The Calm, Rational World of the Pro-Choice Fanatic
I’ve made it more than clear here that abortion is not my favorite issue – I’ve also made it clear that despite my personal extreme distaste for the loathsome procedure, I think it should be legal – and heavily restricted and exceedingly rare. I must say, however, that the pro-choice fanatics do themselves no favors with their continual hysterics.
Case in point – as always – one Jane Hamsher, a one-woman embodiment of every stereotype about shrill, out-of-control lefties. I can only conclude Hamsher has some serious issues, because it’s hard to believe a grown, successful adult could be so childishly spiteful:
Lincoln Chafee should be wearing his Alito vote around his f**king neck, as should Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, and [Rahm] Emanuel should be making the South Dakota law de rigeur attire for Congressional Republicans in solidly pro-choice districts. The rapist rights bill should become emblematic for everything the GOP stands for, especially in progressive states where the Republicans are quite rightly afraid of being associated with the forced birth extremists.
As hard as this may be for Hamsher to fathom, there is a considerable portion of this nation that would like to see abortion made illegal – period. That is called a disagreement. It is the fundamental right of each person to decide where he or she fits on this and all isues. To call someone who disagrees with you a ‘forced birth extremist’ who believes in ‘rapists’ rights’ is disgustingly unfair and inherently harmful to Hamsher’s cause.
Would I support the South Dakota bill? No, I would not. It is not extremist, however, to exercise your democratic rights. The South Dakota legislature is filled with elected representatives of the people – and they have spoken. That’s not extremism, it’s democracy. The people may vote them out of office, and the courts may overturn the law – but that, too, is democracy as it is practiced in this country.
I’m pretty sure the people of South Dakota will only harden their opinions, though, in the face of bile like that spewing from Hamsher’s every orifice. Not very smart, Jane – perhaps your vacation wasn’t long enough…
I, like many people apparently
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/13/americans_consistent_but_conflicted_in_abortion_views/
am ambivalent about abortion. On the one hand I find aborting a child to be abhorrent, on the other I am sympathetic to the concept of choice.
Anti-abortionists believe the unborn child is a human being that has rights, primary of which is the right to life. Largely they agree with the concept of choice but confine it to the choice to conceive, or not.
Pro-choicers believe the unborn child is an immature collection of human material that, therefore, has no rights and so cannot be in conflict with the woman’s choice to complete or terminate a pregnancy.
I’m not smart enough to see how you reconcile these differing viewpoints in any objective, fact-based way. So we are left with the system we have, i.e.; politics and law. It is patently obvious, is it not, that Roe v Wade failed to settle the issue given that some 30+ years later we are still arguing and debating?
No one is served by the vitriolic nonsense spoken by Hamsher and her ilk. Nor are we served by those who attack pro-choicers as murderers.
Btw, if you believe that the unborn child is a human being with a right to life, how, exactly, does the source of that conception (rape, incest, accidental) justify an abortion?
As I said, I’m of two minds on this issue. And I’m really tired of thinking and talking about it.
There are plenty of shrill voices on both sides of the divide, of which Jane Hamsher is one.
Because of the anti-abortion lobby, research into stem cells is severely limited. This is because this group values embryos more highly than those who have life-threatening diseases which could potentially be cured by stem cell research.
Jane Hamsher or the pandering to the anti-abortion lobby: which is the greater outrage?
Jane Hamsher, by far – because she belittles her opponents and doesn’t seek common ground (and of course I’m using Jane Hamsher as a proxy for all the fanatics who think the right to have consequenceless, responsibility-free sex is the most precious freedom we have). Want to change the beliefs of the ‘anti-abortion’ lobby (whatever that is?)? Meet them on the field of ideas, don’t scream epithets at them…
Shrill voices are only that: shrill voices.
Restrictions on medical research have very real consequences. I would not want to be the one to explain to the parents of a kid with juvenile diabetes or spinal cord injury why the government is not interested in aggressively pursuing a cure for their child.
There will always be people who are unreasonable, uncompromising, or just plain stupid, whether they are Jane Hamsher or Randall Terry. They can scream all they want at each other, and it’s just a side show. The real outrage is how anti-abortion purists are impeding medical researchers from finding potential cures to horrible diseases.
peter, I don’t want to be an apologist for anyone on any side; I can only speak for myself…but I know that most anti-abortion ‘purists’ are as heartfelt in their beliefs as Jane is in hers…my point was not to debate the rightness or wrongness of abortion (God knows we’ve heard enough of that) but to discuss tactics.
However, since you mention it, what does stem-cell research have to do with Jane’s post, or the South Dakota law, or the price of tea in China?
You’re throwing a red herring out here, my friend…that’s not the point I’m making – again, I’m talking tactics, not the relative merits of positions…
Her tactics are wrong (as well as being counter-productive): no argument there.
Stem cell research is relevant to the South Dakota law because it is the obverse of third trimester abortions. To a pro-choice person, the issue of third trimester abortions is the thing you get squeamish about and causes you to define where you draw the line. I would imagine that for the other side, elevating the right of an embryo above that of a sick child (or adult) is analogous.
However, we have an administration in Washington which refuses to act against the wishes of its base. (To be clear: the Miers thing and the ports deal met with opposition from the base because the administration did not expect this reaction. On any issue which has been articulated by the base — in this case, abortion rights — the administration will kowtow every time).
A large part of the base is the religious right, which takes the extreme position that stem cell research should not be federally supported. As a result, the government is not significantly involved in furthering stem cell research. To me, that is outrageous. I am blessed with a ten year old daughter who is happy and healthy. However, if she had juvenile diabetes and a potential cure were being blocked because of political considerations, you could imagine how I (or any parent) would feel. It is unconsionable for the beliefs of a few — no matter how heartfelt — to prevent the end of suffering to the many.
Well, that’s your viewpoint, and it’s admirably stated…however, the religious right is no more a part of the Republican base than the secular Left is for the Democrats, and your lumping of the Bush administration into this is a transparent attempt to turn this thread partisan (the ports deal was not a Bush initiative – it was a commercial transaction).
You know I like Bush and I know you don’t…that’s not news. Consider, however, the viewpoint of the religious right for a moment – if you believed, as some religious people (perhaps even most) do, that conception begins at birth, then you would be hard put to justify murder…as you often say in another context, Alyosha, the good son in the Brothers Karamazov, wouldn’t torture one child to save the entire world – surely he wouldn’t kill one, either…
Again, that’s not my viewpoint – I’m in favor of stem-cell research, under certain conditions that are easily met and that would satisfy my own misgivings…but I can’t force others to adopt my belief, I can only reason with them…
True, I did make it partisan. Couldn’t resist. (Actually the thing I was really curious about was SXSW — but that would be way off-topic).
I also agree with you about the viewpoint of the religious right. If I thought that an embryo is equivalent to a child, then I would probably equate Randall Terry with Martin Luther King.
However, what irks me is that my rights (or in the putative instance, my child’s rights) are being infringed by others. Nobody on the pro-choice side is forcing anybody on the other side to have an abortion. However, people on that side are doing their damndest to make sure that nobody has the right to have an abortion or benefit from stem cell research.
(Many) conservatives will call loudly for the government to get off the peoples’ backs, unless the people do something they find distasteful.
If people want to believe that an embryo is more valuable than a sick child, that’s their right. However, if they use political leverage to force their views on the rest of the country, that’s shameful.
Hey, it’s a partisan site, so why should I complain? You know I don’t mind going off-topic – the only reason I haven’t blogged about SXSW is that I’m jealous that I can’t participate – I don’t have the time (at least until someone pays me enough to blog full-time – hint, hint – or the money (man, unless you win a free pass, you can barely afford it on a working man’s salary)).
I did notice that blogging was a huge bit of SXSW Interactive, which is about to wrap up, and the music portion kicked off this morning with KGSR’s annual broadcasts from the Four Seasons – I heard John Dee Graham playing a set this morning on the way to work, and Lyle Lovett was sitting in and playing weatherman, much like last year.
So yeah, it’s a lot of fun, even for a distant spectator…
Sounds like a great event — in the fine tradition of keeping Austin weird –
Yeah, it’s quite the big deal – if I were younger, and still had my old energy, I could go out and drink and see live music and still make it to work – but nowadays – ay caramba!…
I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but the reality is that science is far outstripping the stem cell debate, and will continue to do so whether or not it ever becomes a gov’t funded program. At the research hospital where I’ve been treated (Northwestern here in Chicago), the stem cell debate is looked upon with great amusement, since their researchers already consider most of the potential applications of stem cell research to already be outdated.
Science moves on relentlessly, since that’s what the nature of the beast requires.
I’ve been familiar with SXSW for years, maybe a decade, and I didn’t know there WAS a component other than the musical. Live and learn.
On the topic, the notion that a legal definition of humanity should precede birth is not a religious conceit merely. As a non-believer myself I can state that certainly SOME abortions are murders if there is such a thing as murder. And there is. Actually I think the Roe regime is not a bad compromise on these matters although, as is perpetually and properly stated, the legislature is the proper venue for compromise of this sort. Yes, the therapeutic potential for embryonic stem cells is overstated wildly, mostly it seems because of this serendipitous convergence of politics and science we experienced some years ago. From what I can tell, dmac has it right. With the S Korean cloning scandal, much of what we thought we knew about this stuff is out the window. ESCR has enjoyed a healthy afterlife for political reasons it seems but we shall see. But peter, no one has a “right” to have the government do any particular medical research, unless there is an article in the Constitution that has escaped my notice. Whatever else one might say about the “ban” or funding decisions, they have been made properly under our Constitution, unlike the “pro-choice” regime as we know it.
It is true that nobody has the right to have the government to fund any particular form of research: people with heart problems don’t have the “right” to have the government find a cure, nor do AIDS patients, etc. However, as all tax-payers are taxed to fund medical research, these resources ought to be allocated according to need, not according to the political or religious agenda of some.
It is also true that the ban on funding was “made properly under our Constitution,” but so was Roe v. Wade (which I assume is what you are referring to). You may disagree with Roe, or you may think that it is bad case law (as I do), but it was adjudicated by the Supreme Court, as it ought to have been.
Roe v Wade may well have been properly brought to the SC on the merits, the trimester regime as introduced as a remedy is another critter. No, it was not properly disposed as the order outstripped by a good country mile the Constitutional authority of the court. Is that what you mean by “bad case law”? If it’s bad (and if it ain’t bad because the court over-reached, how is it bad?), how is it proper? And as I said, it is the enthusiasm for embryonic stem cells that is not in keeping with the current science. The banners never made any claim to a scientific foundation for the ban that I ever saw; rather a moral case. The moral case FOR the research cannot really stand without some realization of the promises for it in therapies unless you go with the “blob of tissue” definition of the zygotes. That’s why the S Korean fraud is so damaging to the ESCR enthusiasts. It reveals that the science is just not there to support the ardor. Why is it there then? Could it be that thing we call politics? Oh yes.
I think it is bad case law because I don’t think there is any right to privacy in the Constitution (except for what is clearly stated in the fourth amendment) and I don’t believe that the Court should act based on penumbras and emanations. So yes, I do think the Court over-reached. I can’t logically oppose Bush v. Gore and support Roe v. Wade at the same time.
Although I think Roe v. Wade should be over-turned because I don’t think the decision is properly based in the Constitution, I also hope it is over-turned because that would be a bonanza for the Democrats. The Republicans have been playing a game for years where they throw red meat to their base by opposing abortion rights, in the knowledge that nothing they do will stick as long as Roe is in effect. Once it is over-turned, they will be stuck between their base and the majority of Americans who believe in at least limited access to abortions.
As for the scientific value of stem cell research: I’m not qualified to have an opinion. However, I don’t think the South Korean fraud has any relevance to whether there will be value in this type of research. It is like saying that because of Enron, capitalism is worthless.
I agree with you, peter, on the political consequences of starting an abortion fight – just as the Democrats have for years lost potential Catholic votes because of their unswerving orthodoxy on the abortion issue, the Republicans face the mirror image problem if they go too far in the other direction.
The South Dakota law is a bridge too far – the partial birth abortion ban is a bridge just about right…
These liberal fools disgust even those who, like me, agree with them on the issue of abortion. If Democ-Rats want to hang South Dakota around every Republican’s neck, I suppose every pro-choice Republican should hang Bob Casey around every Democrat’s neck in pro-choice Pennsylvania districts and the failure of the coward Kate Michelman to oppose Casey in the Democ-Rat primary. Michaelman is a Pennsylvania resident, a Democ-Rat, the head of NAG and eligible to run. Yet she endorsed Casey–the act of a coward, at least based on what she has said for decades about opposing Democ-Rats who are against abortion. Speaking of South Dakota, every Republican whose opponent takes the stupid advice offered in the article should remind the public that South Dakota’s own Tom Daschle consistently voted for bills to repeal partial birth abortion, yes, together with most Senate Republicans. Republicans are actually fools to oppose abortion. Abortions are secured by pro-choice white women and others from Democrat voting demographic groups. States with the highest abortion rates were, no surprise, Gore and Kerry’s strongest states and are losing population overall and therefore will lose electorial votes in the future. States with the lowest abortion rates and the highest population growth are, again no surprise, Bush’s strongest states and will be gaining electorial votes again after the 2010 census. Were it not for the availability of abortion beginning in 1973 Algore would be President of the United States today–a sickening prospect. So Democ-Rats, KEEP ABORTION LEGAL, keep killing your future voters, reducing crime, birth defects and the unhealthy portion of the general population!
The hateful and patently silly post above is not worth responding to. However, if it is true that “states with the lowest abortion rates and the highest population growth are, again no surprise, Bush’s strongest states,” there is a logical reason for it. Conservative states are more likely to place impediments and restrictions on obtaining abortions — women will simply go to other states for the procedure. If South Dakota succeeds in banning abortions, it won’t stop women from getting abortions — it will simply cause them to cross state lines to do so.