« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice is stalemate

By: John Brill (Diary)  |  November 25th, 2008 at 01:24 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This is a response to many of the comments that I have received to my Pro-Rights post.

It’s been interesting being treated as if I was a Pro-Choice happy baby killer, but in reality, I am not. I want to see a more rightward solution to the abortion issue.

Do you care more about the argument or the goals? Most of the people who have commented on my entry have issues with it because it’s not a Pro-Life argument and ignore the fact that it would actually advance Pro-Life goals. I assumed that the Pro-Life advocates were interested in achieving the goal of pushing back abortion however they can. If, however, it turns out that the Pro-Life advocates are happier to argue your argument – rather than actually achieving goals – then I am spinning my wheels here. But if you are actually interested in achieving the goals you argue for so passionately then consider the state of the abortion debate.


The numbers are different depending upon the survey, but essentially 30% of America is Pro-Life, 30% is Pro-Choice, and 40% are somewhere in the middle. These percentages have wobbled back and forth a bit during the past 35 years but are basically unchanged. Neither argument has enough support to become the majority opinion in this country and there is no reason to believe this will change in the next 35 or the next 100 years. The Pro-Life argument has achieved about as much of it’s goals as it’s likely to.

The basic plan on both sides is to pack the courts with judges who are sympathetic to their views. That’s a fine plan, but it only works until the other side is able to regain the majority. Gaining such a majority in the courts would be difficult and that majority would be lost as the pendulum swings the other way. That’s because of that 40% of America that’s in the middle on this. You may not like that, you may curse their names, but you won’t ever advance your goals without them.

Neither side can win with the existing status of the debate. Is it life? Yes it is, but that needs to be reconciled with the fact that the majority of Americans will not accept outlawing abortion entirely. Does the woman have a choice? Yes she does, but that needs to be reconciled with the fact that the majority of Americans are uncomfortable with abortion on demand.

Viewing the argument in a Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice manner has not yielded a majority opinion in this country so the problem might very well be that we’re not asking ourselves the right questions. Instead of trying to find a way to pack the courts and to force the rest of the country to go along, why not try to come up with an argument that the majority finds persuasive?

It is because I am unsettled by how far to the left abortion has gone in this country that I have tried to come up with a a rightward solution that the majority would be able to live with. I’m in that middle 40% on this issue. I can see elements in both arguments that would appeal to many people. In a perfect world both arguments would work fine, but this isn’t a perfect world. Neither argument has the whole solution.

The reality is that abortion is a complex issue. It may be simple for you, but it is not so for a lot of other people. Their concerns are not immaterial. It will only be by arguments that address those concerns or appeal to them otherwise that we as a nation will be able to gain consensus on the issue.

There are a lot of people on the other side who are amiable toward restricting abortion a bit, but are worried about a slippery slope leading to abortion being made entirely illegal. There are Libertarians who value their rights before your values. There are a lot of people who could be brought on board by the message that abortion is a family decision and that by making it so the family unit would be strengthened. Arguing for gender equality in regards to reproductive rights is actually a way to use the Pro-Choice argument against itself.

By addressing those concerns and using new arguments I think it’s possible for a more rightward abortion solution to be accepted by the majority in this country, but it’ll only be made possible by acknowledging that you won’t be able to get everything you want. There’s no chance of getting everything, but there’s a good chance of getting some of it, and some is better then none.

  • John A Brill
Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Alberta

    Abortion is murder. Its a non starter.
    There is another word, however, that also starts with an A that I find curiously lacking in your supposed ‘rightward’ shift on this issue.

    Say it with me people. ADOPTION.

    If you dont want the baby youve been blessed with, give it up for ADOPTION. ADOPTION is an acceptable solution to everyone, or it should be. Its not because various groups hate poor people and would rather see them kill their children then breed.

    And dont cry to me about how a mother now has to sit their for 9 months with a child she doesnt want. Tough. Maybe she will learn a lesson. Also, if the mother goes all crazy and starts drinking or drugging to kill her baby, Id charge her with murder if she does kill her baby and assault if she doesnt.

    Let me even divorce the argument from any thing remotely spiritual. Every person born has a vast potential to make money and grow the economy. Murdering babies is akin to eating the seed corn. Its f####ing retarded.

    • JohnBrill

      If your issue is with State Licensed doctors then you would have no problem with abortions performed otherwise? I haven’t heard this particular argument before. Please expound.

      • Diogenes314

        You must be a NARAL member to be making that sick and vile argument. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. No one is “forcing” or “telling” women to do anything. Can’t you get it through your head that it is not a restriction on women but on state-licensed doctors?

        And if medical professionals can’t do the procedure, who does? I’m sure a real NARAL member would love your POV.

        BTW, I onder how many women die from non-sanctioned abortions each year in the PRC because they happen to be carrying a female fetus and are holding out for a male.

  • aceintx

    First let me thank you for clarifying because your last post left many questions do to it’s composition and the “on the one hand A but on the other hand B” approach.

    Do you care more about the argument or the goals? Most of the people who have commented on my entry have issues with it because it’s not a Pro-Life argument and ignore the fact that it would actually advance Pro-Life goals. I assumed that the Pro-Life advocates were interested in achieving the goal of pushing back abortion however they can. If, however, it turns out that the Pro-Life advocates are happier to argue your argument – rather than actually achieving goals – then I am spinning my wheels here. But if you are actually interested in achieving the goals you argue for so passionately then consider the state of the abortion debate.

    This is a much clearer statement of your position and I thank you for clarifying. I largely agree with you here and said in one of my replies to your last post that those that take an all or nothing stand on this are fools…we should be willing to settle for what we can get now and work toward getting more as we go forward.

    The basic plan on both sides is to pack the courts with judges who are sympathetic to their views. That’s a fine plan, but it only works until the other side is able to regain the majority. Gaining such a majority in the courts would be difficult and that majority would be lost as the pendulum swings the other way.

    I especially agree here…I do believe packing the Supreme Court in such a way that Roe V Wade is overturned would be productive and should be pursued because even the most liberal justices on the court agree it was bad law. Once overturned I think they would be loath to reenact it. But relying on packing the lower courts is a fools errand if a long term and permanent solution is the goal.

    By addressing those concerns and using new arguments I think it’s possible for a more rightward abortion solution to be accepted by the majority in this country, but it’ll only be made possible by acknowledging that you won’t be able to get everything you want. There’s no chance of getting everything, but there’s a good chance of getting some of it, and some is better then none.

    We part ways slightly on this one…Again I agree that we should be willing to move the ball where it can be moved as we go along…where we disagree is, “There’s no chance of getting everything”. This may be true for now…but it’s far from a foregone conclusion going into the future…Education is key here.

    Once Roe V Wade is overturned, and the Pro Life issue is taken out of the hands of the judicial oligarchy, the fight could then be taken to the states. Grass roots pro lifers could begin an education program to inform the general public of fetal development and work toward using issues like clinical death definitions being applied to when life begins, when a fetus becomes a protected citizen under the 14th amendment and when a mother’s right to chose becomes invalid when her right to chose to impose her will on a separate and autonomous human being constitutes murder which should be punishable under law.

    I refuse to accept the premise that we can never achieve all our goals…the Dems never acknowledge this as a possibility and neither should we.

    I believe this attitude amongst Republicans is a large part of the problem because the Democrats relentlessly make gains against us as we continually claim victory when we stop them while they regroup…move the ball on another issue and come back and win the issue we stopped them on previously…

    Until the Republican Party learns the lesson that the Democrats have taught us so well over the last 80 years and stop being satisfied with giving the Democrats half of what THEY want as opposed to getting half of what WE want, we will continue the long slow march into socialism and eventual slavery as we relentlessly give way to their agenda.

    • JSobieski

      Your is the most meaningless of hypotheticals:

      Constitutional law is constituitonal law. You cannot wish it away via fiat.

      • Diogenes314

        Personally I think the concept is silly (not that that stopped the Roe majority) but playing the Devil’s advocate (it would be literal in this case to radical ‘feminists’)…

        What is being proposed is that if a pre-viability fetus is not considered legally to be a person, then it is property, and joint property at that. Under the situation where the sperm donor was A) led to believe that conception was not possible or B) led to believe that conception was the intent, or at least not objectionable, he should have a legal say on whether said fetus comes to term. You could also make a counter claim that if he has no say in the matter, he should not be financially liable. This pits a clear constitutional right against a rather opaque interpretation.

        No, it would never fly. But the ensuing meltdown on the left would be quite entertaining.

        • JustLeaveMeAlone

          If one is pro-life, one cannot tolerate just killing a few babies. If it’s wrong for one, it’s wrong for all.

          No one can be a little bit pregnant or a little bit dead. You either are, or you are not.

          The end.

          • SteveLA

            JustLeaveMeAlone

            As a calibration point on your views, does your standard hold true in cases of rape, incest or for verified cases of risk to the life of the mother?

          • JohnBrill

            Ace,

            Thank you for the recommendations and I’m always happy to clarify.

            I refuse to accept the premise that we can never achieve all our goals…the Dems never acknowledge this as a possibility and neither should we.

            I believe this attitude amongst Republicans is a large part of the problem because the Democrats relentlessly make gains against us as we continually claim victory when we stop them while they regroup…move the ball on another issue and come back and win the issue we stopped them on previously…

            Until the Republican Party learns the lesson that the Democrats have taught us so well over the last 80 years and stop being satisfied with giving the Democrats half of what THEY want as opposed to getting half of what WE want, we will continue the long slow march into socialism and eventual slavery as we relentlessly give way to their agenda.

            I have expressed that very same sentiment before, though not in regards to abortion. I’m a fiscal, security, small-government, cultural conservative. But I’m not a social conservative. Not all Republicans are Pro-Life.

            On this issue I’m in that middle 40% and from that perspective I can tell you a lot of people who would be described as Pro-Choice aren’t all that gung-ho about it. They’re reluctantly Pro-Choice, because there’s not an other option out there for them. They’ll tell you “I don’t have the right to make that decision for someone else”. Provide reasons expressed in terms of rights that they can understand and they’ll be on board for restrictions.

            But pushing for the elimination of abortion entirely turns a lot of the middle 40%, me included, off. I would see more restrictions on abortion, but I can’t honestly say that have the right to tell another person they can’t have an abortion without just grounds. Trying to find just ground that the people in the middle can understand has lead me to the Pro-Rights idea.

            Maybe in a hundred years one side will have persuaded enough of the population in order to get everything they want (stranger things have happened), but I have no reason to believe they will and every reason to believe they won’t.

            I do agree that Roe vs Wade should be overturned. It would be great if it could be put to the states, but I’m less sure of that occurring without some measure of reassurance that doing away with abortion entirely is off the table.

            I hope I’ve helps clarify where I’m coming from on this.

            Thank you again for your thoughtful comments. I’m looking forward to more of the same.

          • Menlo

            Sandra Day O’Connor (who unilaterally ended up deciding all abortion cases on the court in her time there) addressed a spousal notification law, among others, in 1992.

            She wrote that the abortion “right” at issue was not one of whether to end up with a child but whether to be pregnant and give birth. That’s what most who favor abortion will say.

            Granted, this is where theory is not reality. She fails to note that nearly all women who seek abortions do so for the former reason and not the latter.

            It really doesn’t matter. I’m sure most men in this situation would be happy or supportive, or they wouldn’t care.

            Regardless, the underlying theory for any such regulation is so repulsive that it is best left ignored. It’s actually one limit I would very much oppose.

          • aaronbg

            I would see more restrictions on abortion, but I can’t honestly say that have the right to tell another person they can’t have an abortion without just grounds.

            The just grounds that you seek are in the DOI. Unalienable right of Life. Regardless of when life begins it is a right and therefore can’t be taken away even before birth.

          • Menlo

            You are not in the middle (compared to the nation) if you think second trimester abortion should be legal. That puts you in a one-third minority.

            You are not in the middle if you compare prohibiting abortion to forced abortion. That is even a farther left position.

            A major problem is that you refer to “telling women.” No one wants to tell women anything. No one wants to threaten them, put them in jail, investigate them, or even identify them! It’s not about what women do. They can do as they please. It’s only about the medical profession. If you have a problem telling doctors what NOT to do, then that is a far more realistic way to state your position. Otherwise, your statement serves no purpose other than to make the pro-life position appear as having some goal of controlling women or “putting them in their place.”

          • Menlo

            You are aware most states have informed consent and waiting periods for abortion?

            It has not had any significant effect.

          • JohnBrill

            but hadn’t found a good way to split it up. But in reading a bit more about when a fetus is viable I think I may have found the thing.

            A child in the 24th to 25th weeks has a 50% chance of survival. You have some that surviv after being born on the 21st week. I’m for splitting the difference and call them a citizen at 18 weeks just to be safe. That’s at the halfway point of the pregnancy.

          • Jack_Savage

            Why not abort until the baby’s little feet are all the way out of the birth canal? And if you are going to do that, why not make a week after birth an option? I mean, if you don’t feed it, it isn’t viable. Maybe wait until the terrible twos – what the heck.

            Your “viablity agreement” is what we would get if a committee of lawyers settled the abortion issue. It is either a human from the beginning, or it isn’t until it is born. It grows, but it does not change.

            And I honestly don’t give a rip about what the polling shows.

          • Menlo

            No, the “viability” argument is NOT a middle ground, regardless of how you choose to define that.

            I guess it makes no difference that the child is being tortured to death.

            The “viability” nonsense is incredibly stupid, far-left, and sadistic. In NO WAY is it centrist or moderate!

          • mbecker908

            No, there isn’t. Not even close. And the idea that you would write that shows just how deluded you are.

            The bottom line for most of the folks commenting here is that life begins at conception. Human rights should begin there as well. Your inability to define your terms speaks volumes for the vacuity of your argument.

            When you disagree on the most basic of assumptions and definitions, there is no agreement. Period.

          • JustLeaveMeAlone

            As a calibration point on your views, does your standard hold true in cases of rape, incest or for verified cases of risk to the life of the mother?

            This is the Rubicon for pro-life, isn’t it? Many people are uncomfortable even answering this question.

            And they should be, because it’s important and needs a thoughtful, rather than a knee-jerk, response.

            So let me run through my thought processes.

            If there is a law or a moral standard that says it’s OK in certain situations, such as rape or incest, how do we enforce that? Do we demand a DNA test to prove that the baby is the product of incest? If a woman says, gee I was raped a month ago but didn’t report it and now I’m pregnant, do we just take her word for it? What kind of proof would be required?

            There are practical and legal issues here, as well as right and wrong.

            Proof of legal standards takes time, taking us perhaps well past the first trimester and perhaps into the “cone of viability”. How long would we allow the process to run on?

            Now I acknowledge that this is a horrible, traumatic, and tragic situation, when it does occur. But I am concerned about the aftereffects of an abortion on such a fragile emotional state. And there is the larger question: do two wrongs make a right?

            And what does the abortion procedure itself do the woman’s (or the girl’s) later reproductive and/or overall health, not to mention her mental health?

            The situation of the health of the mother is also sticky, and also extremely rare. Again, how do you define this? The imminent and unavoidable death of the mother if the baby is allowed to be born?

            Given that the edge of viability for infants continues to move down (babies born at 1 pound are not that uncommon anymore), there are just so many alternatives to this “either/or” situation. Hang around a hospital NICU unit and listen to the stories, and you’ll see what I mean.

            Finally, a woman, I have searched my own soul about this. It’s no secret I have not always held the views I now do; in my misspent youth, I bought the “my body, my choice” line. But life experience has changed me.

            Are there any circumstances under which I, were I pregnant, would terminate? So to answer your question personally, the only way I can, the answer is no — I would not.

            It is illogical to say “I have another life inside me”, but to also believe that under some circumstances, it’s OK to snuff that innocent and fragile life out. It also goes against every instinct I have as a woman and as a human being.

            I’m not dumb enough to believe that doing the right thing is also doing the comfortable thing, or the easy thing. Usually quite the opposite. Sometimes no choice we make is going to be a good one. But I do believe one choice is the right one.

          • SteveLA

            JustLeaveMeAlone

            Your comments and views are indeed well thought out, and I do represent well the views and thinking of absolute Pro-Life folks, but I would also point out that your point of view is held only a very small group of Americans.

            As this is a political blog, I would point out that if appealing to a majority of voters and getting elected is important, it is very hard to sell voters on any candidate that holds as true to you do on Pro-Life matters.

          • JustLeaveMeAlone

            SteveLA, I have no doubt that you are correct. I don’t expect to be in the majority, and I know I’m not. I was merely attempting to give an honest answer to your question and to also point out that there ~are~ people who believe as I do — that those people cannot and will not bend.

            And I’m sure you’re not saying that there is no place in the political discourse for us “radicals”. We exist; so politics must deal with us.

            Personally, I’m grateful that there have been people before us in this nation that did not sell out or compromise their beliefs for expediency, and didn’t allow the polls or peer pressure to dictate their courses.

            Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.” (Patrick Henry; March 23, 1775)

            BTW, his contemporaries thought PH was a pain-in-the-butt, one-true-way kind of guy. His view was not popular at time; it certainly wasn’t “go along and get along.”

          • aceintx

            I would also tell you that not only was I part of that 40% but I probably fit into the farther left position of unrestricted abortions for any reason at any time because I didn’t think I had the right to impose my views on another…but then I was confronted by the reality that abortion represents the very most extreme example of one person imposing their will on another…in fact it is an example of one person legally imposing a death sentence on another…

            I am a conservative on all points now based on this one cathartic realization and would still be the most rabid, unionist, class warfare loving socialist in the country if it wasn’t for this catharsis on abortion. I believe people’s attitudes can be changed with education and indeed are being changed as ultrasounds and 3D ultrasounds bring the startling reality to people’s mind that abortion kills a living child and is indeed murder…The question of whether I or the Government can tell someone they can not commit murder has long since been settled.

          • JSobieski

            Look, I appreicate your willingness/eagerness to try a fresh take on an old issue, but Roe v Wade is the law of the land. Until Roe is overturned, nothing can be done — not your “compromise” position . . . nothing.

            Roe v Wade is a an absolute blot on the legal landscape for all so many different reasons.

            Your proposal is based on constitutional make-believe

          • JohnBrill

            8 years ago I was an independent. I became a conservative through foreign policy and small government matters. I found that most of the people I talk with seem to think that republicans and conservatives begin and end with social issues.

            I am able to make headway in conversations on any other topics, but if I am presumed to be Pro-Life then conversation shuts down. Backs go up. People stop listening. Suddenly I become “The Enemy”, until I explain my thoughts and opinions on abortion.

            You can’t carry a conversation if no one is listening. Which, in retrospect, is why I stopped paying attention to the abortion debate when I was younger.

  • nricciar

    For the most part I agree with your stance on this subject. I would probably consider myself somewhere in the middle myself. About the only thing I disagree with you on is what rights if any does the sperm donor (father) get. And this is actually where it gets tricky even in my own head. I as a male would like to have some say, but I also have to admit to myself I am not the one carrying the child for 9 months.

    I have always had one problem with the pro-life’s stance on abortion. They claim that life begins at conception, yet I have never herd of a funeral for a miscarried child. Then again once the child is “born” if it dies even minutes after birth we do have a funeral for the child.

    I have always felt that the proper course of action was to allow abortions early in the pregnancy, but only allow them for the health of the mother after that. And by health of the mother I mean death or serious permanent injury.

    I am all in favor of using education and any other methods to work and reduce the amount of abortions that are done, but I am unable to side with people who want to ban them across the board.

  • Diogenes314

    Good luck with that. You might want to try something easier first-say getting Israel and Hezbollah to work together.

  • Uma_Richie

    MAY YOU NEVER EXPERIENCE THE PAIN OF A MISCARRIAGE OR LOSS OF A CHILD IN ANY OTHER WAY!!!!

    My opinion is that the pro-abortion movement has taken away grieving rights for parents of children lost before birth.

  • JohnBrill

    Just because the man has a veto doesn’t mean even most men would use it.

    I know of a case where the woman asked the guy for his imput because she felt it was his decision too. He told me that it was the hardest thing of his life to tell her that he would support whatever decision she made. He was of the opinion that while he had a stake in the outcome it was her body.

    It could very well become the prevailing culture for men to do so. My friend was lucky and the woman talked to him about it. It gave him the opportunity to step up to the plate and reassure her that he would be there.

    I also agree about health meaning death or serious permanent injury. There is a woman I know who fell late in her pregnancy. The child in her had died and needed to come out. If she hadn’t had an abortion then she would have risked being unable to have children.

  • JohnBrill

    I’m sorry for your loss. Though I’ve never personally had to deal with it, a good friend of mine and his wife suffered three miscarriages before having a child. They’ll be adopting their next child so they don’t have to go through that.

    Miscarraige is a hard thing to deal with, and
    nricciar didn’t suggest otherwise. He just stated that he had never heard of a funeral being performed for a miscarraige and I must confess that I have never heard of a such a thing either.

  • DC71

    Honestly, there is common ground for both pro-choice and pro-life people. None of them want to have an abortion and nobody thinks abortions are a good. As a pro-life Democrat, I run in pretty liberal circles. I’ve never met a pro-abortion person. I’ve met people who thing it shouldn’t be illegal, but never met someone who thought it was a good thing. For some reason, we don’t take that fundamental agreement that abortions and go from there. Instead of legislating it in courts, we work to make it an obsolete practice.

    In my opinion, we need to focus on many other issues that could lead to a drop in pregnancy. We need comprehensive sexual education. Not a popular thing for most people, but it is a necessary evil. I’m not saying that it should be the schools who do it, but most adolescents should receive information on contraceptives and STDs to give them basic information in case they decide against abstinence, which does happen (even to those who take abstinence pledges). Also, there should be a push to help promote birth control by women. There are a large amount of different pills, or devices that can be used these days that are effective in preventing pregnancy. Furthermore, many birth control pills help in other aspects outside of sex, such as regulating periods and even helping with acne. We should work in promoting this as a methods of preventing pregnancies. Studies have shown that these programs are effective in preventing STD’s and unplanned pregnancies.

    I know government programs aren’t necessarily popular here. But, this is a case where the government can get involved. Government should give incentives to promote adoption, and work to reform the adoption system and fund groups that perform this service. We should rework our foster care system, which is a joke. We should provide health care to pregnant women, and have programs to help aid single mothers. Programs like this can help to show that there are strong options outside of abortion, and help promote making a difference decision on the matter.

    I feel that both pro-life and pro-choice people can come to some consensus on programs that help to prevent pregnancies and give strong options outside of abortions. I think that both sides have vilified the other’s position so much, we don’t really know what other sides stands for anymore. We just end up arguing at each other, instead of talking with each other. I know, that sounds like crazy hippie speak, but I truly think there is common ground here, we just don’t go there.

  • JustLeaveMeAlone

    … doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

    I’ve been to a few. I’ve also sat up nights with grieving mothers. I will be happy to give you the GoogleEarth coordinates of a cemetery I know of that has a special section just for babies — full term, preemies, and miscarried.

    Sometimes the worst part of losing a child is just this kind of attitude — “Oh, it wasn’t a real baby yet, was it? It wasn’t as if you had a ‘relationship’ yet, was it?”

  • JohnBrill

    because if you don’t try, nothing will happen.

  • Diogenes314

    Unless the sperm donor in question was A) attempting to get the human incubator knocked up or B)mislead by the human incubator about her prophylactic staus, he really should have no say anyway. If he is using a defective prophylactic or taking no precautions, he cedes his rights either by intent or irresponsibility.

    And BTW…

    My opinion is that the pro-abortion movement has taken away grieving rights for parents of children lost before birth.

    No, it hasn’t My sister had a miscarriage a few years back. My prospective nephew is buried right next to our mother. And using this to make a political point is cruelly insensitive as well. But to be expected, I guess.

  • Uma_Richie

    In addition to JLMA’s comment below regarding cemeteries in the US, even Japanese Buddhist Temples recognize the need to grieve the unborn.
    Link is here.

    By the way, I think your last post went over not so well because your solution appeared very much like the status quo except that you gave the father some rights.

  • JSobieski

    and the current SQ position on abortion is nowhere near any middle ground.

    After Roe v Wade is overturned, the various states which reach various compromise positions on this issue. Until that happens, you are asking pro-lifers to essentially embrace a full fledged and permanent defeat.

    And you intend this to be persuasive?

    How about you give me everything you own and become my indentured servant? Sound appealing to you? It is one way to to end the deadlock on economic issues.

  • Uma_Richie

    I really do blame the pro-abortion movement for the callous treatment of couples after miscarriage in America.

  • nricciar

    It was not my intention to push buttons with my comment, but I can understand why it could be taken that way. I was just trying to point out that everything is not as black and white as people would like to think.

    As far as grieving for a miscarried child its not only understandable, but I would say very natural. As individuals we may agree or disagree on if it was a “real child” yet, but I also think that it does not really matter in the big scheme of things. At the very least it was a potential life inside someone for ~9 months. The bonds that grow can be just as strong as any other.

  • JohnBrill

    Knowledge is an amzing thing like that and you don’t need to fly off the cuff to exchange it.

    It’s not just about giving fathers some rights. It’s about changing the way the decision is reached. It’s making sure the parents and potential fathers are involved in the decision and have an opportunity to dissuade the woman from an abortion. And if there is genuine disagreement between them then they are stuck with the child. America offers freedom, but not freedom from consequence.

    There is no solution that will please everyone and forcing a solution upon people is not the way to do it. Forcing women to carry every pregnency to term is as tyranical as China forcing abortions on their women. In both cases it’s the government telling people what to do, no ifs, ands, or buts.

    The Pro-Rights position would use the arguments of Choice and Rights to create an abortion solution in this country that results in fewer abortions.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but you do want fewer abortions in this country, right?

  • JohnBrill

    If being unable to outlaw abortion is total defeat for Pro-Life advocates then not having unlimited abortions is total defeat for Pro-Chice advocates as well. Such is the nature of compromise.

    This is a structural solution. By using the arguments of Choice and Rights to encourage a process that results in fewer abortions there would be…well…fewer abortions.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought fewer abortions is a good thing.

    An argument I hear is that every life counts. I would think that would mean that every life that doesn’t get born between now and when the Roe vs Wade gets over turned is important as well. How likely do you think it’ll be that Roe vs Wade is overturned in the next 35 years? From here in the middle it looks to me like it’ll still be around for a good while. Unless a different constitutional argument is used to guarantee abortion is avaiable even if as it makes it harder to get.

  • Menlo

    There is no solution that will please everyone and forcing a solution upon people is not the way to do it. Forcing women to carry every pregnency to term is as tyranical as China forcing abortions on their women. In both cases it’s the government telling people what to do, no ifs, ands, or buts

    You must be a NARAL member to be making that sick and vile argument. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. No one is “forcing” or “telling” women to do anything. Can’t you get it through your head that it is not a restriction on women but on state-licensed doctors?

    That’s like saying the government is forcing me to digest my food or to keep my heart beating. We are talking about natural bodily functions. The government doesn’t impose them.

  • Menlo

    Funerals are not automatic processes.

    A funeral can only be held if someone knew and cared about the deceased enough to arrange for one.

    To argue on that basis is absurd.

  • Menlo

    I argue that the only possible solution is for law enforcement to defy the federal courts and shut down the abortion centers.

    The pro-life movement has lost credibility by not calling for such a thing. The court even admitted so in 1992 as a reason for refusing to overrule. Lawmakers still find that Roe had a somewhat reasonable basis.

    Anyway, why should a court that orders the allowance of genocide be obeyed? It’s ludicrous for law enforcement not to shut them down.

    An injustice of this magnitude cannot be corrected differently from other injustices of similar magnitude such as the Holocaust, slavery, or segregation.

  • mbecker908

    because you still haven’t supplied any details, will not result in fewer abortions.

    There are really two issues here. You don’t address either. First of all is the issue of abortion. On that issue, your proposal is just flat unacceptable. It will not reduce abortions and if you think it will you have ignored the history of the subject. Second, is the issue of the Roe decision as law. The decision is “bad law”, the Justices just flat made up stuff. Your proposal doesn’t deal with that at all and that is utterly unacceptable as overturning Roe is important to reinforce the point that bad law isn’t good precedent.

    The bottom line here is that “pro-choice” advocates – specifically Obama – are nothing more than supporters of infanticide. Abortion is murder. There is no middle ground and any so-called “solution” that enshrines the right to slaughter innocents is nothing more than a final solution.

    Can abortion be outlawed in one felled swoop? Unfortunately, no. Can it be marginalized and chipped away at until it can be outlawed in the future? I believe it can. And I really don’t care about “feelings” or your belief that someone else should have a right to convenience that supersedes another persons right to life.

    As far as overturning Roe, I think it’s possible. Obama will likely get two new justices. The two who he’ll replace are firm supporters of Roe. So we’re still stuck with the Kennedy Court. Kennedy is young enough he will likely hold on for some time. Hopefully he lasts until a Republican is President and then we have a good shot at a conservative justice who will vote to overturn Roe.

    Is that a sure thing? No. But your “solution” is a sure thing that one to two million unborn children will continue to be murdered every year, just like clockwork.

  • DC71

    I agree that outreach has to be done in this area. But, people have vilified the “baby-momma” so much in inner cities, that we don’t seem to promote them keeping a child. I mean, we should really be supporting women who unintentionally get pregnant and choose to keep it, instead of mocking them for lacking values, etc… I think this has gone on way too much in the past.

  • Diogenes314

    According to you. According to some, eating a hamburger is. According to the current SC, it doesn’t matter.

    I’ve said before that instead of hysterical rhetoric the starting point should be A) informed consent for those contemplating said procedure and B) making adoption easier. And it might help if the GOP stops focusing on poseur efforts like the HLA and trying to excommunicate anyone who has a differing opinion on the subject, especially if they favor originalist judges who might eventually sewnd this abortion of an issue back to the states where it belongs.

    But that’s just me.

  • Uma_Richie

    That comment alone assures me that our assumptions about the value of children are too different to reconcile any disagreements we might have on the abortion issue.

  • JohnBrill

    Even if you haven’t.

    Right now a woman can force a man to become a father. He has no veto. A woman can also make sure he does not become a father. He has no vote.

    Require women to talk to the fathers and some of them will be convinced not to undergo an abortion. Give a man a vote and you’ll be sure some will use it.

    Let parents have full parental rights over their children and a bunch of them will choose to give thier kid some tough love.

    That’s how it would reduce the number of abortions, by defending by parental rights and everyone’s reproductive rights.

    I’m not sure what part of that you’re not understanding, but it’d a better sell on the rest of the country then the existing Pro-Life Position.

  • mbecker908

    They’ve just made assumptions.

    Your little farce is unworkable in stopping abortion and it doesn’t support the underlying effort to enforce the rule of law – the Constitution – and gives judges the tacit approval to continue to make stuff up.

    You are nothing more than a useful idiot to the abortion lobby with this pap.

  • mbecker908

    you probably wouldn’t ever have met an anti-Semite either.

  • tcgeol

    even though firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, some people disagree – so, it will be legal to own bolt-action rifles and pump shotguns, but nothing else? They would be furious and rightly so – you just took away the main right and gave them a pat on the head.

    That is basically what you are doing here. Everything stays the same, except the father gets a say (which is good). It doesn’t reduce abortion or change anything. You won’t get much agreement here, because killing babies is wrong regardless of who makes the decision.

    In what way does your plan reduce abortion in any significant manner? If you can explain that, it might help. I can’t see how it would do anything.

  • Uma_Richie

    It’s better that you anonymously pushed buttons with complete strangers than made the same mistake with people you love or people who work for you.

    Here’s a good list of what not to say and what to say about miscarriages. I hope you never have to use any of these words, but sadly, you probably will at some point.

  • Menlo

    Well, right now it’s charged as murder for anyone else to do so in most states, and that is how it should be. It’s still not legislation on what the women does herself, so she is not forced by anyone to do anything.

    The government doesn’t force natural bodily functions.

    The pro-abortion groups lie about women dying from illegal abortions. Ever see NARAL’s numbers before Roe? Mexico’s numbers before Mexico City allowed it? They also cite nations where there is little legitimate health care of any form (including contraception), and where the born are dying or being killed in equally massive numbers.

  • tcgeol

    Its still true.

    As far as judges, any politician can promise that they will appoint/support originalists till the cows come home, but if they believe that RvW could be defended from an originalist viewpoint, they might as well spit in the wind. I will not take the word of anyone who claims to be an originalist, but who believes that Roe has any resemblence to legitimate or Constiutional jurisprudence.

  • Diogenes314

    The government doesn’t force natural bodily functions.

    It also doesn’t prohibit medical procedures that are guaranteed by the current interpretation of the Constitution.

    The pro-abortion groups lie about women dying from illegal abortions. Ever see NARAL’s numbers before Roe? Mexico’s numbers before Mexico City allowed it? They also cite nations where there is little legitimate health care of any form (including contraception), and where the born are dying or being killed in equally massive numbers.

    Like I said in the post below…

    “I’ve said before that instead of hysterical rhetoric the starting point should be A) informed consent for those contemplating said procedure and B) making adoption easier.”

    Informed consent would include the dangers of legal abortion, including the possibility of being unable to reproduce, post-procedural depression and possible death.

  • Diogenes314

    …said the vegan to the man eating a hamburger. You’re really goping to win hearts and minds this way.

    As far as mbecker’s point…

    As far as overturning Roe, I think it’s possible. Obama will likely get two new justices. The two who he’ll replace are firm supporters of Roe. So we’re still stuck with the Kennedy Court. Kennedy is young enough he will likely hold on for some time. Hopefully he lasts until a Republican is President and then we have a good shot at a conservative justice who will vote to overturn Roe.

    First of all, I hope it’s just two. But even at that I wouldn’t hold my breath for a 5-4 decision reversing Roe. The same judges who interpret law instead of making stuff up as they go along will be the ones who actually respect stare decisis. When Roe is eventually overturned, it will be by a 6/3 or more likely 7/2 decision.

  • JSobieski

    They are one vote away from pushing back that date another 10-15 years

    Now is NOT the time to go squishy

  • JSobieski

    I hate it when people are so conceited that they are convinced they have some kind of brilliant solution when in fact they aren’t making any sense whatsoever

  • Menlo

    None of your responses have anything to do with what you quote.

    Without physically touching someone’s body, no one can force someone else’s natural bodily functions. It’s not a question of what’s allowed but what is physically possible. Forcing anyone to do anything requires physical force (or the threat of it) by the “forcer” on the “forcee.”

    Your statement about informed consent has nothing to do with the fact that women wouldn’t die from illegal abortions if “doctors” couldn’t do them.

    I don’t think you follow logic too well.

  • DC71

    I’m not big on the Nazi analogy. It’s a cheap way to score points and doesn’t really add anything. Plus, you would have found Anti-Semites outside of Dachau, since it was an essential part of the Nazi governing structure and public thinking at the time. For the analogy to work, you’d be arguing that Pro-choice people hate…umm, procreation? It just doesn’t work as it’s not the same as a genocide.

  • Diogenes314

    To you. That’s pretty obvious.

    I don’t think you follow logic too well.

    You leave out the part about me and logic and following, and I’ll definitly agree.

  • mbecker908

    First of all, the only way to stop abortion is incrementally. Even the pro-abortion side understands this and that’s why they fight so hard against any change like outlawing partial birth abortion.

    As far as the HLA is concerned, it’s a dead issue. First and foremost, there are seven different versions of the HLA. Only two actually “outlaw” abortion and those have never seen the light of day in Congress. The other five, at best, simply set aside RvW. Hell will freeze over before we see 2/3 of the House and Senate willing to vote for the HLA, and then there’s the little issue of 38 State Legislatures. Not only is the HLA a complete waste of time, effort and money, it’s a huge waste of political capital. See the history of the ERA for a good example of what I’m talking about. Our effort would be MUCH better spent working at marginalizing abortion and providers.

  • Diogenes314

    IMO, these are two starting points that would get a lot of public support. And with informed consent, it would put Planned Euthenas..I mean Parenthood and their puppets in the Party of Pelosi on the opposite side of public opinion. Which (among other ideological guerilla tactics)might lead to a shift in the Senate in 2010. Which would disuade The One from appointing more activist judges to the SC.

    Which is the real starting point. Just because I disagree with the importance some of you place on this issue doesn’t mean I’m the enemy. Keep your eyes on the prize, leave emotion over reason to the Dems.

  • mbecker908

    You’re absolutely right.

    There is no surgical procedure available that doesn’t require informed consent and a waiting period.

    If abortions required IC and a 24 hour waiting period the numbers would drop dramatically.

    Another key is streamlining adoption.

  • mbecker908

    According to the GI’s who liberated the concentration camps people in the surrounding towns disavowed any knowledge that mass murder was going on in the camps.

    Just like advocates of “choice”. The only difference is an order of magnitude. The Nazis managed about six million. In the US alone, advocates for choice are pushing sixty million.

    And as far as your “hate procreation” meme, I would argue that you’re right on track. Read up on Margaret Sanger. Her whole shtick was to keep minorities from procreating. And she’s been successful, I’m sure, beyond her wildest dreams.

  • JohnBrill

    If you consider this all to be a silly idea that no one can understand, then why are you still here arguing against it?

  • JohnBrill

    Right now a woman can force a man to become a father. He has no veto. A woman can also make sure he does not become a father. He has no vote.

    Require women to talk to the fathers and some of the women will be convinced not to undergo an abortion. Give a man a vote and you’ll be sure some will use it.

    Let parents have full parental rights over their children and a bunch of them will choose to give their kid some tough love.

    That’s how it would reduce the number of abortions, by defending parental rights and everyone’s reproductive rights.