Ummm….’Forced Birth?’
Jane Hamsher has had enough of NARAL…oh, not because they’re zealots obsessed with the right to drive-through abortions – no, no, no – they’re not zealous ENOUGH, apparently:
The fact is that Alito’s elevation to the Supreme Court tips the balance inexorably toward the right, and yet in response NARAL sat on the war chest they had collected for the purpose of opposing him and did next to nothing. I was among those who defended NARAL’s decision to support Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island over his anti-choice opponent. I thought it was a bold strategy to tell timid Democrats who were afraid to commit themselves to the pro-choice cause that they better think twice about sucking up to the fundies. I don’t think NARAL owes anything to the Democratic Party if the party does not support them, and it certainly owes nothing to Democratic candidates who refuse to defend their cause. But when the cloture vote on Samuel Alito was taken and Lincoln Chafee knuckled under and sided with the forced birth brigade, it was high time for NARAL to cut Chafee loose.
The ‘forced birth brigade’…sigh. God forbid the human race should, ummm, propagate, or anything.
You can’t reason with a zealot…nor can you win any converts with nonsensical talk like this…but tell me, what does it say about a person who thinks the most fundamental political issue of our age, the biggest decision that a judge can make, and the one absolutely non-negotiable principle, is the right to abort? How sad that this worldview is so prevalent…
For the record, I support the overthrow of Roe vs. Wade, because it is poor law and an even worse precedent…but should it ever get overthrown, and come to a referendum in my state of Texas, I would vote to keep it legal, despite my personal vehement opposition to the repulsive procedure (though I would have no problem with restricting it like crazy – I don’t believe in abortion as a means of avoiding responsibility for sexual recklessness). The fetishization of this issue by so many, though, is beyond any reason. It’s well past time to marginalize this ‘debate’…
so, i have a question, and apparently alot of time on my hands, why, if you are so vehemently opposed to abortion would you keep it legal?
Because I think it’s an issue that, despite the best efforts of partisans on both sides, is pretty much settled by American society as a whole – I think the Clintonian construction of ‘safe, legal, and rare’ is what the vast majority of people believe is the best compromise on a hopelessly divisive issue…
Penelope – I’m not going to speak for Mark, but I’d like to include my own answer to that question. I also rather dislike the procedure, but I would vote to keep it legal because there are some really fuzzy boundary cases where I’m not sure how I’d want to draw the line. In situations in which genetic testing reveals that the child is overwhelmingly likely to be seriously and debilitatingly ill – with a life expectancy of only a few years – there’s room for real argument about what parents should be allowed to choose. I realize that there all kinds of difficulties about deciding exactly what diseases are _really_ debilitating too, but that just makes me even more sure that I want some kind of legal abortion available.
But, like Mark, I would restrict it like crazy.
I agree, I would restrict it. I hate that people use it as a form of birth control.
The problem is that NARAL has staked out such an unmovable position, that they are now well out of the mainstream thought on this issue and expect the entire Democratic Party and the rest of the country to agree with them. They are correct that most people, approximately 65%, do not want R v. W overturned. What they refuse to recognize is that many people wish to see more restrictions put on abortion such as limiting it to only for incest, rape, or the life of the mother (65%). Only 53% of the people now consider themselves pro-choice. Conversely only 25% of the people agree with NARAL and want abortion legal in all cases. This puts the Democrats in a poor position with this group. How do they placate a far left group while trying to obtain the votes of a majority of the people?
Personally I am prolife and do feel you will see many more restrictions on abortion in the coming years such as a ruling that all third trimester abortions are illegal. It is absolutely a heinous procedure and should be stopped. I feel that the country is waking up and realizing that unborn children have rights too.
I just don’t get the majority of the left… well, actually I do, but I’m so incredulous…
Abortions are disproportionately used by black women (as a % of the population), although there are more white abortions in raw numbers.
These leftist anti-lifers are pushing for more abortions that kill more blacks %-wise who happen to vote in a bloc for leftists…
The left is truly psychotic. But it fits in with their death-at-all costs credo.
Abortion is the law of the land, whether or not it was bad law to begin with. I just won’t be one of those getting an abortion…
To add to Mussolini… abortion is practiced by more Democrats than Republicans, so Democrats are commiting “lefticide” and one day will find themselves extinct, unless, of course, a Democratic Congress declares them to an endangered species covered by the appropriate act in which case, abortion will no longer be legal demonstrating once again the superiority of the free market system.
You know, after re-reading the above, I think this idea is stupid enough to actually work.
Muffin-
I’d say almost all third trimester abortions, and then agree with you. The canonical case that sticks in my head is the pregnant woman with cancer, who will probably survive if she gets chemotherapy and almost certainly die if she doesn’t. It’s a horrific circumstance to imagine, but I’d be loathe to tell such a woman, even in the third trimester, that she has no right to medical treatment because she’s pregnant.
I realize that the current “health or life of the mother” exceptions end up being barn-door-sized holes that self-righteously unethical doctors can ram any situation through, but I have to believe that the laws can be written appropriately if we want them to be — and I agree with you that we do.
Indigo-
I believe that the left has three policies to deal with this:
(1) Tax and tariff the country into poverty, thus increasing the natural Democratic constituency of those dependent on government handouts. (Their dependence on this can be seen in the strident horror every year at the impoverished Christians from middle America vote “against their economic interests.”)
(2) Extend the franchise to “undocumented workers” and felons, who are both overwhelmingly Democratic party voters.
(3) Denial.
Clint,
You are correct about their abuse of the term “health or life of the mother”. It means anything to them and how they wish to interpret it. If it came down to a cases such as you describe, I can understand her actions. She is being human and protecting her own life. Quite natural. If all the cases for abortion were along these similar lines, I doubt there would be that much objection. Does anyone know what percentage of abortions is basically “birth control”?
Two additional thoughts on abortion.
I get upset at men for not taking their responsibility after their partner comes up pregnant. If more would accept the responsibility and stand by their partner and back them up and give them support, I feel abortions would be much less frequent. Men used to take their responsibility and marry the women. Just a personal opinion.
Secondly, I feel that as a society we no longer are willing to accept the problems that are an inconvenience to us. We all know life’s not fair. We win some, we lose some but that is part of life. Many years ago my wife became pregnant for the third time. It was an “accident”. Not what we wanted at the time but we accepted the occurrence and dealt with it. Abortion was not even an option. Unfortunately she miscarried and lost the child. The event still sits in the back of my mind.
Muffin-
I don’t have the statistics at hand, but if I recall it’s something outrageous like 80% are because it’s “not convenient for me to have a baby right now.” From a quick google: about.com states that 3.3% are because of fetal health issues (presumably birth defects of one kind or another) and 2.8% are because of maternal health issues. That’s about 6% or 1-in-16 abortions. Amazing.
Totally random aside: it’s funny how you make assumptions about gender on tiny details when conversing on the internet. I would have guessed that “Mussolini” would be a ‘he’ and “Muffin the Cat” would be a ‘she’. Go figure.
If there really is an increase in men not taking responsibility, it may have something to do with a loud movement screaming that abortion is about “choice” and no more difficult a moral issue than having your tonsils out. This naturally breeds a resentment among those who don’t get any choice. Of course, the decrease in fathers with shotguns, and societal acceptance of their judicious usage, might also be related.
Technically Muffin is a “she”. She is an old kitty. This September she turns 20. We got her when she was 3 months old. I use her as my “name” on the internet. Muffin posts on other blog sites too. She has been around our house for a long time and gets blamed for everything. Cats around our house have it pretty good.
Wow, twenty years old….
Marriage? (Yes, I am a man) Are you kidding?
This is the golden age of the hippie movement. Where have you two been? Marriage is out, maaaaan. We got the gays putting the final nail in the coffin in that patriarchal institution – down with the man! Free love! Sex when it feels good! Light up and check out, maaaan!
Responsibility? Whut’s that mean, maaan?
/sarcasm off
Responsibility and marriage = annhilation of abortion. Those two qualities get Mussolini’s stamp of approval.
I used to work in Foster Care. There are many, many children that need homes. There are also many children who are abused, neglected and unwanted. If someone does not want to have a child, why make that child suffer? You are always going on about handouts and people living off of the government, the more children they have the more we payout.
Why don’t we get all the children in foster care who are screwed up beyond belief and drop them off at your house?
Sometimes making someone do “the right thing” only hurts the child. We don’t need any more unwanted children in the system. We don’t need anymore drug addicted babies. We don’t need anymore HIV positive babies.
I’m not saying that abortion should be used as birth control, I’m just saying it is the children that suffer. I am sure that one of you knows how many abortions are done in the US every year. Now think about having all of those unwanted children in the system and We are the ones that end up paying for them.
Christine, while the majority of your points are valid, this:
Why don’t we get all the children in foster care who are screwed up beyond belief and drop them off at your house?
…is not helpful…
You’re right Mark, I’m sorry. I just get agrivated when people don’t look at all sides of an issue. I delt with alot of that when I worked there. Which is why I don’t anymore.
Hey, no worries…we live in an aggravating world…
Everone worries about Roe V Wade being overturend.
I don’t.
When Roe v Wade was in force, (its not now Casey has superceeded it), the issue of abortion that can be regulated to some degree is at least addressable. But extreme overstepping by NARAL and PP leading to Casey now says abortion anytime, anywhere, for whatever reason, or non-reason, is OK.
Casey is what has to go.
Partial Birth abortion, infanticide, most third trimester abortions and a lot of second semester abortions could be regulated out of existence within the context of R v W and is what most Americans agree with. The excesses of Casey is what most Americans object to.
After all, if a woman can’t decide top DO something in the first 3 months, or 90 days or 1920 hours (a standard work Year!) she SHOULD lose some “rights” to the developing FETUS. If she still can’t decide in 6 months, or 180 days or 3840 hours (two full standard work years!) she should cede some rights to the developing CHILD.
Finally, the one-sided nature of abortion rights as now defined by the Courts is inherently unjust. Marraiges are between a husband and wife. They both cede “rights” when they enter such an arrangemen. To say that is true except in abortion is an untenable proposition. Husbands have some rights in procreating, creating an heir, and raising a child; Parents have some rights in helping their children face the responsibilities of procreation and surgery and attaining adulthood.
Let the legislatures do their job.
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]