Politics: A new beginning

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
And one-in-a-thousand-live-births isn't so rare that we shouldn't be disgusted.

This can't be a 1/1000th thing. Is there a cite somewhere is this thread to this? not taking a pro-life side here, just shocked that the number could be that high.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, it's just that I truly don't see any substantive difference between all of the various approaches that people are taking in this whole fight. They are just incremental tactical advances or defeats in the "abortion should be banned completely"/"abortion should be no business of the state" fight. Any argument that tries to artifically deal with one such regulation in a vacuum is (usually) intentionally deceptive.

I take it you agree the partial birth abortion ban is another such intentionally deceptive incremental tactic? One undertaken by the GOP and signed to great fanfare by the President? If you agree with that, I'd tend to agree that 86 anguished women in Minnesota is small potatoes, because we've got a bigger legislative debacle on our hands.

What I will not concede is that Minnesota's wait-and-consent law is good policy. Telling a woman she'll get breast cancer if she has an abortion? Telling a woman she's torturing and killing an unborn child? Shame on Minnesota. What's next, the legislature mandates that school nurses teach kids they'll get hairy palms if they masturbate?

This isn't an issue that's going to be helped, on either side, with anecdotes of emotional pain, because both sides have them, and they usually only tend to show that both sides are concerned with emotional pain that specifically helps them prove their own case. It's fun, and it's maybe personally satisfying in that it gives you a warm feeling when demonizing the other side, but something that ONLY polarizes is probably not useful.

I'll be sure to tell the woman with the weblog to shut up. She's being divisive, and only being concerned with her own emotional pain.

I've previously said that the reason we can't overturn Roe v. Wade isn't because it's such a shining example of Con Law, but because we can't live in a country where folks in Louisiana and Oklahoma are cursing the baby-killers in Albany, Boston and Sacramento. Men and women in majority pro-life states will be elected to Congress on the platform that they won't allow federal social service dollars to go to states that permit abortions to be a matter between woman and M.D. Abortion will get re-federalized the same way drinking age and highway speed got federalized, which means the state's-rights people are full of shit when they say states are laboratories for policy, and we can all have different policies. Bullshit. Abortion is divisive now; it will be 1,000 times more divisive when the borders between states are viewed as demarcations of where babies are killed and where they are not. Do you have reason to disagree with that?

BTW, I'll happily be called "polarizing" or "divisive" if the alternative is to stand silent when a law hurts people. Even if those people are merely individuals going through the most horrifying experience imaginable. You give Bush kudos when he's divisive and polarizing. You call it courage.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This can't be a 1/1000th thing. Is there a cite somewhere is this thread to this? not taking a pro-life side here, just shocked that the number could be that high.

It was cited in the weblog entry itself, but here it is again. This is the thing that makes sonograms so, um, exciting for expectant parents. I can live with a kid with Down's or one arm or a Jamie Lee Curtis crotchline. But spending nine months pregnant to bear a child without a brain, knowing that your baby is basically already dead or that the child you're carrying never really existed at all, is a bit much to ask.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, it's just that I truly don't see any substantive difference between all of the various approaches that people are taking in this whole fight. They are just incremental tactical advances or defeats in the "abortion should be banned completely"/"abortion should be no business of the state" fight. Any argument that tries to artifically deal with one such regulation in a vacuum is (usually) intentionally deceptive.

I don't know why you're taking this position, other than to effectively avoid delving into abortion issues altogether.

That approach effectively eliminates any discussion of abortion other than the two extremes that you mentioned. As you know, most Americans have muddled views on the subject, and that largely accounts for the muddled policy that we have today. The incremental measures are important because they receive the approval or approbation of segments of the public.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I take it you agree the partial birth abortion ban is another such intentionally deceptive incremental tactic?

It is one small step in the fight to ban abortions. Its main support did not come from people who are generally accepting of abortions, but just dislike this particular kind. So, to that extent, yes, I agree with what you said.

One undertaken by the GOP and signed to great fanfare by the President? If you agree with that, I'd tend to agree that 86 anguished women in Minnesota is small potatoes, because we've got a bigger legislative debacle on our hands.

And if I credit the rather huge constituency that believes that it's murder, we have a bigger debacle on our hands, don't we?

What I will not concede is that Minnesota's wait-and-consent law is good policy. Telling a woman she'll get breast cancer if she has an abortion? Telling a woman she's torturing and killing an unborn child? Shame on Minnesota. What's next, the legislature mandates that school nurses teach kids they'll get hairy palms if they masturbate?

I susect there really are NO good policies that are merely the back-and-forth fighting of the two camps. They are all political compromises, which, like good negotiations, usually mean everyone is dissatisfied. (But, the question that I think you keep ignoring is: you include in your parade of horribles this line - "Telling a woman she's torturing and killing an unborn child". You throw it out as if we should all chuckle, as if it's akin to "telling kids the earth is flat". You continually gloss the question, the ultimate question of this whole subject. Should we ignore that fairly widely-held belief because you don't share it? I can't. I see too many people who hold to that belief. In that light, as sad as your anecdotes are, they pale.

I'll be sure to tell the woman with the weblog to shut up. She's being divisive, and only being concerned with her own emotional pain.

And, of course, in your world, that's the only pain involved in the abortion debate, right?

I've previously said that the reason we can't overturn Roe v. Wade isn't because it's such a shining example of Con Law, but because we can't live in a country where folks in Louisiana and Oklahoma are cursing the baby-killers in Albany, Boston and Sacramento.

Again, you refuse to see another choice, one that doesn't involve abortion being available in some states. You come to this entire issue with such moral, self-satisfied blinders.

BTW, I'll happily be called "polarizing" or "divisive" if the alternative is to stand silent when a law hurts people. Even if those people are merely individuals going through the most horrifying experience imaginable.

You're going to campaign against abortion? All because of this conversation? Don't do that on my account - I'm not there myself. (Hint: There are some - many - who would openly laugh at your characterization of emotional pain - from, what, having to carry to term? - as "the most horrifying experience imaginable" - in light of what you want to give her the freedom to do to what they consider to be a human being. Again, your moral certaintude and blindness is just depressing.)

(Pretty long convo from a guy who said he wasn't going to do the abortion thingie, huh?)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
Any argument that tries to artifically deal with one such regulation in a vacuum is (usually) intentionally deceptive.

Pun intended?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I don't know why you're taking this position, other than to effectively avoid delving into abortion issues altogether.

How about, in order to communicate disapproval that someone of intelligence would take the outraged position that AG has taken here today, entirely oblivious (or at least ignoring) of the fact that a very popular counter-view exists, and trivializing that view (that something is murder is no light thing that should be equally weighted against convenience, or maybe even the pain of having to carry a non-viable baby to term) the way he has done.

I don't think the abortion debate comes down to an argument that can be solved. It's a preference. You either consider it to be murder, or you don't. (I have no concrete personal decision on that, myself.) As in all preferences, I fear that, in a democracy, the right answer is, vote. As in most debates these days, however, I fear that activist courts will "find" Constitutional rights at will. All in all, this is a mess, and is going to be a mess for a long, long time. I think arguments like those made by AG today exacerbate that mess.

I think the wording of the MN statute sucks, but I chalk it up to the extreme level of distrust between the two groups. There was lobbying for language admitting health exceptions, but the other point was that health exceptions seem to be interpreted incredibly broadly by pro-choice health workers, and it would merely work to allow the on-demand situation that was present prior.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't think the abortion debate comes down to an argument that can be solved. It's a preference. You either consider it to be murder, or you don't. (I have no concrete personal decision on that, myself.) As in all preferences, I fear that, in a democracy, the right answer is, vote. As in most debates these days, however, I fear that activist courts will "find" Constitutional rights at will. All in all, this is a mess, and is going to be a mess for a long, long time. I think arguments like those made by AG today exacerbate that mess.

Exactly. The debate would not be anywhere near as divisive and contentious if decided by a vote. There are many, like me and I suspect Billmore, that really don't have strong feeling regarding the substance of the debate, but who back the anti-Roe crowd out of democratic principle. There is no other workable compromise on this issue and it is not going to go away.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
There are many, like me and I suspect Billmore, that really don't have strong feeling regarding the substance of the debate, but who back the anti-Roe crowd out of democratic principle.

Well, which is it? Are you a libertarian or a small-d democrat?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Well, which is it? Are you a libertarian or a small-d democrat?

I didn't know they were mutually exclusive.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I didn't know they were mutually exclusive.

Consider, for example, the New Deal.

In other words, the essence of libertarianism is protected individuals from majoritarian economic legislation. Yeah, sure, there's that concern for civil and criminal rights, too, but that's the caboose on the train.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Consider, for example, the New Deal.

I'd rather not.

If you are asking what I think the law should be (meaning substantively) I would say it should be fashioned along libertarian principles, though I am not an absolutest, by any means. For example, I think the SEC is a good thing, but for different reasons than are generally given. I believe the SEC provides certain efficiencies that are essential for our system. Could these be provided by private parties more efficiently? Of course. But the government offers a certain level of independence that private parties could not (see e.g., the NYSE's recent issues with compensation).

That said, if only 1% of the population feels the way I do, it is not practical for the law to be structured along those lines and should be structured around democratic principles, absent violations of fundamental rights (the real ones, not the BS ones). Taht means a vote (either direct or representative) and not court mandated.

On a related note, Libertarians believe that the government has the right to prohibit murder (and perhaps that is one of the few things in which government should be invovled). So if you believe that abortion = murder, there is no conflict between Libertarian priciples and the pro life movement.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'd rather not.

If you are asking what I think the law should be (meaning substantively) I would say it should be fashioned along libertarian principles, though I am not an absolutest, by any means. For example, I think the SEC is a good thing, but for different reasons than are generally given. I believe the SEC provides certain efficiencies that are essential for our system. Could these be provided by private parties more efficiently? Of course. But the government offers a certain level of independence that private parties could not (see e.g., the NYSE's recent issues with compensation).

That said, if only 1% of the population feels the way I do, it is not practical for the law to be structured along those lines and should be structured around democratic principles, absent violations of fundamental rights (the real ones, not the BS ones). Taht means a vote (either direct or representative) and not court mandated.

On a related note, Libertarians believe that the government has the right to prohibit murder (and perhaps that is one of the few things in which government should be invovled). So if you believe that abortion = murder, there is no conflict between Libertarian priciples and the pro life movement.

If the . . . item? whatever . . . whose life is being terminated has no brain, how is it murder? I mean, even my cat has a brain, and if I kill it it's not considered murder.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If the . . . item? whatever . . . whose life is being terminated has no brain, how is it murder? I mean, even my cat has a brain, and if I kill it it's not considered murder.

You are getting into the metaphysical question of what (and when) is human, which neither you, nor I, nor the courts are equipped to answer. That is why it should be decided by the people locally.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
On a related note, Libertarians believe that the government has the right to prohibit murder (and perhaps that is one of the few things in which government should be invovled). So if you believe that abortion = murder, there is no conflict between Libertarian priciples and the pro life movement.

If you believe that life begins at conception, you also have to have the government enact this belief into law and tell everyone else that they must believe it too. Your dodge (on abortion) is like saying libertarianism is completely consistent with the New Deal if you believe that most people want to pay higher taxes for jobs programs, etc.

I.e.,

[y]ou are getting into the metaphysical question of what (and when) [the proper level of taxes should be], which neither you, nor I, nor the courts are equipped to answer. That is why it should be decided by the people locally.