home

Kennedy: "Abortion Doctors"

From Justice Ginsburg's dissent:

One wonders how long a line that saves no fetus will hold in the face of the Court's "moral concerns." . . . The Court's hostility to the right Casey and Roe secured is not concealed. Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists not by the title of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label "abortion doctors."

< Remember, The SCOTUS Is Extraordinary | Not Leaving It To The States >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    well decon (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:31:15 AM EST
    possibly because it's used solely as a pejorative, by the anti-choice crowd. just a guess mind you.

    Wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:43:05 AM EST
    Except that it's not. A simple Lexis search reveals that at least 146 federal and state courts have used the term in their opinions -- including courts which have found in favor of abortion doctors. Were those courts using the term as a pejorative?

    This is just another way of framing the debate. Don't call them "pro-life," call them "anti-choice."  Don't call them "abortion doctors," call them "OB/GYNs"

    Parent

    It seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:08:57 PM EST
    you conceded the point:

    This is just another way of framing the debate. Don't call them "pro-life," call them "anti-choice."  Don't call them "abortion doctors," call them "OB/GYNs"


    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:32:34 AM EST
    Well, (none / 0) (#16)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:50:36 AM EST
      I understand why people who think abortion is morally wrong consider it a perjorative. My question is why do people who think it is morally right (or even not a "moral issue") consider it an insult. Some people throw around "ACLU lawyer" as an insult but I don't consider that a perjorative just because they do and i would not be ashamed or even chagrined by the appellation.

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#58)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:22:34 PM EST
    Because, as I noted earlier, they do many things for women. Calling them "abortion doctors" pretty obviously implies that all they do is abort fetuses 24/7. Which is great if you wish to vilify someone, but not so great if you wish to present the truth.

    Parent
    I am ambivalent (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:31:55 AM EST
      I do think that abortion raises troubling moral issues. I do not "know" when human life begins and I don't think any other person can "know."

      I do not think there should be a CONSTITUTIONAL  right to abortion that precludes legislatures from banning or restricting the practice.I think Roe was one of the worst reasoned Supreme Court opinions in our nation's history-- bad logic, bad law, bad science. As far as a policy result, I think it can be considered a reasonable compromise but I do not believe eatablishing compromise policy decrees based on the personal opinions of the Justices  is the proper province of the Supreme Court.

     I think controversial  moral questions such as this create a seminal "political question" which should be addressed politically through representative government.

     

    You oppose the right to choose (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:33:01 AM EST
    then.

    Parent
    OMG! (2.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:36:28 AM EST
    Here we go.

    All, right, I'm staying out of this one. Although, I think I am finally starting to get it.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    He expressly stated he does not favor the constitutional right to choose.

    Where are we going?

    Parent

    Where you are going (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:56:36 AM EST
    is nowhere. You are defining the terms of this debate as most others on the Prolife or Prochoice side do. ITs and either or question. Black or white.

    Yes, Roe vs. Wade is the bench mark for abortion in this country, however the abortion issue is much larger and the choice between supporting or opposing abortion and supporting or opposing Roe vs. Wade is not synonymous, except for the fundamentalists on the issue. There might be better policy and law that does not make the issue of abortion so contentious in this country. I think this is what Decon and others who don't see Abortion as an either/or between the prochoice and prolife crowd, are representing with their views, opinions and arguments.

    I know you won't concede this point, so that is why I said I will stay out of it this time. Unfortunately, the ones who are looking for consensus on this issue, so the issue of Abortion does not continue to be a divisive issue that fits so easily into 30 second soundbites for either side and defines elections between liberals and conservative, instead of much more important issues in this country (the Iraq War, Federal Budget, erosion of civil rights, etc.)- the individuals looking for a middle ground end up being vilified by both sides of the issue and called either murderers or misogynists depending on the side. That is black and white and it seems to me to be the mark of people who lack sensibilities to discuss, argue and reach consensus.

    Parent

    Well said. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:00:28 PM EST
    It seems that I must either be for completely unrestricted abortions or no abortions at all. Why can't we find the middle ground? Or, what do we do with people who refuse to accept that there may be a compromise to be had?

    Parent
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:06:31 PM EST
    BE forever what you want to be for, but do it in honest fashion.

    You are being rather ridciulous tis morning Gabriel.

    Indeed, I have hardly argued the issue because I think it is pointless to argue it. People think what they think.

    What I demand is that peoplesay what they are for honestly.

    Alito and Roberts will vote to overtrn Roe when the time comes. But they hid that view.

    It is perfectly fine for them to hold that position. It is perfectly fine, imo, for the Senate to not confirm them for holding that position.

    And if the GOP controlled the Senate and wanted to hold up Larry Tribe for holding the opposite view, that too would be legitimate.

    Let people take the posiiton they choose and let the political consequence fall where they may.

    Parent

    Assumption. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:09:29 PM EST
    Alito and Roberts will vote to overtrn Roe when the time comes. But they hid that view.

    You don't know that. You just assume it because they took a pro-life decision on this case. Just the same way you assumed Decon was pro-life. Just the same way you've made assumptions about my position on abortion.

    Parent

    I assumed Decon was (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:21:00 PM EST
    against the Constitutional right to choose, Roe, Casey, an assumption that was correct.

    I will be just as accurate with Roberts and Alito.

    I assume you are against the COnstitutional right to choose, Roe, Casey et al.

    AmI wrong? Do you actually support the
    Constituional right to choose? Do you support Roe and Casey?

    When you scold me on false assumptions, make sure my assumptions are false.

    Parent

    Give me a break. (none / 0) (#59)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:24:43 PM EST
    This kabuki sh*t is ridiculous. If you aren't observant enough to know who butters Bushco's bread, the fundies certainly are, and there's only one outcome they're willing to accept.

    Parent
    I am defining it the way the SCOTUS HAS (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:01:12 PM EST
    Don't be ridiculous here. You can respectfully and in good faith say you are against the understood idea of the right to choose, Roe, Casey, etc., but do not pretend it is not understood as the right to choose.

    Why would you want to disguise your views on the subject?

    You have every right to support or oppose the CONSTITUTIONAL right to choose, but be honest about in this debate.

    I can not believe you think that is too much to ask.

    Parent

    But where does that leave me? (none / 0) (#99)
    by libertarian soldier on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 06:08:35 PM EST
    I believe in unrestricted, means-tested taxpayer supported abortions.
    I do not believe the Constitution has penumbra that allows SCOTUS to create whatever rights they believe should exist, including a blanket right to privacy that then creates the Constitutional right for an abortion.
    So where do I fall on your 1/0 left/right dichotomy?
    By the way, I came here thanks to the great commentary you provide on dKos.  Thanks and keep it up.

    Parent
    Question (none / 0) (#12)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:41:22 AM EST
    Does forced pregnancy raise no troubling moral issues?

    Parent
    Troubling issues. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:48:47 AM EST
    Yes it does. The task of governments is to balance competing issues. The Supreme Court took up that role in Casey and continues here:

    First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Second is a confirmation of the State’s power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman’s life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.

    Just a few of the competing issues:
    (1) Women's health.
    (2) Women's life.
    (3) Women's bodily integrity.
    (4) Fetal life.
    (5) State interest in promoting birth.

    Parent

    Fundamental right (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:55:18 AM EST
    the right to privacy.

    Never has it been said that prior to viability, the State has a compelling interest in the matter.

    It is not a balancing test.

    It is not restrictable until the State has a compelling interest.

    You are misstating the law here.

    Parent

    Jeez, louise! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:02:11 PM EST
      It's never been said by the Supreme Court (yet), but it's been said by many other people.

      Your stated position would seem to beg the question of what you will have to say if the Supreme Court does say that the state's interest prior to viability is sufficient to outweigh a woman's "privacy interest." will you just giive up because that then would be "the law?"

      Or, heaven forbid, what'll you do if the Supreme Court someday. overrules Griswold too and repudiates the whole notion of amorphous "privacy" rights being found in the penumbra of the 4th amendment?

      Will you then argue that people who still think that should be "the law" are wrong?

    Parent

    If they so state (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:08:51 PM EST
    then abortions will be subject to banning imo.

    I have always argued that the status of the fetus is the issue.

    Not the right to privacy, which no reasonable person can deny.

    That right can be overcome by COMPELLING state interest.

    But be careful here, consider what that could mean in terms of the government's ability to impose family planning policies on individuals.

    Think it through.

    Parent

    huh? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:27:48 PM EST
     you've lost me entirely.

      Yes, obviously, if the SC so rules, then abortions will become subject to whatever level of regulation it rules.

      That eventuality though would  not change one iota, the various positions taken by various people as to what the law should be or whom should be the final arbiter of the laws on this issue.

      I can see some  merit in even the positions of the most rabid extremists on both ends of the spectrum. I can't stand their methods, and dgmatism, but I can fully understand how some people believe that the sanctity of human life makes abortion a barbarous practice equivalent to intentional killing of a human being, AND I can fully understand how some people ferevently believe that a woman should have absolute autonomy over her body even if it involves taking an action other people consider intentional killing of a human life.  

      What I don't believeis that THE CONSTITUTION can be legitimately employed to hand either side a "victory."

      I think Roe was wrongly decided and I also think an opinion declaring the unborn to have a CONSTITUTIONAL  right to life that would prohibit states from enacting legislation to allow abortion.

       In other words I don't think it is proper for the Supreme Court to manufacture constitutional rights in accordance with whatever a majority of 5 think an appropriate policy should be-- in either direction. I think this issue should be decided BY THE PEOPLE through the processes of representative government because no one can say what is unequivocally right or wrong, moral or immoral and the best way, and the way i believe intended by the founders, is for the issues to be decided politically.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:37:29 PM EST
    The point is your views on the wisdom of legislation should be, in my view, irrelevant because the Constitution dhould not allow such legislation.

    You want me to debate legislation that I thin should not exist.

    What do you imagione my view on such loegislation will be given my view that such legislation should not even be contemplatable?

    Your interest does not interest me.

     

    Parent

    so, then you are saying (none / 0) (#44)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:51:06 PM EST
     that if the SC happened to issue an opinion contrary to your belief you would oppose it and the fact it was then "the law" would not change your mind.

      How then your failure to grasp the concept that many people disagree with the current state of "the law" and therefore oppose it?

     You can't consistently  first argue that Gabriel is wrong because "that's not the law" and then argue that a law contrary to your position would be wrong. If you are free to find the law existing at a certain time wrong then so are other people.

       As best I can tell from your writing you simply believe  in a right to privacy so broad that the society's interest in the life of the fetus can not outweigh it-- I assume at any time prior to birth although that is impossible to decipher from your disjointed and shifting arguments.

       That, of course, is not "the law." Arbitrarily, we have a "law" that finds the  2nd/3rd trimester demarcation to shift the balance. Of course, that demarcation is a poor surrogate for "viability" because that is not precisely identifiable in either a general or specific application and even if it was, why is "viability" a magic moment that changes the balance. From where did a SC majority derive the omniscience to know that the fundamental balance of competing interests shifts at an undefinable moment because some greater amount of "humanity" begins to exist?


    Parent

    Sheesh (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    I will not even respond to this ridiculous comment.

    I am neither a woman nor a doctor. What do you think I am gonna do?

    Parent

    you excel at non sequiturs... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 05:21:23 PM EST
    ,.. and again i have no idea  what you mean

    Parent
    I cut 'n' pasted! (none / 0) (#25)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    How am I mistating the law, BTD? I cut 'n' pasted right from Carhart quoting Casey.

    The state has an interest from the inception of pregnancy that must be balanced with the right of women to choose and the requirement that the life and health of the mother must be protected pre-viability. That is the law.

    Parent

    The part you didn;t cut n paste (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:18:30 PM EST
    is the misstatement.

    Parent
    Read it. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    BTD, I encourage you to read the case. Or, if you think this one is poorly done read Casey. Both rely on the section I quoted to you. Both engage in a balancing of those three factors.

    Just screaming "It's not true, it's not true, it's not true," is too reminiscent of Edger's method of argument for me to take seriously.

    Parent

    This remains false on this issue (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:34:57 PM EST
    The task of governments is to balance competing issues. The Supreme Court took up that role in Casey

    Not where Constitutional rights are concerned.

    Parent

    Balancing tests. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:42:32 PM EST
    The court has often engaged in balancing tests, yes even where Constitutional rights are concerned. In fact, the Court has even engaged in balancing tests where the Constitutional rights in question are actually written down. Most prominent among these tests is the three-factor balancing of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process interests in Matthews v. Eldgridge.

    Perhaps not coincidentally, the Roe court the constitutional right to abortion in the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Parent

    Fundamental rights require (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    the showing of a compelling state interest, not a balancing.

    I am tiring of your obfuscation.

    Parent

    You're ambivalent because ? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Kitt on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:40:28 PM EST
    Are you ambivalent because you cannot birth a child?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#100)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 07:16:12 AM EST
      I'm ambivalent for many reasons and I am ambivalent about many complex, multifaceted issues because being a person who thinks for himself and considers all viewpoints I often find that stark choices between total right and wring, good and evil, moral and immoral do not exist and that responsible and intelligent people who think for themselves will often find themselves in partial agreement and partial opposition to tbe opposing zealots-- and attacked by them for having the audacity to suggest they are not possessed with any special insight that requires slavish adherence to their notion of what is right. Any person or group that starts from the premise that it is totally cortrect and any dissension is motivated by evil intent tends to repel and frighten me. Both sides of extremists on the abortion issue are dominated by such scary folks.

     I do not know if being a woman would alter my thinnking because I have never been one. Is it possible? Who knows? I do know that many men are "pro-choice" and many women are "pro-life" so it seems as if the chromoosome is not determinative of one's position.  

       I am ambivalent about abortion and neither your shrill and baseless accusations that I desire to subjugate women just to exert power nor the anti-abortion advocates shrill and baselless accusations that I am out to destroy Christianity  and the "family" and impose a Godless order by murdering  babies is going to change that.

      On the other hand, thoughtful people have in the past helped me gain insight and understanding of some of the important considerations and caused me to reevaluate my thinking (this is true on many issues). I have little use for people who will NEVER reevaluate anything because they KNOW they possess absolute confidence no position other than their own is worthy of consideration.

      Again, I have to ask myself, what inner need compels me to attempt rational discourse with such people when i have been shown the futility of it so many times before.

    Parent

    Control.... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Kitt on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:52:17 PM EST
    That is what this issue is about quite simply - C~O~N~T~R~O~L.

    Control of the decision-making process for women.

    Control of women's sexuality.

    Control......

    No if it were about M-U-R-D-E-R (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Kitt on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 04:21:25 PM EST
    There would be consistency in regards to the 'Culture of Life' which there is NOT.

    I don't believe for half a second that it about life, especially when men speak. You can file this wherever you want - makes no difference to me.

    It's about control, whether it's a woman's decision-making, sexuality or another's (male/female) right to privacy and to make their own decisions.

    Parent

    Yes, Kitt, we've heard that one before (3.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    I file it right next to theo one that says that this issue is about quite simply M~U~R~D~E~R.

    Parent
    And that, ladies and gents, (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:07:37 PM EST
    is the definitive post that relegates many of the pro-choice crowd to the ragged and to-be-ignored extremes of our society.

    And that's why those that choose to define the issue as such are well along in the inevitable process of losing.

    Ah well.

    Parent

    sarcasmo (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:13:53 PM EST
    Your point would be more persuasive if so very many of the same people who oppose abortion rights didn't also oppose sex education, contraception, etc.  

    At some point you have to wonder if it isn't somewhere linked to an outrage over the nearly unlimited sexual freedom that women in America today enjoy.

    Parent

    g-man (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    I readily admit that Peaches said it better than me.
    Yes, Kitt, we've heard that one before (none / 0) (#46)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:58:49 PM EST

    I file it right next to theo one that says that this issue is about quite simply M~U~R~D~E~R.



    Parent
    Come now, play fair (none / 0) (#61)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:32:31 PM EST
    I understand that to some it is an issue of Murder.  My response to you did not deny this.  I disagree of course, but I well know that some see it as murder.

    However, I was speaking to your (and Peaches')out-of-hand dismissal of Kitt's point because some see it was Murder.  

    How can you not see where Kitt, or I, anyone, would come to the conclusion that much of what is at issue involves control?  Seeing as how, again, so very many of the same people who oppose abortion rights also oppose contraception, sex ed, etc.? I mean, we even have such strings attached in our official AIDS relief packages to Third World countries.

    At some point a reasonable person like you is going to have to cede that lurking in so much of this discussion, there is the issue of Control.  

    Parent

    Hmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Kitt on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 04:50:48 PM EST
    I attended college at a private Catholic (women's) college. Many of the nuns in this particular order are actively involved in social justice issues from renunciation/revocation of the death penalty to not promoting abortion as an option, education - be it good prenatal care for pregnant women, sexuality education or reading/writing, closing the School of the Americas, eco-theology, the war in Iraq, etc.  

    Their consistency in placing value on a life  (regardless the form) is what I certainly respect, as I do other sisters who were in different orders with whom I came into contact, as well as other folks.  They may not and did not agree with me about this particular issue nor did my seeing it in a different light stop them from respecting either me or my view(s).


    Parent

    Well, Kitt, then (1.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 05:12:24 PM EST
    You should have wrote

    That is what this issue is about quite simply - R~E~S~P~E~C~T.

    Respect for the decision-making process of women.

    Respect for women's sexuality.

    Respect......

    That would have been much clearer if you would have said that in the first place.

    Parent

    Quite simply put - (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Kitt on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 05:28:47 PM EST
    I don't write what you or anyone else think I should.

    Parent
    and neither do I (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Peaches on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 07:58:04 AM EST
    I just took from your Hmmm post that it was about respect and not control. I was attempting to clear up your langauge so as not to confuse. The nuns you spoke of respect your ability to come to your own decisions. I don't think you return that respect when you insinuate that their position on abortion is based on their desire to control women's bodies and not on their respect for life. I think the majority of Prochoice individuals are motivated by their belief that life is sacred over Control over women. Not all, by the mjority.

    I also don't agree with their position, but I respect it as you do.

    I wasn't disrespect you by telling you what you should have written. I was reinterpretting what you wrote to reflect your true beliefs based on your post on your experience with nuns at a catholic school.

    If you wish to remain indignant, that is your choice and I respect that choice as well.

    Parent

    Herein a dichotomy (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Kitt on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:40:49 AM EST
    You 'respect' my position however "was attempting to clear up your langauge (sic) so as not to confuse." Who? You?

    See - it's all about what you think. I know what those sisters think/thought because they told me, because we talked about it. Most of them also thought it about control rather than a true belief that all life is sacred. A few didn't.

    I think the majority of Prochoice individuals are motivated by their belief that life is sacred over Control over women. Not all, by the mjority.

    If this paragraph is correct as it reads, I think you're wrong because I asked yesterday many, many who consider themselves prochoice what was the underlying motive - control and/or misogyny.

    As for this:

    I wasn't disrespect you by telling you what you should have written. I was reinterpretting what you wrote to reflect your true beliefs based on your post on your experience with nuns at a catholic school.

    When you want to "clarify" what someone has written, that's one thing. Telling them what they should have written is quite another.


    Parent

    Then, you don't agree (none / 0) (#103)
    by Peaches on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:44:27 AM EST
    that it is about respect for women,

    But control over women instead.

    Parent

    seriously, (none / 0) (#104)
    by Peaches on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:47:41 AM EST
    that wasn't a stement, but a question. I don't understand what you are saying.

    Is it about control or respect?

    One statement implies that you have an open mind and are not attempting to classify all individuals who disagree with you under one rubric.

    The other implies an openness to discussion of the kind you shared with the sisters.

    You are of two minds, here and I was merely attempting to clrify for understanding, not to put words in your mouth.

     

    Parent

    correction (none / 0) (#105)
    by Peaches on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:56:08 AM EST
    One statement implies that you have an open mind and are not attempting to classify all individuals who disagree with you under one rubric-the you are openness to discussion of the kind you shared with the sisters.

    The other implies the opposite.

    Parent

    Here... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Kitt on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 10:48:45 AM EST
    Ah yes....I see - most of the sisters also thought that the motivation of many of those in the "prolife" camp was control rather than the belief that all life is sacred.

    (I go back to work today and don't have time to respond like I might want to when working.)

    Parent

    Yes, it is clearer (none / 0) (#107)
    by Peaches on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:05:34 AM EST
    when we can see where we are disagreeing and stop shouting past each other. I apologize if it seems to you I have been doing that. If it helps, it appears the same to me from my side of the fence.

    I agree that there are many fanatics and zealots in the prolife camps-perhaps the majority are motivated by the wish to control women's sexuality. I have know way of knowing.

    However, the dabate over Roe vs. Wade is much larger and includes many who are not in the Prolife Camp, but think that the argument of ROe vs. Wade that establishes a women's right to choose has some flaws. This does not mean that these individuals are anti-abortion, anti-choice, or prolife. Nor do they have to have any resentment towards women. In fact, many are women, themselves. They may be wrong, and they might be persuaded that the right to choose in ALL cases is better left to the choice of individual women out of the respect for individual rights, but they certainly don't have to want to control women's sexuality to come to their position on Roe vs. Wade, even if you are convinced that ultimately that is what they are doing.

    That is why I think respect is a better choice for a one word description of the debate than control.

    Parent

    In this context, (none / 0) (#110)
    by Kitt on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 12:42:34 PM EST
    when there's a need to control someone's decisions, et.al,there's no respect.

    I'm not really interested in going back and forth over what's a better word.

    Parent

    G, (none / 0) (#62)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:40:47 PM EST
    I understand how you come to this conclusion just as I understand how some might come to the conclusion that it is murder. Like Decon, I don''t want either extreme writing Laws based on their convictions when both convictions actually run contrary to Popular and common opinion in America.

    That is why I file both next to each other under the heading of Extreme or fundamentalism.

    Parent

    Yes except that (none / 0) (#64)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:52:51 PM EST
    I quibble with your use of the word extreme in terms of those opposing abortion rights.  

    Every prominent politician I know of who opposes abortion rights also opposes sex education in the public schools.  Escorting this position is arguing for tight restrictions on the avialability of contraceptives, particularly for minors.  And the AIDS relief policies are after all Official United States Policy, and as such offers to define mainstreamism.

    We're talking Senators, Congressmen, the President.  Hardly "fringe elements."  

    On the other hand, dear Peaches, show me a list of "extremist" pro-choice politicians.  By extremist I mean for example those who make no distinction between first and third trimester abortions (contrary to how O'Reilly and company portray it, you'll have a hard time cobbling together such a list).  

    Again, for those who believe it is Murder a first trimester abortion seems extremist.  But then do they see the "morning after pill" as Murder.  Do they see contraception as pre-emptive murder?  

    What exactly is driving this, Peaches.  Is it a stand against Murder or an institutionalized effort to dictate the terms of female sexuality?  This is an important questions that deserves better than what you're giving it, by simply disclaiming allegiance with "extermists on both sides."

    Parent

    What is driving it is votes (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:04:57 PM EST
    Americans understand soundbites better than arguments. Passions can be fueled by either side simply by saying Murder or Control. This is much easier than laying ot a position on Iraq or the budget. That is my opinion on what ultimately drives it.

    I don't think any politicians are extremists on either side. The vast majority are pragmatists who only wish to get reelected and favor whatever means it takes to get that accomplished. The abortion issue is one fast track approach to extablishing a base of support simply by uttering the words murder or control depending on the constituency.

    Parent

    All right, I surrender (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:14:38 PM EST
    in frustration.  You obviously have every intention of keeping your little 'there are extremists on both sides, neither more or less pronounced than the other' narrative.  

    All evidence to the contrary.

    Parent

    That is my position (none / 0) (#71)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:28:45 PM EST
    exactly. That I am closer to the Prochoice and liberal or left position on most issues does not disuade me from this position. Extremists are on both sides and all the evidence I have seen seems to bear this out.

    Extremists are more interested in positions and convicitons than consensus. It is not an extreme position to say that you favor a women's right to choose in every single circumstance anymore than it is extreme to be against the Iraqi war and you want to end it now. It is extreme to favor cutting off all discussion of the issue and enforcing one's ideals, beliefs or convictions on the rest of your fellow citizens without attempting to reach consensus through democratic means. The abortion issue is about more than Control or Murder and the majority of Americans agree with me. That is what the evidence tells me my dear friend, G-man.

    Parent

    Qualifier (none / 0) (#66)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:56:29 PM EST
    Please change "Every promine politician", from the lead sentence of the second paragraph, to "most every prominent politician." For example it seems John McCain's position on abortion is not tied to how he would approach sex ed in the public schools, nor does he campaign against that, against contraception, etc.

    Most prominent pols tether it all together though.  That's inarguable.
     

    Parent

    Terms (none / 0) (#65)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:54:54 PM EST
    glanton, you've changed the terms. Kitt said the issue is "simply control." You write that the "issue involves control."

    One is a ridiculous attempt to portray all pro-lifers as thugs tryinig to keep their wimens down. The other recognizes just what Peaches and I wrote: there are legitimate and good faith arguments on both sides.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#67)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    Gabe, I did indeed change the terms.  But I did so because I totally understand how Kitt comes to that conclusion.  And I laid out some of the many compelling reasons why so many of us come to the conclusion, rightly, that it very much involves control, even as others like Kitt suspect it's ALL about control.

    Also see my response to Peaches about extremism.  Please provide a list of Prominent Politicians who oppose abortion rights who do not also fulfill the depiction I have drawn.

    Parent

    Extremism. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:18:33 PM EST
    glanton, I don't know of any serious politicians running around saying that we should allow abortion up to the day of birth. But I think that may be more a function of pragmatism (see Peaches reply upthread) than actual belief.

    As for pro-choice extremism, do you recall the Freedom of Choice Act of 1993? Do you recall that pro-choice activists refused to support the bill because it did not guarantee federally funded abortions for the poor? Do you recall how it died in committee for lack of support despite the fact that there was a Democratic Congress at the time? That's extremist.

    Parent

    Beneath You (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:30:51 PM EST
    glanton, I don't know of any serious politicians running around saying that we should allow abortion up to the day of birth. But I think that may be more a function of pragmatism (see Peaches reply upthread) than actual belief.

    Gabe, that's a terribly nefarious and incendiary charge that frankly, dwells far beneath the level of your usual posts.  

    As for the 1993 brouhaha, I cede it was stoopid politics, yeah, even extremism to demand public funding or nothing at all.

    However, I would argue that it's very much open to debate whether or not belief in public funding to the poor for first trimester abortions itself represents ideological extremism.

    Furthermore, like Peaches you avoid the truth of the matter that Kitt's comment emanates from the vast majority of prominent voices who oppose abortion rights.  Vast.  Majority.  She (I assume Kitt is female) knows well that these voices also want to restrict a broad range of sexually-related rights and activities.  

    It don't take rocket science to put the two together.

         

    Parent

    Control (none / 0) (#79)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:54:08 PM EST
    Alright, glanton. Let's stipulate that there is a widespread effort to control women and that it directs large parts of national (and state) policies. That's great. When you argue with those people, you can point that out to them.

    But when you argue with me, I'd appreciate it if you'd focus on my arguments rather than just write "C~O~N~T~R~O~L." Because, I assure you, I do not get up in the morning and think "Damn, there's only 16 more hours in the day to control women's lives, I better get right on that."

    Writing "C~O~N~T~R~O~L" is just a variation on the first part of the standard sophistry: Call your opponent Evil or call him Ignorant. It is just another way of saying "Evil." Because, as we all know, there's no use arguing with Evil. Evil is to be despised. It is to be spit on. But not argued with in good faith.

    glanton, you obviously don't think that of me or the others you talk to here at TalkLeft. But you appear very willing to think that of the majority of the Right. I'm just not as convinced.

    Parent

    #75 (none / 0) (#80)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:55:35 PM EST
    Wow, if only I had read your comment at #75 first. You did just what I wrote: assume the other side is Evil or Ignorant. It's just so much simpler.

    Parent
    I had a horrible miscarriage (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:17:38 AM EST
    when I was nineteen.  I don't like to think about it much.  I was close to twenty weeks pregnant.  It was before ultrasound.  My baby had died in my womb due to genetic problems weeks before my miscarriage.  My body had to process everything taking place and then labor started which sent me to the emergency room.  Because my dead child was in my womb though for such a length of time I developed a very severe infection.  The doctors fought it vigorously because it could have scarred my tubes and prevented me from ever having children.  Thankfully they were successful as I have two children now.  With today's technology a woman in the same position today would likely know the condition of her pregnancy after 16 weeks but the ban places her life and well being in danger and the well being of her future children.  How sad.......how very very sad for all of us today!

    Parent
    This is incorrect. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Gabriel Malor on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 11:33:33 AM EST
    With today's technology a woman in the same position today would likely know the condition of her pregnancy after 16 weeks but the ban places her life and well being in danger and the well being of her future children.

    This is incorrect. The ban applies only to still-living fetuses at the time of the intact D&E procedure. A dead fetus is not protected by the ban. Note also that the ban doesn't apply to fetuses that are killed, for example by the injection of digoxin or potassium cloried, before beginning the procedure.

    The point of the ban is that it is absolutely barbaric to partially deliver a fetus, leaving its legs kicking and hands waiving outside the mother, and then reach back in and crush its skull.

    Parent

    I lived through this (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 02:51:41 PM EST
    children in the womb with such conditions as my child had can expire at any time.  I know of zero insurance companies who are willing to pay for a daily ultrasound of my fetus until it is dead and then can be removed.  Can you imagine enduring and living through such an event?  The only thing worse would be being forced to have a rapists child.  Hopefully they discover the fetus has died shortly after it expires and it doesn't start to decompose in there as mine had.  What you suggest is sick, disgusting, gross, and evil.  My child was destined to die in the womb, it was just a matter of when.  A generation earlier and I probably would have died.  A generation from now no doctor will exist knowing or willing to help the next woman who won't live through what I managed to live through.  People like you are abhorrent, just my opinion of course.

    Parent
    I do not (none / 0) (#82)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 03:09:17 PM EST
    Think that the majority of Republicans are even close to evil, though I have obviously strayed way into those waters many times in my life.  Thse are low points for me, no doubt about it.

    Here, however, is not one of those points Gabe.  Note I did not ever say there are these people rubbing their hands together saying how can I control women's bodies today.  I understand that.  Okay?

    This does nothing however to alter the fact that there is a pronounced hostility towards out-of-heterosexual-wedlock sexuality in Republican rhetoric and policy positions.  Indeed, it is not extremism at all, it is part and parcel of their mainline Party.  Witness the nature of Our Government's relief packaging for AIDS in Third World nations.  Don't insult us all by implying I'm describing something extreme when it is widespread, and when it is there to see, for all who will open there eyes, that there is no reasonable analogy to it concerning those who are Pro Choice.

    I'm sure they're well-intentioned in their own minds, thinking perhaps that it is God's word; or perhaps thinking that they can actually do away with STD's and unwanted pregnancies by preaching abstinence.  I'm sure there's a lot of elements involved, none of which are self-consciously efforts to control people's lives.

    Yet it does result in the forcible and self-righteous control of people's private lives.  This is undeniable.  

    And FWIW, it also leads, demonstrably, to huge problems.  In Africa right now there is no such things as too many condoms.  In America right now there is no such thing as too many condoms.  Ditto birth control pills, ditto sex education.  These are basic things that need to be available to all who would take advantage of them.

    BTW: Neither I nor any liberal I know has a problem with advocating abstinence in concert woth discourse about safe sex, etc.  We are not ant--abstinence.  We are anti Abstinence-Only.

    And Gabe, not to overstep my bounds here, but I'll risk it because I have come to enjoy the Hume-esque quality of your argumentation, and even more so your willingness to cede a point even in the hottest of arguments.  Really, I wish you would take back your suggestion that mainline Democratic politicians secretly support abortions in the third trimester, outside of serious demonstrable health issues.  Because that right there is a demonizing caricature that oddly mirrors the thing you're cautioning me against.
           

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#85)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 03:18:03 PM EST
    By "Hume-esque" I refer not to Brit, but to David Hume.  For what it's worth.

    Parent
    Hah! (none / 0) (#90)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 04:31:53 PM EST
    That was exactly my first question when I read your comment! As for my earlier comment I said politicians may be hiding their true position on third trimester abortions out of pragmatism.

    Yeah, that's cynical, but I've took too many Women in Politics classes during my undergrad and too many Gender in International Relations classes during my masters to believe that no one would like to see abortion up to the very last minute of pregnancy.

    I used the word "may" because I wanted to indicate that it is a possibility that politicians share that view, but not one I'm certain of.

    Parent

    fwiw (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 04:39:55 PM EST
    "allow abortion up to the last minute of pregnancy" is exactly Jerlyn's position on this subject as she's bluntly written here before...although maybe she phrased it "abortion up the the first breath" or something like that....

    Parent
    I had not seen that (none / 0) (#93)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 04:50:36 PM EST
    But whether it is her position or not (maybe she will clarify for us), it goes without saying that this is not anywhere closeto the mainline position among Democratic politicos, or Americans in general, who support abortion rights.  

    I can see there is no purging Gabe's suspicions that I might be wrong about this.  Hopefully however, he, and you, and all other reasonable people somewhere inside know that most people stop far, far short of this.  

    Parent

    Seems pretty clear to me... (none / 0) (#96)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 05:14:08 PM EST
    No, It Doesn't Mean That (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 11:28:41 AM EST

     Not if they believe, as I do, that life begins at birth. A fetus is not a human being until it's born in my book.

    wow (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 12:55:35 PM EST

    "Not if they believe, as I do, that life begins at birth."

    Jeralyn, in all the threads on abortion on TL, you are, I believe one of, if not the first person to ever come right out and say "I believe life begins at birth."

    Would you mind telling us how you support such a belief?

    [ Reply to This ]

    Life Begins (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 04:47:17 PM EST

    I believe life begins when one takes their first breath.  That's when one becomes a human being on the planet earth.

    Parent

    g-man (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    Kitt's position on the issue was/is black and white.
    That is what this issue is about quite simply - C~O~N~T~R~O~L.

    Control of the decision-making process for women.

    Control of women's sexuality.

    Control......

    I think from reading your comments you at least accept that for some people it's not about their control of a woman's decision-making process, her body and her sexuality.

    That's good.

    However, just because you have, apparently, identified a number of people who's comments/ideologies/whatever/etc, fit neatly into a box of your own definition, should not be taken as proof that that box is indicative of a broader whole.

    That some people want control as Kitt says I have no doubt.

    Some Muslims probably want to take over the world, should I assume that's indicative of the broader whole?

    Parent

    I did more (none / 0) (#75)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:36:04 PM EST
    Than ID a number of people.  What I did, and continue to do, is point out the Daylight Obvious Fact that the Very Same leaders opposing abortion rights also rail against sex education, rail against contraceptives especially for teens, etc.

    This very much includes the same politicians who contributed to the current configuration of the SCOTUS.  That you all dismiss Kitt's claim as ludicrous is either evidence of the fact that you do not follow what these high profile politicians say regularly, and therefore are speaking out of ignorance; Or, you know well that these positions have been tied together from the beginning, and remain tied together--that you know this well and just simply do not care.

    I don't know which would be sadder.

    Parent

    In the end, it all comes down to this (none / 0) (#78)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:53:15 PM EST
    for you
    That you all [are][...]speaking out of ignorance; Or, you [...] simply do not care.
    Spoken like a true fundie.


    Parent
    G (none / 0) (#81)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:58:57 PM EST
    sarc makes a good point. I interpret what he is saying to mean is that there are extremists who want to control women's bodies as you describe. These extremists are dispicable. However, if we continue develop policies to guard against the extemists instead of trying to reach consensus on issues we will end up living in the extremes and losing more freedoms than we manage to protect or secure.

    What I am saying is that Americans as a majority wish to protect a women's right to choose and do not want to control their bodies. Just as most Muslims are not interested in the fundamentalist goal of destroying the evil empire-America as Sarc suggests. If you develop policy simply to counter the extremes we will lose.

    IMO, it is a question of tactics and Roe vs. Wade gives the fundamentalists on the Pro-choice side too much ammuntiion to arouse the normally sensible voters who want to see women have an access to abortion, but are vehemently opposed to and repulsed by a women choosing to have a partial-birth abortion that is not medically necessary. Whether or not this ever happens or the life of a late term fetus is prematurely ended out of convenience or neglect is not improtant, because this individual choice is protected under Roe vs. Wade. I am willing to put a small amount of regulations on the choice for abortion (as agreed upon through the political process) to take away this ammunition and further isolate an extremist view on abortion that has too much influence on policy in America as you suggest. I think this would be a more pragmatic means to silence the extremists you are refering to who want to control women's bodies and also the extremist who think life begins at conception and classify all abortion as murder.

    Parent

    Out of line (none / 0) (#83)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 03:13:02 PM EST
    Guys, I apologize.  Old habits die hard especially with such an explosive issue.

    I only ask that you not dismiss Kitt's claim so blithely, nor chalk up my obsrevations to extremism even as I describe not fringe elements, but mainline politicos.  Because she, and now I, raise a serious point that deserves consideration.

    Parent

    g-man (none / 0) (#86)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 03:26:09 PM EST
    Well done.

    Regarding Kitt's comment, sorry, it's a tired old saw that I've been aware of since I was in high school and has probably been around for far longer than that.

    It's so superficial and has been refuted so many times and at such great lengths that I have little patience for it any more.

    But that's probably just me.

    Parent

    It is an explosive issue (none / 0) (#87)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 03:59:13 PM EST
    my better judgement going into it was to stay out of it. But my better judgement lost, once again, today. ;)

    No need to apologize, G. I sometimes come accross as stubborn and obtuse my interlocutors seem to come accross to me.

    I respect Kitts claim as much as I respect everyone elses. Everyone is allowed a spot at the table.

    However, like Sarc, I long ago tired out from arguing against this position. It is difficult to have a discusion with someone who makes these claims. It is like another discussion I long ago frew tired of over where I will go when I die. I say I don't know where I will go. My interlocutor asks, "Have you taken your Savior, Jesus Christ into your heart and given your life over to him." I answer, "well not literally, but I think he was a good guy and I try and be a good guy, and further more why would a loving God punish me with ever-lasting fire if I'm a good guy, but I haven't taken his son into my heart..." To which I am interrupted, "You are going to hell, unless accept Jesus as your savior." "But," I say, "that seems kind of vidictive, I mean..." "Don't make this into an intellectual discussion, the issue is simple, either you accept Jesus as your savioe and you will live by his side for ever in the kingdom of heaven or you burn in hell forever."

    I eventually tired of the argument. I would rather have broader and more complex discussion on the nature or physical and metaphysical reality. Both are always much more complex than those who want to make discussions of complex issues simple and about only one word or two choices.


    Parent

    The whole subject is tiring (none / 0) (#88)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 04:17:46 PM EST
    And yes, a huge headache.  But I am nevertheless glad you went against your better judgment because it is just as important, and delicate, of a subject now as it ever was.  And people are going to bristle just as much at the idea of being dictated to now, as they did back when we were in high school.  These fears and anxieties are not founded on nothing, regardless of how "tired" they may appear; regardless even of how unfairly people may use them to paint with broadstrokes.

    As for the need to apologize, I obviously felt there was a need.  It was a personal attack and not something I would have said to either of your faces, why should I say it to you on the Internet?  One step at a time, I try to be better.

    I do wholly embrace your call to broaden the discussion.  And I suggest that broadening the discussion necessarily involves discussing current intersects between sexuality and politics.  

    Is opposition to first trimester abortion tethered to opposition to the morning after pill?  If so, why?  Are you guys willing to call out as banal the animosity towards sex education in the public schools that currently freights the Republican Party?  If not, why not?  Are you willing to support broader availability of contraceptives for rich and poor alike?  If not, why not?  

    Are we willing to relegate as archaic and irrelevant the idea that we will ever again return to a society where sex out of wedlock is widely scorned even in small communities, let alone the television and print medias?  If not, why not?  

    One thing I have come round to, largely as a result of the South Dakota thang.  I share your optimism that after Roe goes down, most states will resist aboliition.  

    Parent

    To all your questions, G (none / 0) (#91)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 04:39:44 PM EST
    I am opposed. But, there is probably a discussion somewhere on each of them. For example, though I oppose republicans on the reasons they wish sex education in the public schools should be limited (simply an abstinence issue) or thrown out all together, I personally would prefer that sex education is done by the family or community rather than the public in public school. I don't trust the public because I feel it is a creation of authoritarian figures outside of the community rather than within the community. That is anothere discussion (I am not a big proponent of public schools).

    I don't know what the opposition to first trimester abortions is tethered to, but I do believe that opposition to first trimester abortions or morning after pills is outside the mainstream view in America.

    Contraceptives are good and should be freely available to everyone. However, as a parent, I'd like to be the one that obtains them and educates my children over the use of them rather than a stranger. That is my personal choice, though.

    I think the idea of regulating sex is archaic and I think that small communites can go overboard in scorning persons who engage in sexual activity that is out of the mainstream or out of wedlock. I think what happens in the bedroom is private. However, social norms and taboos serve a purpose and a free sex society without taboos comes at a price.

    That is my two cents, anyway.

    Parent

    Serious? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:09:23 PM EST
    The inability to take the "other side" seriously has probably done more to damage lives than any other mistake.

    Parent
    yes, but a bad reply (none / 0) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:03:56 AM EST
    "Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists not by the title of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label "abortion doctors."

      Well, first,  since only a small percentage of OB-Gyns perform abortions, that would be an overly broad misnomer.

      Second, why is "abortion doctor" considered a perjorative by Ginsburg or anyone else who favors abortion?  =No one seems to think "heart doctor" is a perjorative re3ference to cardiologists, or "bone doctor" a perjorative reference to orthopedics?

    Gee (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by scarshapedstar on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:38:41 AM EST
    Maybe because they do a lot of other things besides abortions?

    Parent
    Do you oppose the right to choose? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:07:03 AM EST
    I think Decon opposses (none / 0) (#7)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:33:37 AM EST
    bad arguments, not the right to choose.

    Although, it seems anyone who points out the many faults in Pro-choice arguments will be labeled as pro-life or anti-choice in a kneejerk fashion.

    Parent

    You're wrong (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:41:22 AM EST
    He says so expressly.

    Parent
    No, that is an over-simplification (none / 0) (#14)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:44:09 AM EST
    (One of your specialties!)

      I oppose the argument that the Constitution of the United States establishes the right of a woman to obtain an abortion regardless of the larger society's interests in regulating the practice.

       I do not oppose the establishment of a statutory right to an abortion by a legislature. I also do not oppose the restriction of that right by a legislature insofar as it would prohibit, in that jurisdiction, the vast majority of abortions.

       I would oppose, politically, a blanket prohibition of abortion which encompassed cases where the mother's life would be in jeopardy or the potential for serious physical harm if the pregnancy is not terminated by abortion. Cases of rape and incest are very difficult dilemmas, but I lean toward allowing abortion in such cases.

      Of course, the problem is that even if abortions were allowed to proterct the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest, the practical effect might be to eliminate the ready availability of abortions in such cases because where 95+ of all abortions were eliminated it might be difficult to maintain a supply of trained personnel to perform them in any case.

     

    You oppose a Constitutional right to choose (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:53:37 AM EST
    Roe, Casey, et al.

    That is what people understand the right to choose to be.

    I am not criticizing you for your views. I am just stating them in the fashion most folks discuss it.

    You oppose what is commonly understood as the right to choose.

    Parent

    "Larger society's interest" (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:08:17 PM EST
    They talk and talk and talk.  Friday I watched Scott McClellan calmly talk about Iraq with the same nifty little rhetoric that they've been using all along.  It covers up the enormity of the catastrophe. Or at least continues to enable it, whaveter the difference is worth.

    In the case of regulating women's bodies, decent people will not take this lying down no matter how reasonable people like Decon try and make it sound.  Wars are nigh impossible to stop when you have a promoter of war in the White House.  This however will play out more and more like the "drug war," people will go to jail but they will continue to circumvent, ignore, & c.

    And yet so unlike the "drug war" in that so many will vocally and unapologetically oppose these developments.  And an underground railroad is coming, that's a big difference too.  Women and doctors will not be left utterly without protection.

    So keep talking Decon, et al.  Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Parent

    Nice try, G (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:22:42 PM EST
    If you can't respond with an argument, then accuse them of being a good talkers.

    You might as well have said "Yada, yada, yada" like Jim.

    As you are fond of saying

    stay alert - stay with Fox

    Parent

    Peaches in Case You're Willing To Read This Post (none / 0) (#37)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:35:56 PM EST
    What is perhaps not so clear is that my commentary on the talk, the nature of the talk, is the argument I'm making.

    Going back over the archives of debate over, say, slavery can be very educational.  The incessant droning inward of states rahts, the droning insistence that the Mexican War had nothing to do with expanding slavery.  President Pol often expressed "bafflement" that the two would be connected at all.  

    And yet magically, Polk went into hem and haw mode when it came to the Wilmost Proviso.  Would Congress and the President guarantee that slavery would not be extended into any territory acquired by the Mexican War?  No, it's an insult to the South! shouted Polk.  You see how convenient it all was, I hope.

    How convenient too that re Iraq, there has been a dteady stream of droning talk that the War has absolutely nothing to do with economic profiteering by any American parties.  How ridiculous to think so!!!  And yet, how far do you think an analagous Wilmot Proviso would have ever gotten in this government?  That one was never even brought to the floor by either Party is telling.  Remember, David Wilmot was a Democrat, and yet had the guts to stand up to Polk.

    Back to abortion, we get the same droning on and on about how this doesn't necessarily mean that Roe will be overturned, that one can support this and still be pro-choice, that it's a matter of sound law, and on and on and on.  And yet at the end of the day we cann all see, cutting through the rhetorical fog, where this is going.  It is clear to all but the most obtuse.  it was clear from the moment Bush got these Appointment opportunities.  What we have here is not "debate," which implies something is in question.  What we have is a first and easily anticipated step, escorted all along by the most flowery rhetoric possible.

    And that is of course the raison de etre behind Stay Alert, and Stay With Fox.  

    Parent

    G (none / 0) (#42)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:45:23 PM EST
    I see it differently. I don't see abortion as even remotely in the same class as Slavery and the Iraq war.

    Anyone who looks at the moral issue of abortion unserstands that it isn't a simple question, regardless of what the intentions of the administrationis (btw, I doubt this administration cares about the abrotion issue at all, just merely repaying their debts to the fundamentalists).

    As I have said before, I don't fear the opinion of the American people to come to a consensus on any issue. Left in the hands of the sensibioites of people and they will choose to protect women right to choose an abortion in almost every circumstance - though not every single circumstance).

    I am Prochoice. I am a man. I am a big man (with a big heart and pacifist intentions) I spent several years excorting women through pro-life demonstrations at a local abortion clinic. I think most women felt a little more comfoprtable having me there. I also spent many hours talking to the demonstrators and over time realized that even zealots were humans and we eventually learned to greet each other and fill each others coffee cups.

    My point is that talking goes a long way. Try it some time or you can continue to stay alert, atay with fox.

    Parent

    First of all (none / 0) (#51)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    I admire the brave thing you have done to support and protect women during such a difficult experience.  It is not easy to put one's money where one's mouth is, God knows.  

    There will soon be a great need for many more like you, that's for certain.  There is an underground railroad coming, just as surely as Roe is in its last phase.  No nicey nice talk will stop people from standing up to the law in this.

    You think perhaps that Slavery and the atrocities attending Westward Expansion are simple issues now because of the distance.  I assure you they were framed as anything but simple during the time: indeed, it was the facade of compexity that served as the primary enabler of these things.  While the talk droned on, the practices continued unimpeded.

    As for Iraq, the fact that you have opposed it so unflinchingly from at least as long as you've been posting here, perhaps hat fact makes it seem more clear cut to you as well.  But surely you understand that the advocates thrive in this area, too, on painting the whole thing with pretenses of complexity.  Talk, talk, talk.  Death, death, death attending.

    I have in the past made comments out of anger that suggest I deny the very humanity of those seeking to outlaw abortion.  But I have recanted this style of discourse, and continue to. I understand they are deepfelt in their convictions. That isn't the point at issue here, though.  

    At issue here (at least with respect to what I have written) is the viability of talking about this as though it were some esoteric point of law.  I respect BTD because he is calling people out, peeling back their circular talk and getting at their actual designs.  Let everyone stand up and be counted, instead of hiding behind vaguery.

    Finally, and most importantly by far, to deny that this forbodes the fall of Roe is just stoopid.  Of course it does.  It is sickening, this "calm down everybody nothing to see here, one has nothing to do with the other" tone that so many are projecting.  Just like they said with Slavery, with Slavery Extension, with Mexican War politics, just like they continue to say re Iraq.

    I appreciate when people have the "Peaches" to state their own beliefs and stand for them.  At least then we can have real debate.  Those who believe like Ayn Rand did that since Americans developed the Middle Eastern Oil, America should own it: well I find that despicable but at least they're cutting through all the crap about spreading freedom and defending us at home.  Those who celebrate War Profiteering I can stomach much more than those who talk and talk and talk as if it isn't happening.  And those who celebrate this SCOTUS move as a first step towards overturning Roe, bully for them.  At least they're being honest.

    On Fox, if you can handle watching it, you're going to see a lot of pundits like Hume and his goons talking around this as though it is a discrete decision which must be analyzed on its own rhetorical and legal terms, and from which nothing can be predicted.  Check it out.  You'll see.

    Parent

    not denying, (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:15:41 PM EST
    I just think that when Roe falls (and I think this would be a good thing in the loong run) most communities will bind together to write law that gives women the right to choose an abortion, shutting up the fundamentalists once and for all. I think South Dakota demonstartes that for abortion to be legal is not going to require some revolution after Roe vs. Wade falls, just people electing individuals who are proposing good law.

    Parent
    It will be waged state to state (none / 0) (#57)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:19:27 PM EST
    South Dakota was refreshing.  I admit it suggests that maybe you're right that abortion rights will ultimately stand against the death of Roe.  

    In the immediate enthusiasm over the overturn, however, we will see draconian measures in multiple states.  And by the way, I'm not talking about revolution here.  Just flouting, snubbing, circumventing the law.    

    Parent

    I guess you have a penis huh? (4.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:24:57 PM EST
    Can't wait until I can start legislating what you do with that.  If you masturbated this morning you could have just stopped a beating heart!

    Parent
    Thats your understanding (none / 0) (#20)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:58:53 AM EST
    not necessarily the "common" understanding.

    All right, now I mean it, I am out.

    IT is not my point (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:44:40 PM EST
    that because it is my understanding it is the common understanding.

    IT is a fact that it is the common understanding. You can agree or disagree with the formulation, but it is the common definition.

    That you want to argue THAT astounds me.

    Parent

    Read the polls BTD (none / 0) (#43)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:48:04 PM EST
    Most Americans favor a womens right to choose.

    Most Americans also favor some regulations on a womens right to choose.

    Most Americans do not know the details of Roe vs. Wade.

    You are the ridiculous one today, but you don't astound me. You are like that sometimes.

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    what people understand by the phrase "the right to choose" is Roe.

    Period.

    I am not arguing what people are for. I am TELLING you what people think the phrase "right to choose" means.

    Puhleeease stop this silliness.

    Parent

    I know what your are telling me (none / 0) (#49)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    You have been quite clear from the start.

    I just don't agree with you. SOmetimes people don't agree regardless what one is TELLING the other.

    Now, you stop being silly.

    Parent

    Then you are not dealing in reality (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:48:22 PM EST
    No, Big Tent (none / 0) (#76)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:41:39 PM EST
    Reality covers as great a circumfrance as the big, big tent itself and I think I'm dealing with some aspect of it. We just all have different ways and means of defining the reality we live in. Your difinition doesn't fit mine and vice versa.

    You don't get to define my reality and I don't get to define yours.

    Parent

    No there is an objective reality (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:46:11 PM EST
    I see your discussion with Glanton and second his comment on your insistence on yuor view darn the facts.

    I have no wish to pursue the matter any further with you.

    Parent

    As you should have been able to tell (none / 0) (#84)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 03:13:20 PM EST
    I stopped discussing this with you a few posts ago.

    I respect you, BTD, but I know the way you approach an argument and what you are willing to discuss. You define this issue along lines I don't agree with, so my discussion with you, on this matter is pointless.

    I don't think you are being one bit honest, despite your protest for your interlocutors to accept your terms of debate or else. Neither of us is willing to engage the other in debate that shifts the terms towards the other. I cannot win an argument with you where you say common understanding on the right to choose is Roe vs. Wade simply because we won't agree on the definition of common. You are a lawyer and I am not. Common to mean means common sense and popular opinion. Common to you refers to common law. Since neither of us is willing to debate this in the others arena, then the discussion is pointless and you are right to decide not to pursue it any further.

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 01:02:13 PM EST
     For some people that is a motivation, but for many others it is not. You cannot make a good argument simply by refusing to acknowledge that people who disagree with you have motivations other than a desire to control you.

      That is akin to someone dismissing all ant-war advocates as being anti-American and wishing for a dimunition of our nation's power.

      Refusing to acknowledge that people of good faith and moral conviction can  hold contrary positions is the last refuge of the tyrant.

     

    Good debates... My 2 cents don't amount to squat (none / 0) (#73)
    by Freewill on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 02:30:39 PM EST
    My Gawd forbids me from cutting my hair or from seeking medical treatment. I have taken the SCOTUS decision as a step towards pushing  legislation to ensure that our Government restricts other individuals from having their hair cut and by not allowing Gawd's will for us to suffer through illness that Gawd created. It has always been my Gawd's law and therefore I must enforce my Gawd's will onto others that I do not know nor do I care to know.

    Yes, I know this will have an impact on our economy for those of you who support a Barber/Beautician's rights of the American Dream however, in my teachings Barbers and Beauticians are disciples of evil intent on stealing souls from my Gawd. Doctors do the same thing when they extract tumors and diseased tissues, organs, and etc...

    I find it quite humorous how many of those who wish to intrude in an other's life only do so from a distance and do so without care for that other's existence. Once many of them have inflicted their moral judgements on to others they cease to care about those whom they somehow, saved?

    The jargon, "Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" and "my tax money shouldn't spent on those people" etc..., are most associated with those who are most intent on interjecting and enforcing their beliefs onto others. This is crazy to me. We have in our profit only driven society slammed the doors shut on the mentally handicapped housing facilities, refused insurance on millions of individuals and families, cut (and I mean slashed the federal budgets) funding for our most in need. Why? To insure that we direct the moneys to our favorites, who wants to see the ugly in this world? It's all beautiful from where I'm sitting, why do people complain? Oh, they must only be haters of the American Way of Life?

    In reality I don't care that someone else next door, down the street, in the next town or even in another country does to survive in his harsh world. I have seen the ugly truths! I have witnessed societies way to disguise what they deem as garbage. The Federal and State Governments are doing a very fine job slashing from their budgets everything they can that they do not wish to see but yet it's only going to wake them up someday and they will look around to see the naked truth of this world's harshness. And why? Because we as a society had to preach and enforce to others why our lives are better than everyone else's.

    In other news: Wire hangers sales are at an all time high. The market predicts the immediate decline of sales in plastic and resin cloth hanging devices.

    Necessity, I've learned this truth working in a prison for so many years. Take away this item and 30 seconds later it will be replaced by another. Life will find its way to continue its ugliness no matter how hard we regulate it, no matter how hard we intrude into others affairs. Reports, Surveys, and Studies never lie, only those who create them lie.