I Begin Polling On Abortion Rights

As part of an ongoing effort to provide the finest in one thing or another, I commenced a scientific poll to determine how the issue of abortion rights as it relates to the Alito nomination is viewed at cocktail parties in my very own Blue State.

And we won't cheat by playing "Hide the poll question"!  Let the survey begin:

Me:  "What do you think of the Alito nomination?"

Respondent (Demographic note - white male):  "Although I am a conservative Republican, I am opposed."

Me:  "Really?"

Respondent:  "Yes, I can't support a judge who might overturn Roe versus Wade.  I have two daughters".

Me:  "But this is one of the bluest states in America.  Abortion was legal here before Roe. V. Wade, and would surely remain legal even if Roe were overturned.  Your daughters have nothing to worry about."

Respondent:  "Well, it's not just my daughters.  There are daughters all over America, and they should not be treated any differently than my own kids."

Me:  "Very noble.  Admirable, one might say.  Of course, your daughters are in private school - are you planning to send all the daughters in America to private school?"

Respondent:  "You are annoying."

Me: "I'm putting you down as 'Undecided'."

The polling effort has just begun!  Tonight the research will continue at another soiree.

Now, my unresearched guess, based mainly on this Christian Science Monitor article telling me that Alito hit the pro-choice side in three of four abortion cases, is that Alito, with his personal ideology checked at the door, is the sort of judge a true judicial conservative can love.  If there are social conservatives looking for a reliable vote to overturn Roe, they may be in for a disappointment.

That said, my second guess is that Alito will not be opposed to some whittling around the edges of Roe - the Partial Birth Abortion ban (See note below) might represent the sort of balancing of interest with which he would be comfortable.  However, my guess is that Alito accepts that a core of abortion rights are well established at this point.

The Times did a think piece a while back imagining life after Roe, but they also made this point:

Roe is not going away anytime soon, it must be remembered, and might not, ever. Those hanging-by-a-thread warnings that issue occasionally from abortion rights advocates are based on a 5-to-4 count that places Justice Anthony Kennedy among Roe's opponents; many court watchers think that's a misreading of Justice Kennedy's abortion opinions, and that the actual count is 6-3 in support of the central holding in Roe, that women's fundamental right to abortion trumps states' power to ban or restrict it. If the 6-3 count is right, it would take an especially precise sequence of events to bring about a full reversal of Roe v. Wade. Two pro-Roe justices would have to leave the court (in other words, two besides the reliably anti-Roe Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is expected to retire at the end of this term). Their two replacements would have to be sure votes against the principle of a constitutional abortion right. An appropriate case would have to work its way up the appellate system to be accepted for review. And all of this would have to conclude before a Democrat could become president and get a chance at realigning the Supreme Court all over again.

Nathan Newman, also on the left, did his own piece on life after Roe:

I have mixed feelings on this 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, since I am in that minority faction that feels the Court's decision undermined abortion rights in the long-term and, in doing so, also undermined broader progressive progress as well.

Hence, my double-barreled blast - Roe won't be going away, and it would not be bad for the country or the political process if it did.  So don't fear-monger me, or I will annoy you right back.

NOTE:  I am drawing a blank, and I apologize.  I know proper libs fall in a faint or write angry letters to the editor when they see the phrase "Partial Birth Abortion", because they recognize it as the product of a crafty right-wing marketing campaign to frame the issue unfavorably for the Dems.

But I just can't remember the Dem marketing phrase meant to respond to this.  I am pretty sure they did not decide to describe the procedure by settling on "Head Crush and Suck", but what they did choose eludes me just now. 

MORE:  I knew I had those CNN election night exit polls somewhere (my banality here). 

We had fun with Dr. Dean, one of many Dems who waltzed around the abortion debate this spring.  Dr. Dean's absurd statistic - "You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was president?" - had been rebutted three days before his appearance, but he is only the DNC Chairman speaking to the nation on Meet The Press - why would facts impede the leader of the reality based community?

And I can't come to an answer on this - is Jeff Goldstein a genius, or just really, really good?  (Hmm, that could be another polling question...)

Comments

[Eric]

As a conservative, I am not so sure overturning Roe would be anything but pyrrhic.

With it oveturned, the emphasis shifts from the still-in-the-brth-canal radicals at NARAL to the she-was-gang-raped-by terrorists-and-must-keep-the-fraternal-twins at (insert most radical pro-life group).

And this is not a battle that can won.

I agree that Alito looks like he will uphold restrictions to unfettered abortion, but not oiverturn the decision itself, which not in the constituion, does seem to validate a right to privacy.

[Karl Maher]

I believe that the proper, medical, non-inflammatory term for what opponents of abortion call "partial birth abortion" is an HCnS.

[kim]

Aren't we all becoming?
=========================

[SteveMG]

After that Plame flame, it's nice to see TM return to non-controversial sedate issues such as abortion. Building bridges are we, Tom?

What next? Whether there's group differences in innate intelligence?

The Roberts Court (Kennedy Court?) will not overturn Roe. They may overturn Doe and permit more restrictions on abortion to a degree much as Blackmun (reportedly) originally envisioned.

But the fundamental right will remain (discovered). At the end of the day (well, of this Court) we'll probably look much more like most European countries which have a more, dare I say, nuanced view of the procedure.

Speaking of Europe, anyone know the French word for schadenfreude?

SMG

[p.lukasiak]

What is it with Republican judges and young girls.

Alito likes the idea of strip searching 10 years old girls who are within the general vicinity of anyone suspected of a crime. Roberts gets his jollies by thinking about arresting young girls for eating potato chips on a subway platform, and tossing them in jail.

At least Harriet Miers was just some old lesbian or something. These guys are total pervs! :)

[Syl]

p.luk.

You're gross. Get a life.

[Anonymous Liberal]

I believe the medical term is "Dilation and Extraction." And from what I understand, these type of late term abortions are relatively rare and usually are only done on the advice of a doctor because the continued pregnancy could potentially harm the mother.

And I think you're right, Roe ain't going anywhere anytime soon, even though it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if it did.

[Rick Ballard]

Syl,

That's the crap that's gotten him banned from most blogs. Lefty Tourette Syndrome - it's very common in the Alterman Reality.

SteveMG,

Don't be coy. Tom's next venture may well be genetic determination of differences in IQ between ethnic groups. The genome project sure is fascinating.

[Sue]

Finally, a safe topic, one sure to bring us all together. :)

[Gary Maxwell]

these type of late term abortions are relatively

Where did you get this impression? A talking head NARAL rep? If its very rare then eliminating it would not be a big deal right? the silence is code I am sure.

[Gary Maxwell]

TM

I am with SMG lets talk about the Bell Curve next. That allways genrates a very reaoned and thoughtful exchange.

[Rick Ballard]

"That allways genrates a very reaoned and thoughtful exchange.", he said, testing the heft of the club in his hand.

[Gary Maxwell]

Who me? I blush at the implication.

[Lesley]

"That allways genrates a very reaoned and thoughtful exchange.", he said, testing the heft of the club in his hand."

Posted by: Rick Ballard

The moment Tom posted his last Rove bit, I KNEW IT! This most recent post only confirmed my suspicions: Tom, dear, back away from the kid's Halloween candy. A continuous five-day sugar high on miniature Snickers is extremely dangerous. ;)

[r m flanagan]

TM certainly had the best of that
cocktail party exchange. His opponent might better have mooted the dire
possibility his privately educated daughters could move outstate. Or even that as a compassionate conservative he finds it possible to care about some of the Needs of Strangers without necessarily turning into Miss Lonelyhearts.

[cathyf]

I am with SMG lets talk about the Bell Curve next. That allways genrates a very reaoned and thoughtful exchange.

Hmmm... I guess we know where you fall on the spelling bell curve, eh? ;-0

cathy :-)

[Middle America]

Libs are against killing terrorists, but they have no problem killing babies. The Libs should not wonder why they keep losing elections.

[scooby]

One small point about partial birth / dilation & extraction: partial birth abortion refers to a *class* of procedures, that is, any abortion that is so late that the fetus is partially born.

Dilation and extraction (D&X) is a specific procedure.

That's why bills are always written to ban partial birth abortions. If you only banned D&X, a canny abortionist would simply invent a new procedure. That's why abortionists insist that the correct term is D&X.

[JM Hanes]

Middle America - not so much.
I'm a pro-choice mostly Republican swing voter, with a history of voting for the winning candidate that somebody should be interested in. And that includes the one time I voted a pox on both their houses -- along with enough similar minded folks to screw up the ultimate result royally, if I do say so myself.

While it may be true that Republicans can't win elections without their conservative base, let's hope they remember that they can't win 'em without the Republican wing of the Republican party either, in time to pull their nuts out of the fire in '08. Lucky for the folks to our right, we're a pretty tolerant bunch. If we weren't there's no telling which party would be at the helm right now. If you want to do your bit to help the Democrats back into office, you should just post slimey comments like the once above more often.

The reason this seems to be such an intractable issue is because the fact that there are legitimate, ethical positions on either side of the divide goes almost universally unacknowledged.

[JM Hanes]

TM --

The real challenge to abortion when it comes will not arrive in the form of case centered on the rights of women, it will come in a much smaller package. If you've been watching, you will have noticed a co-ordinated effort to establish the unborn as persons, separate in law from their mothers. It comes in the form of legislation concerning things like healthcare where reference to a "pregnant woman" is replaced with a "mother and her unborn child." It arrives in laws which make the murder of Lacy Peterson a double homicide, or mandate specific consequences for assaults that harm a child in the womb, independent of any consequences to the mother.

None of these changes seem threatening in and of themselves, and it's not hard to tar any who object as paranoid feminists, with groups like NARAL so successfully setting that stereotype in cement. Even otherwise pro-choice contstituents are liable to embrace such changes if our stunned reactions to a particularly vicious crime, for example, can be translated into legislation quickly enough. Taken collectively, however, the concerted effort to establish a whole body of law predicated on the legal personhood of the unborn is unmistakeable. I do not know precisely where the tipping point lies for a launching a test case onto the Supreme Court track, I just know how we're going to be getting there.

[betsybounds]

I think the purpose of the partial birth/D&X procedure is to avoid delivering a live baby, no? There is otherwise no medical reason to perform the awful head-crushing and sucking of brains. It's not as though the baby wouldn't come out unless its head were smashed. I mean, really! Who do these people think they are kidding? Why, I myself delivered 2 living children and their heads were full-sized at the time of delivery. They both made it into the world--the size of their heads was no obstacle at all. Had they been, a C-section would have been in order, not a head-crushing. No, what the foes of such a ban want is a dead-on-delivery, products-of-conception item.

[kim]

The mechanism for preservation of the species was in place before culture evolved. ANY cultural interference in the machanism is more likely to harm that mechanism, than improve it. We've reached consciousness enough about culture to examine its effect re: species preservation, and we should.

So far we've only battled lethally around the edges of the matter. No one has punctured through to the
heart of the matter well enough to encourage real understanding of the culture/biology interface to develop. Sorry, it's too late to return to unconsciousness, when ignorance was bliss.
==================================================

[kim]

In any obliteration the loss is in the future; the failure to become, the loss of potential. This is true if the loss is before conception as well as if the loss is only shortly before the natural end of life. So the question is does some gain justify the loss?

It would make more sense to kill off sick old people than the young. That seems to have only been an extreme cultural position. So why don't we? It's worth thinking about for some perspective on an issue badly in need of perspective.

Which brings up the joke:

Hey you with your products of conception. Is that issue or tissue?
========================================

[Gary Maxwell]

I guess we know where you fall on the spelling bell curve, eh? ;-0

No I can spell, but that 7th grade typing class clocked me at 40 words per minute with three mistakes. And thats when I was in shape. Now the speed is gone but the mistakes never go away.

I will try to use the preview button more for the school marms amongst us.

[kim]

I hit 70 wpm as a junior, but that was off copy just to my right. Out of my head is slower.
=================================================

[kim]

And why the F don't we teach Dvorak?
=======================================

[Rick Ballard]

Kim,

It is a self correcting phenomenon. Those who struggle for a licence to kill to be issued to everyone possessing a uterus are very unlikely to achieve reproductive success. I like to think of it as a natural remedy.

Garm,

Onlt sisssies us ePreeviw.

[kim]

Well, yeah, RB, but a bit rough on the helpless.
===================================================

[kim]

Great for harpies.

Now that was gratuitous. Buzz off, buzzards.
========================================

[kim]

What's that I spy down there? If it's tissue, it's lunch, flock; if it's issue, it's a trap.
===============================================

[susan]

Morality aside, I have a hard time with the concept of equal protection under the law when one gender is given absolute protection within a specific time period while the other half of the equation receives none.

Equally disturbing is that this equal protection under the law changes the moment the 'clump of cells' moves through the birth canal then She is given the right to sue the other unprotected half for child-support.

The only explaination for this absurdity is the fact that NOW is a Marxist-based organization who declares all patriarchy parasite pregnancy as oppressive and that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger believes that poor people breed proverty so we cannot let them breed especially those darker skin poor while sex is really just about the organism.

Abortion is not a choice. To have one's own body sterilized, using The Pill or Diaphram is choice. Abortion is a burden upon females which unfortunately, NOW prevents anyone to talk about for the insane fear that to reject abortion means sending females back to the oppressive kitchen, barefoot and miserable living under The Man. (In order to Equalize females, this is how the Marxist-feminist movement controls the male, giving us absolute power to castriate him into impotence) Gee, turns out that guys like to cook and most times they are better than Betty!

Birth control was designed to prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion, so why has abortion become another form of birth control? Because defending abortion is the only way for the Marxist to have control over females while negating the necessary male.

[Rick Ballard]

Kim,

I have ceased arguing the ethical and moral ojections to the brutal murder of the innocent. They make no difference and have no impact on those who promote the grant of license above any other consideration. The great divide is (IMO) unbridegable.

It's odd that I have never heard one of the proponents of the slaughter of innocents proclaim that her fervent desire is to have a daughter grow up to become an abortionist. One would think that "That's my little Susie, I sure hope that she grows up to become very proficient in sucking babies brains out." would be a rather common sentiment, yet I've never heard it expressed.

[kim]

Legal but rare is a compelling argument. The rarity must come from a cornucopia of choices.
=================================================

[susan]

What is so striking about the American abortion issue is that it reflects more of how abortion is used in China and Russia than in Britain.

[TexasToast]

Rick

Your very description of those of us who favor choice make it quite clear that there is no bridging the divide.

Explain to me why the FDA won't approve the morning after pill?

Its not about abortion to a lot of people - its about sex.

[TexasToast]

Our sociery makes all sorts of choices about what life is - and what it is worth. How much potential life have we lost to roadside bombs in Iraq? How much innocent life would have been lost absent the DNA testing of Illinois death row inmates? The perfect is the enemy of the good. The absolutes, IMHO, are almost always wrong.

[kim]

Yes, sex does have something to do with procreation. Just precisely what, I've yet to completely understand.
==================================================

[Rick Ballard]

TT,

I cannot explain nor would I defend the FDA's opposition. My description was intended to cover those who believe that "choice" involves a license without limit. I have no objection to legislative solutions arrived at through thorough debate and exploration of all potential negative externalities.

I would note that I know of no longitudinal studies concerning the long term pyschological well being of those who have made abortion their "choice". One would think that proponents would seek such studies in order to affirm that their position will result in the best of all possible worlds. It's not as if the number of potential subjects would result in too small a sample being available. Unless, of course, the subject is too "delicate" for those who have "chosen" to discuss.

[richard mcenroe]

Tom — No, I don't approve of your getting an abortion.

[susan]

Sex and procreation? Does it have something to do with guys never having to face responsibility and girls never having to face the kitchen.

"Our society makes all sorts of choices"

Unfortunately TT, with regard to abortion one gender is prevented from choice. (oh that's right sperm does exist in today's debate, it's all about sex)

"Why the FDA won't approve the morning after pill?"

Personally, I'm hoping it's because this way we will avoid ending up like indigenous France...a dying breed.

[kim]

RB, by nature the subject is taboo.
=============================================

[susan]

Correction 'sperm does not exist"

[kim]

La Cocina:

Food is more important than you think.
================================================

[kim]

Spermatogenesis may NOW be exuberant.
================================================

[Marianne]

President Bush has so far nominated 3 candidates for the Supreme Court, and none of them have made a public commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade. There are 2 possible reasons: (1) such a candidate might risk losing enough Republican Senators to defeat the nomination, or (2) the Republican political leadership would rather not overturn Roe v. Wade. This strategy would keep the issue alive and not settled in order to energize the religious right vote, but not to the extent of losing moderate Republican voters. Poll after poll shows that majority of Americans (60% plus or minus) don't want to see it overturned. Karl Rove can read polls.

[Paul Zrimsek]

Forgotten about the filibuster, Marianne?

[TexasToast]

As a proponent of brutal murder and the slaughter of innocents, I would suggest that no one existing in society has "license without limit". My rights end when they infringe on yours is one such formulation. Its interesting that you find JayDee's sometimes over the top polemicism worthy of ridicule, yet are free to bandy words like murder and slaughter when it suits your purposes. Pot, meet kettle.

Susan.

I'm sorry Susan, but men have none of the burdens of unwanted childbirth not imposed by law. I truly don't see any woman in a good relationship making a choice like abortion without the support and encouragement, one way or the other, of a loving partner. Life sometimes just ain't fair - but I see little reason to make it more unfair by giving a man who doesn't care a veto power over his partner's choices. I have a good friend who pursues folks who fail to pay their child support. She is busy all the time.

As to the morning after pill, are you truly suggesting that it is good social policy to encourage unwanted pregnancy in an attempt to increase the population?

The mind boggles.

[r flanagan]

" Is Jeff Goldstein a genius...?" Well I would gladly vote if only I knew what he was talking about . For example , this: "a complex calculus that seeks to balance beliefs about abortion (etc.etc.) with questions about privacy (etc.etc.) that should proceed from all such considerations " . What does PROCEED
mean ? Precede ? Be part of ? Flow from ?

[Rick Ballard]

TT,

If a live baby in the birth canal is not innocent, then no human being has ever been or will ever be innocent. If sucking that baby's brains out before it can take its first breath isn't slaughter, then the word has no meaning.

Finding a cozy description does not alter the facts.

[Sue]

Fetus. Such a sterile term. No emotion. Clinical.

Fetus. [Middle English, from Latin fetus, offspring. See dhe- in Indo-European Roots.]

Because aborting your offspring isn't quite as clinical sounding?

offspring (n.)

1. The progeny or descendants of a person, animal, or plant considered as a group.

2. A child of particular parentage.

3. A result; a product.

Just a thought.

[Jeff G]

r flanagan:

"To come from a source; originate or issue."

[Gary Maxwell]

"There are 2 possible reasons" sayeth Marianne

Sorry Marianne there is a flaw in your logic. There are more possible reasons that you have listed. For example, it has become an adopted ethical practice of candidates to not comment on how they might rule on a matter that could come before them on the court. Surely you have observed that Bader Ginsburg has been held up as a condidate who refused to comment on her views on matters that might come before the court.

Another more practical reason is that most observers count the abortion votes at 6-3. If Alito makes it closer ( Rpberts could not have as the former Chief Justice was in the minority) it still does not overturn.

This last one is why the Dems will ultimately not filibuster. The votes are there for the constitutional option and they would lose this arrow from their quiver when as surely seems likely, Stevens steps down or passes on. Even a shrill harpie like Eleanor Clift gets this ( see her Newsweek article of yesterday's date.)

[Gary Maxwell]

Hey I used Preview and corrected two typos but they still showed up in the printed text. What gives? Is there a Typekey problem? I notice I got a message about not being able to post twice in a short amount of time, although I only posted once so maybe something funky is up with the software.

[Rick Ballard]

Serves ya right, sissi.

[TexasToast]

Gary - do it in Word and paste it - if it makes that much difference to you.

[TexasToast]

Sue

Words are darn powerful things - they can hurt far worse than sticks and stones

[arrowhead]

Gary M. - "Hey I used Preview and corrected two typos but they still showed up in the printed text. What gives?"

That happened to me once as well. The next time, I corrected the text and the previewed it again - then posted. That seemed to take care of the problem. Hope that helps.

[arrowhead]

"and the previewed it again..."

Make that "and then previewed it again."

Guess I should have "previewed" my own reply.

[TexasToast]

Tom

Reading Goldstein's piece -

"in assigning to their opponents cartoon motives more properly relegated to the kinds patriarchal boogeymen who haunt the dreams of belligerent, second-wave gender feminists like Amanda Marcotte"

Excuse me? "Patriarchal boogeymen?" Did he just assign a "cartoon motive" here? BTW - what is a "cartoon motive"?

and

"some folks committed to women’s identity politics would rather just do away with the difficult work of having to weigh competing rights and interests, and instead assert the primacy of their rights by cowing their opponents into retreat by leveling charges of misogyny"

Wow, he seem to have the superhuman ability to get inside his opponants heads and do qiite a bit of ascribing their motives for a piece decrying ascribing motives.

Its just them bad guys who demonize their opponants with words like "murder" and "slaughter", assign "cartoon motives", and "do away with the difficult work of weighing competing interests".

[r flanagan]

Jeff G

Thanks but my problem is not looking up possible meanings of "proceed" it's that none seem to work in Goldstein's sentence
because of the subsequent phrase "all such considerations" .For example he might have meant that

one should balance a belief in abortion etc. with questions about privacy etc which originate (or issue from) from that very act of attempting the balance.

But the words ALL SUCH CONSIDERATIONS are an obstacle . If in fact he meant that , he should have written "proceed from that very consideration" . Or better just left out proceed etc. and written : balancing the belief in abortion etc. against the questions about privacy etc.

He needs an editor- perhaps just a wife
provided she doesn't bully or cow him.

[Cecil Turner]

Seems to me there is, and ought to be, a disconnect between what some might view as immoral and criminal law. One can be against abortion without wanting to jail mothers (or doctors) who get one. The "safe, legal, and rare" formulation seemed to resonate with most of the electorate, and straying too far appears to increase political peril. However, some procedures (e.g., "partial birth") are dubious at best, claimed to be rare, and ought to be extinct.

As to the predominant conservative view, I think that's badly conflicted. The argument centers on when life begins (e.g., conception, quickening, ability to survive, birth), with many believing a procedure after that point a form of homicide--hence the stridency--which conflicts with the desire to respect others' religious opinions. The law seems mostly stuck on "birth," but I'd note an apparent inconsistency with fetal homicide laws. The last consideration is that conservatives don't want constant change in the legal precedent, and good law or no, Roe v. Wade is fairly settled. I'm betting on inertia.

[Syl]

Okay, dammit.

I'm pro-choice but limited as to term.

I'm also pro birth-control.

The stupidity I see around me is that people who are absolutely against abortion don't allow birth control either. And no stem cell research.

They haven't taken their position far enough. They should concern themselves about eggs and sperm even before they meet.

Force everyone to have sex all the time so none of it goes to waste.

But no. Abstinence is truly their friend. They're probably lousy at it anyway.

Oh so much 'reasoned' discourse. So much smarter than everyone else.

Get your hands off my body and out of my bedroom.

You can have two babies for every one I abort. (Note I'm 61 so I speak figuratively.)

And I am not a socialist nor a radical feminist and have never been one.

This is my rant. Throw me off the farm. I don't care.

[creepy dude]

There's an obvious solution for those conservatives opposed to both birth contol and abortion:

gay marriage.

[Gary Maxwell]

Speaking of gay marriage you remind me.

Hey TT what do you think of Prop 2 on the ballot here in Texas. Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Think it will pass with a large margin? I do.

Rick Ballard: I am reminded of the story of the man and his son and a donkey. He was critized when he rode and made his son walk ( mean to his son). Then he was criticized when his son rode and he walked ( silly - youth is better able to walk). Finally when both walked they were criticized for not using the animal to lighten their burden.

So I am either illiterate or a sissy. Just for now I will take the sissy charge. Cant win like the story.

[Rick Ballard]

Not at all. Control the description and you control the topic. Victory through semiotics. It works very well when dealing with emotionally charged issues - especially when coupled with an appeal to sympathy. It fails when when a greater degree of sympathy can be engendered for another party.

In a sense, it is a crisis of victimhood with the most innocent victim theoretically carrying the higher emotive value. That's one of the reasons that the public "discussion" is no longer pushed as it once was. T'other side will no longer accept the initial framing of the issue.

Beat the argument, not the person making it.

[Syl]

Rick

Though you and I agree on many things, this is not one of them. And you do not win any arguments by calling abortion murder, and women who have abortions murderers and calling a fetus an innocent victim.

It's such obvious manipulation. Keep your hands off my body and out of my bedroom.

[kim]

Beat the TV, not the baby.
===========================

[Rick Ballard]

Syl,

I believe that you might have missed something in my posting. I referred specifically to a "license without limit" which implies the partial birth abortion procedure and I specifically repudiated the FDA opposition to the morning after bill. You yourself said that there is some point in between those positions where you feel that a line should be drawn. I agree, but I don't feel that the negative long range pyschological effects of having an abortion have been explored sufficiently to make an informed decision as to where that line should be drawn. I hope that it will be well short of viability but I have no set term in mind because insufficient evidence exists to make an appropriate decision.

In my opinion, taking the life of a viable baby can be nothing other than murder - unless the physical safety of the mother is imperiled. Not the "pyschological well being of the mother" as determined by an abortionist with a finacial stake in the outcome. I have no interest in what women choose to do with their bodies and less as to what occurs in their bedrooms. My only interest lies in the human being with a life but no voice and in the potential for self damage that comes with being encouraged to make an unreflective choice without sufficient information. You won't find anything in what I write that suggests otherwise.

[r flanagan]

Rick

In the one case of " determing the psychological well being of the mother" of which I have direct knowledge , that was done by a group of psychologists They refused approval so the child was born and there were indeed the negative consequences
which had been the basis of the mother's request .

It seems to me that-for all of us- in discussing abortion it might make sense to pretend being face to face with an actual woman , not trying to refute an opponent or sell one's own position but talking to a real person. And listening.

[KCM]

"It seems to me that-for all of us- in discussing abortion it might make sense to pretend being face to face with an actual woman , not trying to refute an opponent or sell one's own position but talking to a real person. And listening."

As an actual woman, I have noticed that any time I express any opinion that strays from the Democratic party line (I live in a deep blue state), a man will immediately say, "But, Abortion! The Republicans want to control your womb!" As if abortion rights are such a trump card that I cannot fail to realize my mistake and retract whatever I've said on any other issue.

Most women will not do this in conversation. All of the women I've spoken with who had an abortion felt that they were doing so because they had NO OTHER CHOICE, not because it WAS their choice. They also seem to believe that it was a potential life that had been ended by the abortion, not just a clump of fetal cells.

[Rick Ballard]

r flanagan,

I have one cousin dead by her own hand two years after an abortion - in '78 - with a note explaining her reasoning and another who has been under care of a pyschologist or pyschiatrist for over twenty years for depression. She's never married and prior to the "procedure' she was as sweet, vibrant and lively a person as you would care to meet.

I imagine my cousins as they were when I write about this - which I very, very rarely do. There need to be good longitudinal studies done that give accurate information concerning the pyschological problems that pertain to the decision rather than slipshod (in terms of depth) studies that both sides use to support their arguments. The pretense that there is no pyschological impact on the woman making her "choice" is one of the most harmful arguments ever put forward. The abortionists cash their checks and push their clients out on the street with very little in the way of followup care. They justify this because "everyone knows" that the pyschological effects are "minimal".

[TexasToast]

Gary M (OT)

I suspect it will pass handily. Remember, prohibition was ratified by 3/4 of the states.

What is interesting to me about the gay marriage issue is how generational it is. My kids don't understand what all the fuss is about. I'm also reminded of my former mother-in-law's tale of the hair dresser in their small Texas town who everyone knew was gay - but everyone played along with the fiction that he left town to visit a girlfriend no one ever met and every lady in town went to his hair salon and told him her secrets. Its sad that we can't "just not notice" any more.

Rick

I'm all for studies of the psychological effects of abortion - although I suspect that sociological effects play a large role in creating the guilt your family tragedies speak to. As to your formulation of "license without limit", I would be curious as to what you are referring to by "license" - and forgive my biases, the only thing I can come up with is sex without procreative intent.

[Rick Ballard]

"the only thing I can come up with is sex without procreative intent."

License to take human life (viability again), I could not care less about sexual conduct. If you feel that you can afford it, go for it. Just don't hand me a bill for any negative outcomes.

As to your speculation concerning sociological effects - I regard that as standard cant and revelatory of your personal predisposition rather than having any empirical backing. Part of the note left read "I don't know why everyone is so kind, I killed a baby" - does that fit within your "societal guilt creation" meme. Or might it, just by chance, be someone overcome by personal guilt. Denise should be a grandmother now, not dead.

[TexasToast]

Sorry, although I asked you to define your construction, I can't agree that the phrase "license without limit" speaks to murder and slaughter. "License" implies behavior less than life or death in this day and age. Again we return to our definition of human life. The answer to that question is a matter of faith and philosophy, not empirical data. I don't accept your definition, and you don't accept mine.

Part of the note left read "I don't know why everyone is so kind, I killed a baby" - does that fit within your "societal guilt creation" meme. Or might it, just by chance, be someone overcome by personal guilt.

It is not a difficult matter to reason inductively that the pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church and the sermons from the pulpits of other faiths have sociological and psychological impact on those exposed to them with respect to abortion and a myriad of other ethical and moral dilemmas. That, in fact, is their intent. Faith is a very powerful counterweight to human "license". Yes, the faithful can be kind, but also judging - and the kindness coupled with judgment can certainly lead to guilt.

Denise should be a grandmother now, not dead.

Yes, Denise should be alive and healthy now, whatever choice she made. I am sorry for your loss and hers, but her tragedy doesn't call for legal intervention in the choices of other Denises.

[Rick Ballard]

As far as I know Denise never attended church. Aside from that, I'm sure your rationale might be applicable somewhere at sometime.

[JM Hanes]

Rick -
Correct me if I've misunderstood: You are saying that potential psychological damage to women who have abortions should play a larger part in decisions about "where to draw the line" and you are saying that the "psychological well being of the mother" is a spurious justification for abortion?

Sociological concerns, by the way, are every bit as "empirical" as the psychological concerns you express -- indeed, the sociological matrix would encompass the points that you make yourself, among others. IMO, your dismissal of same as "cant" is at best superficial and at worst, wilfully blind on the broader scope of the very issues you raise.

[Rick Ballard]

JM Hanes,

The utilization of the pyschological well being of the mother as a health issue for allowance of the procedure is not empirically based. Find a study showing improvement in the pyschological well being of women who have had abortions versus those who carried to term under pyschological stress. I've looked, perhaps I've missed something. The determination (when it is even applied) is totally dependant upon a pyschologist/pyschiatrist making a judgement lacking empirical foundation. Without solid longitudinal studies the issue cannot be proven. Again, viability is the point at which I believe that the weight of well being comes into play. Prior to that is, as far as I am concerned, a nebulous area susceptible to the development of acceptable standards as determined by the various legislatures.

With regard to the sociological matrix, again, point out dispositve studies that reach sustainable conclusions. Surely after thirty years there should be reams of studies concerning the matter which would furnish adequate proof of the assertions made by Texas Toast. Assertions lacking such foundation are properly nominated as cant. I'll be happy to retract upon being shown the studies.

[r flanagan]

Rick ,

I'm sorry to read about the terrible results
of your cousins' abortions . It makes a
compelling case for some of your positions.

The case for the opposite side-my side- remains however even tho I'm sometimes embarrassed when I see it made in a combatives manner .

Obviously this isn't an abstract debate about , say ,redistricting or tax reform. And the gladiatorial tone that's fine for those issues is wrong in this one.

Finally , of course hard cases-from either side BTW- make bad law . But in this
dispute it's inevitable that they are raised
as we have both done , there a reality
that can't be ignored.

[TexasToast]

Again, viability is the point at which I believe that the weight of well being comes into play.

Viability, as I understand it, is a medical term determined on a case by case basis, generally between 24 and 26 weeks. Less than .04 percent of abortions in the US occur after 26 weeks. Almost all of those are cases of severe fetal defect or threat to the life or health of the mother. In light of these facts, under what rationale would viability affect the weight to be placed on the psycological state of the mother? As you state, your rationale is a matter of belief - a mere assertion.

Assertions lacking such foundation are properly nominated as cant.

Using your own anecdotal appeal to sympathy, was Denise's pregnancy terminated after viability? If so, what were the extenuating circumstances leading to such an unusual set of facts? If not, then why are you using it as an example?

[kim]

It's harder on everyone involved if it could have lived.
===================================================

[kim]

TT, we are arguing the same case, but at cross purposes. Most of those terminated past your 'age of viability' aren't really viable anyway, for instance, the anencephalic.
=================================================

[kim]

In fact, 'could have lived' applies better to early abortions than most of the late ones.

And there it is. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
================================================

[pollyusa]

Thought you quit all that back in June 2002.

[TM]

My goodness, who was that carefree young blogger who (as Freud might have predicted) manged to think "pro-choice" but type "pro-life"?

[pollyusa]

The pro-choice thing did seem odd, but I was refering to your tendency to torment people at social gatherings.

BTW was your blog originaly entitled "The MinuteMan"?

[Emily]

It seems to me that if people were responsible with their actions, abortion would be almost a non-issue, outside of medical and rape instances. I get so angry that abortion is used as a form of birth control that I could scream!

[JM Hanes]

Rick -

Recant what? Jargon? You can call for dispositive studies with sustainable results, but you’re pretty vague on the basics of context and relevance. The psychological impact of abortion does not occur in a sociological vacuum. Outside of physiological metal illness, that is essentially never the case. The consequences of aborting a female fetus in China, for example, will differ not only from the impact in our own culture, but will also entail an entirely different decision making process and ultimate outcome than it would if the fetus were known to be male.

The stresses facing young women contemplating and/or choosing abortion a generation ago -- i.e. the necessary subjects of the long term studies your argument demands -- differ dramatically from those of their contemporary counterparts. Out of wedlock babies meant ostracism; indeed, in many circumstances unmarried sex itself could be an irradicable stain on a young woman’s reputation and her prospects, so abortions were necessarily covert both legally and socially. In short, it was almost impossible to have an abortion without feeling like, if not actually being, a crimminal. That is simply not generally the case today, and such sociological changes over the necessary duration of your study would effectively nullify the usefulness of the results. That doesn't mean there's no data out there, but considering just how inaccurately you describe the pro-choice position, I have to wonder if you actually know what supporting evidence, empirical or otherwise, they rely on.

Now I'm not here to defend TT's position, and I actually agree that a decision to abort should take place pre-viability, but that argument has absolutely nothing to do with the pyschological data you called for yourself and which, unless I’m mistaken, asserted were relevant to deciding where lines should be drawn. I would suggest that one of a host of “reasons that the public ‘discussion’ is no longer pushed as it once was” is that technological developments have made even the issue of viability considerably more complex than it used to be.

When you start citing the exhaustive studies which empirically support your own cavalier assertions about everything from abortionists and clients to the arguments being put forward on the pro-choice side, you’ll be in a better position to opine as to cant. For a textbook example of the gernre, try “Victory through semiotics.” Outlawing abortion comes with its own burden of coat hanger horrors and butchery. Engagement on this issue is inhibited less by the descriptive terms you use to describe the process, than by the terms you use to characterize those who do not share your views.

[kim]

It is a question of estimating the potentialities of a woman(fathers usually should count, too) with and without a baby balanced against the potentialities of the baby. It's only win-win one-way.
================================================

[kim]

Well, a timeline has some relevance to that. Pre-coital, the potentialities are difficult to estimate.
===================================================

[TexasToast]

This thread is a very interesting rhetorical engagement – particularly the arc of the debate between Rick and myself. From my point of view, Rick starts off with pejorative labeling of the pro-choice position as favored by “murderers” and “slaughterers” – a technique designed to begin and end the debate by framing it with highly charged emotional color. Its quite interesting that he is obviously aware of the technique, as he knows the technical term for it – semiotics. When challenged, he proceeds to adjust his argument by refusing to engage the related arguments with respect to the FDA’s foot dragging on the morning after pill (which would do much to ameliorate the claims that abortion is merely birth control for those not so subtly labeled by his term “license without limit” as irresponsible and hedonistic) and demands proof of a negative through the device of asserting that there are no “longitudinal studies” proving the absence of psychological damage to a woman obtaining an abortion. He further asserts that changing the frame of the debate from pejorative name-calling is an illegitimate attempt at “… finding a cozy description [to] alter the facts.”

When challenged by another poster (Syl), he expands his demand for proof of a negative (no psychological damage to the mother) and explains his hope that the “exploration of the negative psychological effects (which he assumes, in the absence of proof of their nonexistence) will result in line drawing well short of viability.” He then reasserts his opinion that abortion of a viable baby is “murder” (repetition of the pejorative framing) unless there is a physical danger to the mother’s health and asserts that “abortionists with a financial interest” cannot be trusted to make any such determination. This is ad homonem attribution of venal motives combined with a strawman argument that viable babies are aborted for reasons other than physical danger to the mother’s health or sever fetal defect – an unsupported assertion contrary to fact.

Next, when challenged by another poster’s anecdotal example of psychological damage to a mother as a result of a decision not to abort a fetus, he pulls out the big gun – his own emotionally charged anecdotal tale of his cousin’s suicide which he asserts, without any proof, was proximately caused by her guilt at choosing to abort a fetus - a “crisis of victimhood” indeed!

Upon receiving agreement that studies of psychological impact would be desirable, but that such studies should also consider sociological impact in a post which also questioned his use of the formulation ”license without limit”, Rick proceeds to assert that “limit” in that formulation refers only to viability (contrary to his previous statements of hope that the line drawing be well short of viability) and denies that the phrase has anything to do with sexual behavior. H further proceeds to label speculation about sociological effects as “standard cant” and returns to his emotional plea for sympathy with even more force; “I don’t know why everyone is so kind, I killed a baby.”

Whew!

I attempted to meet this argument by pointing out his formulation of “license without limit” was generally not so limited to mere questions of “viability” and that the definition of “human life” in this context was a matter of faith, not rationalism. I further pointed out that faith influences individuals and society, resulting in psychological and sociological effects which might explain the “guilt” engendered by his plea to sympathy, and that the choices of one individual, no matter how tragic, did not represent a reason to change social policy to limit the choices of others faced with similar decisions. This was met with the mere denial of the premise that faith influenced the one individual relied on to create the emotional plea for sympathy.

At this point, JMH jumped in - pointing out that Rick’s “potential psychological damage" was a moving target and that psychological effects could not be considered without taking into account the sociological context. Rick responds by repeating his demand for proof of the absence of psychological damage, and asserts (contrary to his earlier position in his response to Syl), that he is only talking about abortion after viability.

It appears that, after this is met by pointing out this assertion is contrary to fact and that his explosive emotional example is not on point, that psychological effects cannot be measured without considering the sociological context, and that the “empirical studies” he demands would be mooted by the changes in society over the past 30 years, Rick has abandoned the field.

Fascinating – and further proof that JOM is not your average blog. Tom is to be commended.

Still, in light of this exchange, why do we wonder that there is no “bridging the divide”?

[JM Hanes]

Why, indeed, TT? I doubt that the abortion issue will ever, or even can, be truly resolved in law, but we need to find ways to talk about these issues, because there are a whole lot more of them coming down the pike. Even now, how many among us will face a "natural death" and not decisions about the extent of intervention we are prepared to tolerate or require instead? We will all be dying an unnatural death of one kind or another.

Tech advances will also make the current controversy over abortion itself look like conversations from a simpler time. I'm not convinced that those now taking the personhood-of-the-unborn path to the Supreme Court have really contemplated the full enormity of what severing the unborn from their mothers in law will mean. Are they prepared to order invasive pre-natal surgeries -- with or without maternal consent, or on the basis of actuarial tables on the odds beneficial results? Those are only the easy questions which will start off the new, unavoiidable, debate. One cannot grant government an explicit legal (& regulatory!) interest in the unborn, without simultaneously granting it access to the mother's womb. The ultimate consequences of doing so may well beggar the imagination of the very folks who now so easily dismiss such concerns as cant or rant.

At the same time, how can anyone seriously fault the activism of those who truly believe that abortion is murder? It's a compelling moral position which cannot not easily submit to compromise. In the end, I think it will be up to the pragmatists among us to come up with some sort of third way, to end if not abortion itself, then abortion as it manifests itself in our political life. The adversarial, no-holds barred character of this contest is affecting the very institutions of governance we rely on.

[kim]

The bridge is legal but rare, and the rarity must stem from a multiplicity of choices. Pragmatically, that is happening already.
==================================================