free will choice for abortion.
The existence of free will (the right to choose) does not bestow moral neutrality on the exercise of that free will (the choice to end another life).
frost| 11.21.08 @ 1:26PM
This will wrap it up, for me, at least --- you may henceforth debate all the nuanced morality stuff amongst yourselves if you so choose. But, since asked, for those who insist or pontificate that any interruption of a conception is “killing a human life,” consider: the egg comes down the Fallopian Tube and doesn't place/set itself within the membranes/walls of the uterus for 3-4 days.
An embryo or fetus is not an "unborn child" for quite a while -- a protoplasm-of-potential, and a viable being. The Central Nervous System doesn't exist until the 6th to 8th week, a time when most feel abortions are certainly permissible. A 'beating heart' does not mean "life" (which is why many adults sign Living Wills). The Freedom to Choose simply can mean that hardship - the prolonged suffering of unwanted children, and extreme emotional stress (of both mother/child) can be eliminated. A three day old human embryo is a collection of just 150 cells, that’s all……… It’s called a blastocyst. For the sake of comparison, there are more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly.
Unfortunately, far too many zealots assume that these (first term) sentiments translate into those late term vacuum kinds, the types that are quite rare, but cited as examples of real nastiness.
Alternatives maybe? Consider, at the end of the 1900s it was estimated that 100,000 women have died in Rumania alone by illegal abortions since they were outlawed. Battered children??? 2.2-million abused each year. "Unwanted burdens" 450,000 kids suffer abuse or neglect - or are in foster/state facilities... "Who wants THEM"?
Adoption??? 51% are non-white minorities - but most prospective adopting parents want white or healthy kids.
I don't have an answer for all that -- my priorities are in the multitude of problems mentioned before -- haven't got time.
That's all for me today -- think I'll clean the pool.
megapotamus| 11.21.08 @ 1:36PM
Regarding Obama all this is immaterial as the media has orchestrated the greatest news blackout on Barry across the board and on abortion in particular. Mr Frost may dispute the humanity of a blob at any particular trimester but I certainly hope there is little argument that live, sqealing, delivered little pink fetuses are babies at that point. At that point and beyond, Barack Obama has heartily endorsed death by exposure as the sentence for their inconvenient existence. Yet this is virtually unknown to the population at large. It is absolutely unknown to Obama supporters. Clarity and purity do not even rise to the level of "Hopes" in a climate of deception so rank. This was the viral appeal of Sarah Palin as well as the lunatic hatred for her from our self appointed betters. She knowingly had a little retard baby instead of killing him. You may say "destroy it" if you must. That is the source of the Liberals desperate, nauseating hatred for this woman. Trig lives. That is why they hate her, full stop.
ddc| 11.21.08 @ 2:42PM
You can project your reasons on to others as to why people didn't like Palin but in most cases you'll be wrong. I didn't like Palin because I thought with another 6 years as governor she could be a strong candidate but this misadventure may have cost her a political future. My mother didn't like Palin because they grew up together. There are many reasons to dislike Palin and most of them have nothing to do at all with her youngest child.
Jeremiah| 11.21.08 @ 2:45PM
Time to start the hair-splitting work of making rational claims.
First, to criticize Palin is not to hate her as a human being. The woman was not running for Mom of the Month, she was running for vice president (and really president, given McCain's age and health).
Second, there is a difference between those who evade the question of abortion by saying they are opposed to abortion but "support a woman's right to choose," and those who oppose abortion but cannot fathom how anti-abortion laws could be fairly enforced without creating other problems of law and governance.
As I've already said, I'd be delighted if Roe fell and abortion were unproblematically illegalized and abortion ended. But what exactly would this look like? I think it's a great deal easy to oppose abortion when Roe v Wade stands and removes the question of how exactly you police pregnancy.
Imagine the perfect enforcement regime: every girl receives a micro chip implant at age 12 that alerts a government agency is if she conceives. If something happens and she does not produce a child, she has to satisfy a panel of doctors and judges that she did not do anything to abort the pregnancy.
ds80| 11.21.08 @ 2:51PM
Noted: that Frost did not identify any instance of a human EMBRYO/FETUS/PROTOPLASM-OF-POTENTIAL that, when born, was NOT a baby.
Let's turn our head and kill it now when it only has [ insert # of cells here ]. We have "more important" things to deal with then "potentialities".
Pro-Aborts/Pro-Choicers. Thy name is Hubris.
David| 11.21.08 @ 4:00PM
One thing we should do is stop calling ourselves pro-life. We should go back being anti-abortion, and calling the other side pro-abortion. We thought we were cute many years ago when we didn't like the negative connotation of being "anti" so we started calling ourselves pro-life. Seems like the other side got one over on us when they decided to call themselves the meaningless and repugnant pro-choice term - huh?
If anyone thinks McCain was a bad candidate, just try nominating a pro-abortion candidate for president and watch the Republican party get decimated.
glenny| 11.21.08 @ 4:05PM
Pardon me, Professor Kmiec.
It's not the Pope that's going to "personally" correct you. That's His job.
Jeremiah| 11.21.08 @ 4:13PM
My only point is that whenever people describe what government would be forced to do to police abortion, were it illegalized, I'm left nearly certain I'd be among those libertarian militiamen calling for armed insurrection. To what extent do we submit our sisters, daughters, mothers, and wives for governmental inspection? What kind of latitude would the government be given to decide in which circumstances a woman has done something to cause a miscarriage or abortion?
I think abortion is wrong and I'm "anti-abortion," but still I can't picture a fair way of enforcing a law that makes abortion illegal.
David | 11.21.08 @ 4:42PM
Glenny, I love it!
Louis Jenkins| 11.21.08 @ 4:45PM
Isn't it odd that millions of this nation's tax dollars are spent for the good of the children? Yet we as a nation have no qualm allowing the "institution of abortion" policy to continue under a pro-choice banner. Is abortion good for the children? Jesus told us that "better a millstone be around the neck and be cast into the sea" than to harm the least of these. What defines the least of the these? The shortest in stature or least in weight? Or the moment conception takes place, life is created, and a SOUL begins its existence? Too often we are dazzled by presentation of a big national-political picture. It would do us good to think small.
And if you must have sex, then go to the health department first! Contraception is handed out left and right and its free. Abortion is just an excuse and political rallying point for those too lazy to put on an overcoat.
David| 11.21.08 @ 4:50PM
Jeremiah, I truly don't understand your concern about how to enforce it. It was illegal in our country until 1973, and the number of abortions, although illegal, was miniscule contrasted with what it is now. If health care providers know it is illegal, they would have to risk losing their licenses if they performed them. If they did break the law, it wouldn't be long before word would spread that they are the ones who will do it and it wouldn't be long after that they would be found out and lose their licenses. I really don't understand why you think it would be so hard. Could ALL abortions be eliminated? No. But come on Jeremiah, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. In fact, it is a pretty weak argument in favor of continuing legalized abortion.
John Faber | 11.21.08 @ 6:41PM
I'm sorry if it offends those who do not belong to the evangelical right, Frost, but I don't really care if you are tired of hearing about abortion. Doubtless there were those in antebellum America who were tired of hearing about slavery, too. That doesn't make it any the less a moral blight on our society.
Your lack of concern says more about you than about the evangelical Right- and what it says isn't flattering.
Mark In Irvine | 11.21.08 @ 6:58PM
When are you "conservative" people going to realize that an essential part of reducing (you'll never eliminate) the incidence of abortion, is SEX EDUCATION and CONTRACEPTION. Lay off the hypocritical moralizing about sex and start making contraception available to people who are of reproductive age, so they are as unconsciously comfortable using it as they are comfortable with their pants hanging halfway down their rear ends and with that awful noise they call "music".
Michael L. Hauschild| 11.21.08 @ 7:40PM
3,425 words (so far), nobody has changed their mind and the Republican Party is still losing because they cannot come together. Protoplasm, viable fetuses, and children all have several things in common; they can starve or be incinerated in a nuclear blast.
Thomas| 11.21.08 @ 8:22PM
Sorry to rejoin this discussion so late, but I was busy.
Frost,
That is exactly why you and I can never have any meaningful discussion concerning abortion. You believe that human life begins at birth and I and most evangelical Christians believe that it begins at conception. Therefor, I view abortion as homicide, while frost views it as being cosmetic surgery.
As for the Republican party winning, all it takes a move to the left. Remember 1994. Remember Reagan, who ran as a pro-life conservative. Remember G.W. Bush who ran as a pro-life conservative. If having Republicans win office is the most important thing in your lives, move left. Because the conservative wing is through moving left.
Thomas| 11.21.08 @ 8:33PM
Sorry a correction, if you please.
"As for the Republican party winning, all it takes a move to the left. Remember 1994. Remember Reagan, who ran as a pro-life conservative. Remember G.W. Bush who ran as a pro-life conservative. If having Republicans win office is the most important thing in your lives, move left. Because the conservative wing is through moving left. should read:
As for the Republican party winning, all it takes is a move to the right. Remember 1994. Remember Reagan, who ran as a pro-life conservative. Remember G.W. Bush who ran as a pro-life conservative. If having Republicans win office is the most important thing in your lives, move right. Because the conservative wing is through moving left.
Sorry.
Jeremiah| 11.21.08 @ 9:33PM
David --
One reason why going back to pre-Roe laws on abortion (pre-1973) is to a large extent Roe v Wade itself.
We always tend to underestimate the abilities and motivations of our political rivals and foes.
But I think you would do well to remember that Roe v Wade was not a celebration of abortion, and many on the left were and remain opposed to abortion on moral grounds.
The Democratic position -- you'll observe -- is to omit action. No one is locating pregnant women and urging them to seek abortions (despite what pro-life groups sometimes claim).
Again, I oppose abortion on moral and religious grounds. The Church teaches it is a sin, and I accept that.
But since pro-life people make a point of seeking a kind of morally pure position, I just am pointing out that out-lawing abortion creates a logic of state oversight of pregnancy that transgresses a zone of privacy that liberty seems to require.
Michael L. Hauschild| 11.22.08 @ 7:06AM
With the Supreme Court, a majority of those actually capable of pregnancy, and now the governing control of the country all riding the Dante Express and careening down the flaming tracks to hell and damnation, only one option remains. Unite, abortion foes, take up those snapped off car antennas and whip them fornicating harlots back into line.
Bob| 11.22.08 @ 12:02PM
Polls on the voting preferences of people on both sides of the abortion issue show that between 54-58% believe it should be legal and 38-41% believe it should be illegal. If the social conservatives continue to make abortion the key issue, Republicans will continue to lose elections. As a matter of morality, I'm libertarian on the issue and believe it's between an individual, their clergy, and their doctor. Keep government out of my private life. If you want to continue to lose elections, make this a big issue and alienate fiscal conservatives with libertarian leanings who have been as staunchly pro-Republican as social conservatives have been. Candidates like Barbie Palin only serve to alienate us.
Gazinya| 11.22.08 @ 1:39PM
I agree with Mr. Hannigan. "The little that the rightous has is greater that the wealth of many wicked." It seems, to my reading, that too many persons on the widening political right are upset that the center is not more to the left. There may not be room anymore for the citizen who has read, studied, embraced the historical benifets of our Constitution. I believe it is an archtype of a Covenent with that God mentioned in the Constitution. "Our Creator" was never, I believe, to be a kind of a political wash cloth. One size fits all kind of a moralist kind of diety. Obama feels he can say with a straight face "I have accepted Jesus into my heart" and yet in the same speech say he doesn't believe in some other 'obscure passages' in Jesus teachings. I think, too many 'conservatives' believe we can skip over some of the more thorny social issues, that would require a firm stand on Christian values and just sweep them under a rug. Our founding fathers chose to take it easy on the issue of slavery until the time was right to undue this behavior. Well how did that work out? If, as a conservative, I can not stand for my values, adamantly, and still be a Republican well so be it. I'll take my faith and go home.
rusty| 11.22.08 @ 3:23PM
Bob wrote:
"As a matter of morality, I'm libertarian on the issue and believe it's between an individual, their clergy, and their doctor. Keep government out of my private life."
Well, as it stands, "an individual" is not even consulted before they are aborted. I think if third parties were actually trying to kill Bob, he would earnestly desire government intervention, even if is clergyman and doctor thought it was a good idea to let Bob die.
Bob| 11.22.08 @ 3:25PM
So, Gazinya, would you also accept Muslim or Hindu values? If not, do you really believe in freedom of religion? How can a "true" Christian believe in the death penalty -- or for that matter, optional wars? To be a Republican is not equivalent to being a Christian. One is a political party and the other a religion -- and the two should not mix.
I believe that a good man honors his marriage and sets a good example for his children. McCain cheated on his first wife. Is he a good man? Obama represents the best of family values as a good husband and father and one that truly represents the American dream of coming from nothing and being successful. I value that much more than a trivial view of abortion.
Most social conservative Republicans who could not vote for a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist President are religious bigots. What are you?
Bob| 11.22.08 @ 3:32PM
Rusty, equating an unborn fetus to an "individual" to be consulted is a bit ridiculous. If we applied that standard, then parents should have no input as to the behavior of their minor children.
There is no way to reason with social conservatives which is why they shouldn't be a part of any coalition. All coalitions require its members to compromise.
jg| 11.22.08 @ 6:58PM
Educating Frost and friends:
The fertilized egg is a human being. That is a scientific fact, not a position that one might adopt or reject. Biologists, embryologists, et al. confirm this simple point.
Your dislike of this crucial fact is unfortunate. You cannot miss this and claim to have an informed opinion.
Bob| 11.22.08 @ 8:39PM
Did you know that in Judaism, a fetus does not become a full human being until the head emerges? Until then, it is seen as partial or incomplete and has the POTENTIAL to be a human being. In Islam, the fetus becomes a human being when it is "ensouled" at 40 to 120 days. Please don't force your Christian beliefs on the rest of us. We are supposed to have religious freedom in this country. Science does not take a position on when a fetus becomes a human being as this is a religious belief.
I know you want all of us to be Christians and to disregard freedom of religion, but that is your intolerance problem.
Tommy| 11.22.08 @ 9:28PM
I had admired Douglas Kmeic for his conservative views after seeing him many times on TV including a C-Span presentation. It was very disappointing when he abandoned his prior positions to endorse President-Elect Obama. However, I'm certain he doesn't care what others think. His statement about the Pope is absurd. It appears he wants the Pope to agree with him. This is coming from a Southern Baptist.
ruth| 11.23.08 @ 12:18AM
My son, James, was born at eight months because I was ill. He's 19 now and 6'6", 265 lbs. So much for his POTENTIAL to be a human being at 8 months gestation. Just a blob, right? Pardon my 'intolerance'.
Gazinya| 11.23.08 @ 3:11AM
For more than 150 years this nation operated on general christian principles inbedded in the Constitution. It was set up that way. It was the linchpin, making the Constitution work for us. Then in 1947 the Supreme Court, unconstitutionally, ruled that there is a 'seperation of church and state'. Church automatically became anything to do with God and personal faith. Faith in God became unconstitutional in the necessary institutions created by the Constitution. The State Religion of Secular Humanism is forced on me. That offends me. Our nations' motto has been called 'jingoism' by the Supreme Court. That offends me. My complaint is that since 1947, ambiguity has reined supreme in the social fabric of this nation. It isn't my goal to insure anybody is or becomes a christian. That job belongs to Jesus but having studied His teachings I began to believe and now am convinced He is whom He says he is. That is on me and no one else. If someone has a religion and is honest about being a member of that religion, then I have no problem with that person. For me, when a polititian says he is a christian and acts, proudly, outside the teaching of Christ, I do not trust that person. Dishonest christians offend me. "To thine own self be true." As far as the death penelty is concerned, I think there are probably a handful of possibilities that happen when a person dies. What ever happens to people we, as a society decide should be sent out from here because their time in our time has been a horror, I say let them experience one of those possibilities. The one that they are experiencing here isn't working out for them or me.
jg| 11.23.08 @ 10:32AM
"Please don't force your Christian beliefs on the rest of us. We are supposed to have religious freedom in this country. Science does not take a position on when a fetus becomes a human being as this is a religious belief. "
Sorry, Bob, you are all wet on the scientific facts, which are in no doubt whatsoever. Science does indeed take a position on when life starts. It is a firm position, and I stated it earlier (11.22.08 5:58 PM post).
I did not base my point on Christian belief. Or on any other belief.
CoachJ| 11.23.08 @ 11:22AM
Speaking a belief, never forces it on anyone.
The soul or core of a man determines his route in life.
The minimize the importance of the pre-born as mere choices of lifestyle is in fact describing the core of an individuals belief system or world view.
Choose as you may, it let's us peak into your soul.
Jeremiah| 11.23.08 @ 3:35PM
Re: Conception
It's ironic. Usually I burst onto conservative sites to protest the scientific primitivism of conservatives.
In this case, however, I just can't see how "pro-choice" people square their vague notion of a fetus becoming human at some point late in the second trimester.
Everything we know about genetics (the basis, by the way, of modern evolutionary theory and biological science in general) tells us that conception is the crucial event -- when the DNA of the human being begins to form.
It was my faith that finally turned me pro-life, but when I look back at science, my faith is confirmed.
I just wish my friends who are pro-life but also progressively minded when it comes to politics could join me in a pro-life liberal Democratic party. That's where I'd be at home. But as usual, we must acquaint ourselves with homelessness. Augustine prepared us for that, at least.
Bob| 11.23.08 @ 3:36PM
jg, you are wrong on the science. Science defines terms like zygote, embryo, viability, etc. Technically, and egg or a sperm are human life because they live and are human. The connection made by Christian ethicists is a logic step that is not pure science. It assumes that if a zygote has the potential for life, then it is a "human life". In science, you cannot make that jump of logic. If you do, then you are using religion, not science.
But you asked about "human being". This is different than "human life" as "being" represents some level of being sentient. Almost all scientists agree that a zygote is NOT sentient as brain activity has not begun.
So yes, jg, you unwittingly based your point on religious belief. This is the same faulty logic used with ID.
Bob| 11.23.08 @ 3:42PM
Jeremiah, did you know the Democratic leader of the Senate, Harry Reid was pro-life? So was the strong Obama supporter Bob Casey. It would have been great to get a pro-choice guy like Tom Ridge as VP, but that could not happen.
Jeremiah| 11.23.08 @ 5:38PM
Actually, Bob, I know that Harry Reid is pro-life, and I'm delighted he is.
2006 saw the election of a few more pro-life Democrats, which I welcome.
The excesses of the Republicans under Bush, DeLay, and the rest of these clowns during the past eight years have made some Republicans uncomfortable. Those who stay Republican on the life issue may find that there is more welcome for them in the Democratic party than there used to be.
Remember folks: parties are for in-fighting. The thing to do is choose the party you think most worth fighting to change. For me, that's hands down the Democratic party. For all its many, many, many faults, I still think it's the party that believes in responsible governance and the American middle class.
As for Bush and his cronies: I say let them eat cake.
ruth| 11.24.08 @ 1:25AM
I could never fight for a party that nominated a man who was so in the tank for abortion that he advocated infanticide. Never.
jg| 11.24.08 @ 12:33PM
Tough break, Bob, that the embryology is precisely against you.
Now you need to do some reading. Not talking, reading.
Then we'll talk.
jg| 11.24.08 @ 12:47PM
Oops, sent that last via slip of the finger.
Now, what to do with you?
First, Jeremiah (11.23.08 2:35 PM) gently corrects you, but you don't read his post.
Some desiderata:
- don't claim technical knowledge until you do your reading. The facts are plain, but you don't know them.
- definition of terms is not at stake
- viability is not at stake
- no religious belief involved. You don't know whether I have religious beliefs, let alone whether I am applying them here.
As you close on a note about my wits, I DO have my wits about me. And I can read. Fluently.
Nick| 11.24.08 @ 6:40PM
Bob,
Your opinions are not science.
Sperm and ovum (eggs) are not human life. They are cells. Technically organic life. Red and white blood cells are not human life.
The difference between the cells of our body and sperm and ovum? Our cells contain 46 chromosomes unique to ourselves. The sperm has 23 chromosomes (half) from the father and the ovum has 23 from the mother. At conception they combine and a new, unique person is created.
"Being" means existence, not sentience. Sentiency means being self-aware, concious.
The one making religous pronouncements in the face of established science is you Bob. What religion? The religion of secular humanism, atheism, materialism. A religion many "scientists" today belong.
Daphne Kenward| 11.24.08 @ 6:56PM
What is wrong with Americans thinking for themselves, be responsible and you will not need to have abortion. Why should the President of the United States be responsible for morons who refuse to be responsible, try protected sex, no desease no abortion.
ruth| 11.24.08 @ 7:24PM
Who knew? Daphne is a pro-lifer!
Nick| 11.24.08 @ 8:29PM
Daphne,
Are you arguing that lack of access to birth control is why there is too many teen pregnancies? The public schools offer condoms and train 5th graders how to use them! When birth control was legalized (1962 I think) teen pregnancies skyrocketed.
But I do agree with you. Be responsible.
Try not having sex until you're married. No disease (although birth control doesn't protect against STDs). No pregnancy. No daycare. No messed up relationships. No pressure from everyone to get an abortion.