Matthew Yglesias » God Have Mercy

Sep 3rd, 2008 at 2:41 pm

God Have Mercy

My sense is that you more typically see this kind of thing as a protest against liberal events:

It’s a reminder that there seem to be several schools of thought on Sarah Palin among the folks gathered here:

The activists think she’s great.
The single-issue anti-abortion activists think she’s the greatest thing ever.
The cynics and professionals — strategists, journalists, etc. — think she’s probably a bad idea, though some cynics think a low-odds wager is the right move for McCain under the circumstances.

But anti-abortion activists really, really, really love her. To me it’s kind of a sign of the odd psychology of the issue. After all, though she’s an anti-abortion dogmatist she’s hardly the only dogmatically anti-abortion statewide officeholder in GOP ranks. There’s some special attraction to the idea of a youngish woman with so many children who also holds the conventional right-wing view that really drives the forced pregnancy crowd wild.

Comments
72

72 Responses to “God Have Mercy”

Aleks Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Not to mention her anti-education and anti-teen mother policies that seem guaranteed to produce as many abortions as possible, thus keeping the issue prime for milking.
Beebs Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Don’t reproduce that s**t here or anywhere else. It’s disgusting, and the fact that its legal to drive that around is disgusting. There are still children in our society you know. They are allowed out in public.

But I guess driving around in such a truck represents the driver’s “respect for life.”
kid bitzer Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
tho, as has been observed elsewhere, if this were a democratic woman (e.g. hrc) with this many children of these ages, the very same forced-pregnancy fanatics would be railing about what a heartless feminazi bitch she was for not staying home full time to raise them.

we would be treated to endless shrieking screeds about her new infant and its special needs and how she was putting her own selfish career before the good of her children, and thereby destroying western civilization.

but, of course, since she is a republican, and for these people party comes before all else, they say nothing of the sort.
Ryan Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Funny how that Proverbs passage is nowhere to be heard among conservatives when the subject is war.
Jeffrey Davis Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Maybe the anti-abortion crowd should ask her why she had an amniocentesis test.
Rob Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Matt,

Is ‘forced pregnancy’ really the position of these folks? Their aim, I believe, is to ensure (’force’ if you will) that a woman who has become pregnant takes responsibility for that development and carries the pregnancy to term. One can argue the greater societal good of safe abortions, but considering the termination of a five-month-old fetus a type of murder doesn’t strike me as insane, and it’s certainly not ‘forced pregnancy’.
peep Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Well, Matt, your friend and ex-colleague, Ross Douthat admits to having fallen hard for her.
Luke Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
That is disgusting. You don’t see liberals driving around with pictures of soldiers decapitated in Iraq, do you?
Adam Villani Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
#2 – It is revolting. But that’s obviously their point. It’s revolting and legal, and dancing around the issue by talking about “the products of conception” or even just the term “pro-choice” (pro-choice of what?) obfuscates the fact that it’s legal to kill viable fetuses in this country if the mother consents.

It’s arguable whether displays like this are effective… I know I don’t want to look at it, and it tends to make one mad at the protestor more than at abortion. But is at least worth acknowledging what the abortion debate is about.
funkydays Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
First, that is the most horrific sight I have seen and simply sadden at the fact that this is what anti-abortionist think is ‘right’. The pictures depict that all aborted fetuses look like that, which is completely inaccurate.

If people think abortion is ‘murder’ and show their children–and others through this anti-abort-o-truck–these pictures to, in some twisted way, teach them that abortion is wrong, why don’t we just start showing pictures of rape, murder, child molestation to teach them these are wrong as well? Why is it acceptable to broadcast these ill-representative pictures and not others?

It sickens me that some people are so backwards.
Adam Villani Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
You don’t see liberals driving around with pictures of soldiers decapitated in Iraq, do you?

True. But Andrew Sullivan frequently posts Abu Ghraib photos and the like.

To play devil’s advocate here, though, it’s maybe worth pointing out that *any* surgical procedure looks disgusting. But it doesn’t shock the conscience in the same way.
Roddy McCorley Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
First off, “forced pregnancy” isn’t really an accurate description of the position and goals of this particular mind-set. While we’re all busy debating Roe v. Wade, they’ve got their sights set on Griswold v. Connecticut.

Secondly, I am convinced that one of the reasons Palin is on the ticket is to ensure that people with this particular mindset will continue to give money to the GOP. “See, we put someone with your views on the ticket. Make the check out to ‘cash’ and next time we’ll get ‘em for sure!”
funkydays Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
True. But Andrew Sullivan frequently posts Abu Ghraib photos and the like.

I don’t think posting a picture on a blog can have the same effect as posting large pictures on a moving vehicle. At least on the internet we have a choice to avoid those sorts of things whereas, to an innocent bystander on the street, it’s unavoidable. The best you can do is quickly close your eyes and pray that the truck will be gone by the time you open them.
Benjamin Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Have we really reached the point that Andrew Sullivan is getting called a liberal? That’s almost as funny as Dr. Laura attacking Palin’s family values.
gord Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
What’s in the truck?
Tom Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
A woman gets pregnant and does not wish to give birth to the baby. She cannot be convinced otherwise.

How, but by force, do you get her to give birth?
right Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
A woman gets pregnant and does not wish to give birth to the baby. She cannot be convinced otherwise.

Did someone “force” her to get pregnant? This is why Matt’s term is so silly.
Tom Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
“Did someone “force” her to get pregnant? This is why Matt’s term is so silly.”

That would be forced impregnation. This is forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her wishes.
Jake Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I think “forced pregnancy” is an entirely reasonable term for a movement of people like Palin who would ban abortion in any and all circumstances (with no exceptions for rape or incest) and who ultimately seek to overturn Griswold and make contraception itself illegal. Sure, no one’s publicly advocating for forcibly impregnating women and making them carry to term; but if women will ultimately have no control over when or if to bear children, I don’t see how the outcome is substantially different.
Adam Villani Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I don’t think posting a picture on a blog can have the same effect as posting large pictures on a moving vehicle.

Yeah, I don’t want to sound like I think it’s a good idea to drive around with a truck like this, but having photos on blogs or in political demonstrations and such is perfectly legitimate. Even if this guy doesn’t drive around the truck like this all the time, just driving from wherever he put the signs up to wherever he was doing the protest subjected a lot of people to the photos. And while I do think abortion is an important issue, I do think there are a limited number of places where this is appropriate and the rest of the time this guy’s probably not winning many friends.

Again, though, that’s probably this guy’s point, but I think he should really limit himself to where people have a reasonable expectation of encountering political protests.

why don’t we just start showing pictures of rape, murder, child molestation to teach them these are wrong as well?

There isn’t much public debate over the wrongness of these things.
Jim W Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
What if a human fetus looked like a giant maggot or insect larva? I would love to see those pro-lifers try their tricks then! I also wonder: as ultrasounds get more high resolution, will it have an effect on the debate?

Another thing that strikes me is that I’ve heard many people, liberals included, say that it was admirable for Palin to go ahead and have the Down Syndrome child. But, wouldn’t it have been more admirable for her to abort it and then try again and have a normal child that could expect a higher quality of life?
Sean Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
The right’s embrace is perfectly explicable. Palin’s walked the walk. Twice. Including knowingly adding a Down syndrome baby to the family. That’s an impressive display of commitment (even if described in pro-choice language). Genetic testing and amniocentesis are not counter-indicative of pro-life. Learning about a Down syndrome baby gives the family an opportunity to plan and prepare for the challenges. Nothing wrong there. (Her use of high-tech science and her support of creationism/intelligent design is, on the other hand, completely hypocritical.)

That she’s not the only hard-core state office-holder isn’t the point. She’s the only hard-core state office-holder who has been thrust onto the national scene. She’s new blood. I’d be willing to bet they’d be just as excited if McCain had chosen a similar figure from another state. And, don’t forget the power of negative media attention to create sympathy from the right. She’s a standard-bearer on so many fronts.

There is nothing in the truck. It’s an ad-truck whose sole purpose is to suck fuel, omit carbon-dioxide and pollutants, and add congestion to busy streets. Distasteful and not green.
John Henry Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
What’s in the truck?

Stolen, cryogenically-frozen fetuses.

There should at least be an exception for the anti-christ.
Tom Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
“But, wouldn’t it have been more admirable for her to abort it and then try again and have a normal child that could expect a higher quality of life?”

Not necessarily. The moral idea behind the Right to Life is that each child is an individual and deserves life as such. Having another child with a higher quality of life does nothing for the child with Downs Syndrome. Furthermore, a Downs Syndrome child can have a fine quality of life. Difficult, yes, but there are always difficulties.
L Boom Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Did someone “force” her to get pregnant? This is why Matt’s term is so silly.

If a woman were raped and not on birth control (keep in mind, these people want to make contraception illegal, too) it’s very possible to become pregnant. If abortion became illegal under all circumstances, which is what these people are fighting for, then yes, that’s a forced pregnancy by any possible definition.

Palin herself has said that she would force her daughter to carry the child to term if she were raped and became pregnant. In the full part of this conversation, we’re not just talking about young and irresponsible high school and college girls getting knocked up. Look at the big picture and accept that these people want to make it illegal to abort pregnancies caused by rape and incest, as well. Are you comfortable forcing a girl to carry her own father’s child to term?
Mark D Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Did someone “force” her to get pregnant?

Well, if they did, Palin doesn’t give a shit — in her world, if a dad rapes his daughter, the daughter has no choice but to have the kid. If giving birth may kill the daughter, she doesn’t care — the girl must have the kid, no matter the emotional (or even physical) scars it may cause.

I guess this is where I also note that if Palin and the folks who drive trucks like the one above really did support a “culture of life,” they’d put just as much energy in banning the death penalty and protesting war. Yet they don’t.

I wonder why that is? Honestly — I really don’t get it since it makes ZERO logical or rational sense.
Chris O. Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I saw a van like that in St. Paul the other day, only it was criticizing McCain for not being anti-abortion enough. It was really weird.
Jim W Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Tom, going ahead and having the Down syndrome child also does nothing for the potential healthy child she otherwise could have had. Its ultimately something of a zero-sum game: there are only a finite number of children that we can bring into this world, and choosing to have some necessarily means choosing not to have others.
Adam Villani Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
keep in mind, these people want to make contraception illegal, too

Some do, some don’t. I’m all for contraception, and one big reason is that it reduces abortions.
Jeremy Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:48 pm
#21 – Wow, pretty scary, Jim. Why not do it now?

“why don’t we just start showing pictures of rape, murder, child molestation to teach them these are wrong as well?” (funkydays #10) “There isn’t much public debate over the wrongness of these things.” (Adam #20) And for the same reason, there isn’t a concerted attempt to conceal their nature, either.
Ryan Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Adam Villani,

Andrew Sullivan is not a liberal. That needs saying.

And please don’t go stating that these images “shock the conscience”, full stop, as if that’s a universal reaction to them. They might shock *your* conscience but some of the alternatives to legal abortion shock mine quite a bit more, even without gory pictures.

But otherwise I basically agree with you that all’s fair in propaganda (including what Sullivan does), particularly if it’s non-doctored images of real things that cut through obfuscatory and euphemistic language. Ideally liberals should have the courage of their convictions and defend their positions even in the face of such images.

But you need to hold antichoicers to the same standard. You complain that:

the term “pro-choice” (pro-choice of what?) obfuscates the fact that it’s legal to kill viable fetuses in this country if the mother consents.

Well, these images obfuscate the fact that antichoicers want to ban abortion of even NON-viable fetuses. Microscopic clusters of cells, even.

And Rob writes that “considering the termination of a five-month-old fetus a type of murder doesn’t strike me as insane”. Well, I would love it if antichoice leaders would actually call for abortion to be treated like murder by the courts. Then we’d have an honest debate about policy alternatives. But they don’t. They don’t want women punished for having abortions. Talk about lacking the courage of one’s convictions. Talk about obfuscation.

As for “pro-choice of what?”, the answer is obviously “pro-choice regarding the continuation of one’s own pregnancy” which doesn’t fit well in headlines or on letterhead, but is at least more honest than the “pro-life” label adopted by those who actually only defend a particular kind of (arguable) life.
tomemos Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Beyond which, the outrages at Abu Ghraib were committed against people who inarguably have human rights, which is not the case with abortion. The truck pictured above just counts on your revulsion to make you forget about the distinction, which is not an example of honorable good-faith argument.
MBunge Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“Tom, going ahead and having the Down syndrome child also does nothing for the potential healthy child she otherwise could have had.”

Aborting a Down Syndrome child does not have any affect on the chances the next child will be healthy or even if there is a next child.

Mike
Jim W Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Jeremy,

Thinking logically about these issues frightens a lot of people. I still think its worthwhile. You have to draw the line somewhere as to when a fetus/baby gets legal rights. At birth, or shortly before birth (the 3rd trimester being a sort of transition period between zero and full rights) is a good place to do it because of the way that most people feel about the baby’s personhood at that point.

To do it based on a mythical “ensoulment” that takes place at conception, on the other hand, is just ridiculous.
some dude Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Well that’s just an inappropriate thing to post.
Tom Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Jim W,

That leans towards eugenics; a position both left and right tend to avoid. That’s why you’re not seeing a lot of talk that she should have aborted. It’s questionable whether that would have been “more admirable,” and given the attitude towards breeding among some evangelicals, one wonders where the finite number of children line is.
Jim W Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
MBunge,

It increases the likelihood of having another child. Read the rest of my comment.
crack Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
That van has been around MN for a while. There used to be a bill board up with aborted fetuses that referred to them as the ‘The Twins’. I never read the fine print. Minnesota has a pretty ultra-conservative group of republicans, which people dismiss because there are about 1% more Dems there than Republicans.
Asher Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
if [pro-choice people] really did support a culture of life, they’d put just as much energy in banning the death penalty and protesting war. Yet they don’t.

I wonder why that is? Honestly — I really don’t get it since it makes ZERO logical or rational sense.

The typical (I would’ve thought utterly obvious) explanation is that murderers deserve death, whereas fetuses don’t, not having, you know, done anything wrong besides inconvenience their mothers, and that sometimes war is necessary to protect nations from greater loss of life down the road. For example, bombing Serbia to prevent ethnic cleansing.
Tom Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
The typical (I would’ve thought utterly obvious) explanation is that murderers deserve death, whereas fetuses don’t, not having, you know, done anything wrong besides inconvenience their mothers, and that sometimes war is necessary to protect nations from greater loss of life down the road. For example, bombing Serbia to prevent ethnic cleansing.”

Raising children in poverty can be extremely dangerous. Economic hardship is a leading reason given for abortion. Wouldn’t the same necessary evil axiom apply?
mpowell Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I doubt those are images of actual fetuses. The anti-abortion movement is famous for producing completely fabricated photos to advance their cause.

Not like I care, but you can research this if you like.

Their aim, I believe, is to ensure (’force’ if you will) that a woman who has become pregnant takes responsibility for that development and carries the pregnancy to term.

How about taking responsibility for the development by taking the appropriate action and getting an abortion? No reason to give the anti-abortion folks a monopoly on ‘responsibility’. Especially when their heroes, like Palin, ‘responsibly’ respond to teen pregnancy by slashing financial support for teen mothers.
will Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I love the Orwellian ‘forced pregnancy crowd’. That’s right, pro-lifers force you to be pregnant….it wasn’t your decision to have sex. The fetus just magically appeared becuase conservatives forced you to be pregnant. I’ve heard of blame-shifting, but this is pretty impressive.
Ryan Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
The typical (I would’ve thought utterly obvious) explanation is that murderers deserve death, whereas fetuses don’t, not having, you know, done anything wrong … and that sometimes war is necessary

Right. These folks would say they’re pro-INNOCENT-life, and the category of ‘the innocent’ excludes not only murderers, but also Arabs, etc. etc. What have they “done wrong”? Why, not be Christians, of course! And also, just be in the way of American bombs which have an overriding and prior right to be falling in the places where they’ve put their houses.

No? Well, fine then, if they don’t actually think Arabs “deserve death”, then those like Asher think killing them is a tragic but unavoidable consequence of securing other Arabs’ independence.

Just like (you could argue) aborting unwanted fetuses is tragically but unavoidably necessary to safeguard a woman’s right to live an independent life.
mpowell Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
42: Well, some of them, notably Palin, don’t support exceptions in the case of rape. And they also oppose birth control! So lets not be so glib, huh?
Tom Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
42: Forced pregnancy, not forced impregnation. As soon as you become pregnant, you are forced to remain that way until childbirth.

Why sugarcoat it?
Ryan Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I love the Orwellian ‘forced pregnancy crowd’. That’s right, pro-lifers force you to be pregnant….it wasn’t your decision to have sex.

Will, try to keep up. We’ve covered this. They want to force you to STAY pregnant. No one’s calling them the ‘forcible impregnation crowd’.

As for “it wasn’t your decision to have sex”, well (a) it isn’t, always. Or have you not heard of rape? (b) Birth control is imperfect, nor (thanks to Republicans) is knowledge about it universal. And (c) If you accept those as acceptable grounds for an abortion right, do you really think the state should be in the business of interrogating every abortion-seeker as to the circumstances under which she became pregnant?
Mark D Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
The typical (I would’ve thought utterly obvious) explanation is that murderers deserve death, whereas fetuses don’t, not having, you know, done anything wrong besides inconvenience their mothers, and that sometimes war is necessary to protect nations from greater loss of life down the road. For example, bombing Serbia to prevent ethnic cleansing.

So what about the innocent people who were put to death after being wrongly convicted?

So what about innocent civilians who have a bomb dropped on their house after we invade?

Are they not as innocent as a fetus? Or are their different levels of “innocence” in your justification?

And what about the whole “Thou Shall Not Kill” part of the 10 Commandments? I don’t recall a disclaimer that stated “Void in case of legal conviction, government declaration, or because you want the other person’s land.” How does a true Christian justify ignoring that one?
jg Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
The typical (I would’ve thought utterly obvious) explanation is that murderers deserve death, whereas fetuses don’t, not having, you know, done anything wrong besides inconvenience their mothers, and that sometimes war is necessary to protect nations from greater loss of life down the road. For example, bombing Serbia to prevent ethnic cleansing.

Deserve? According to who? There is one person who chooses who lives and dies right? Isn’t that the argument of the pro-lifers?
Christians. Do. Not. Kill.
All human life is sacred. If you are pro-life you are pro for all life. Anything else is hypocracy.
Plus this whole argument is bunk since the right will never let their biggest wedge issue go away.
Bryce Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Picking the Palin was a Terri Schiavo moment…she is a living, breathing symbol of the pro-life moment, and a chance for the pro-life wing to flex their muscles within the party. The problem is, like with Terri Schiavo, for all of the values talk, America doesn’t actually share these values, and the tone-deafness of the right comes through…
mpowell Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
48: Absolutely!

The pro-life movement pulls a bait-and-switch here. If they acknowledge there are considerations that allow us to take life in some cases but not in others, then we get into considering shades of gray that may be involved. Sure, you can still maintain that preserving the fetus is more important than the concerns of the mother, but then you start asking: okay, so this fetus is not really a person and is imposing this huge (and frequently dangerous) burden on the mother, why is its preservation so damn important?

The real problem with the pro-life movement is that they are obviously not being driven by reasonable boundary moderates. The same people agitating against abortion are also getting legislation passed to cut down on the availability of birth control, access to real sex education for kids, running centers trying to scare women into going through with their pregnancies by telling them lies, etc, etc. Ultimately, they are motivated by a patriarchical/conservative desire to control women and sex and/or a biblical commitment to the idea that sex is sinful and ’spilling you seed’ is also sinful. The idea that a fundamental desire to preserve life is at the heart of the movement is patently false.
Adam Villani Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
if [pro-choice people] really did support a culture of life, they’d put just as much energy in banning the death penalty and protesting war. Yet they don’t.

Google the term “consistent life ethic.” There are a good number of Christian groups of various stripes that do work against war, abortion, capital punishment, etc.

Neither the mainstream left nor the mainstream right adheres to this. Personally it’s something I strive for, but my anti-war stance is more situational and less generally applied (i.e., I’m in favor of less war, but I’m not a full-on pacifist.)

As for “it wasn’t your decision to have sex”, well (a) it isn’t, always. Or have you not heard of rape? (b) Birth control is imperfect, nor (thanks to Republicans) is knowledge about it universal. And (c) If you accept those as acceptable grounds for an abortion right, do you really think the state should be in the business of interrogating every abortion-seeker as to the circumstances under which she became pregnant?

Prefacing this by saying that I’m opposed to just about everything else Sarah Palin stands for, I would like to point out ultimately I do agree with her “no exceptions for rape or incest” stance precisely because the point of opposing abortion is *not* to control women, it’s to protect the life of unborn human beings. I don’t see the logic in making those exceptions, since you’re essentially saying that the sanctity of the fetus’s life depends on the actions of the mother.

Now, that being said, I know the difference between a philosophical question and a public policy question. Philosophically, I don’t think that there should be exceptions made for rape or incest, but from a public policy standpoint, I know that a no-exceptions rule would (a) place a great burden on people who are already traumatized, and (b) never fly in the public sphere in America, mainly due to (a). So while I believe it’s a more logical position to take, it’s not something I actively advocate.

Similarly, even though I believe that abortion is the killing of a human being, I don’t advocate legally treating it as the equivalent of murder. For one thing, even under our current legal system not all killing, even deliberate killing, is treated the same. The law takes circumstances into consideration. And the control of whether or not to allow one’s own body to carry a pregnancy to full term, and the issue of whether the human in question has reached viability, are certainly some of those extenuating circumstances that make for salient differences between abortion and full-blown murder.

So while I don’t advocate treating abortion the same as murder, I believe that the current legal framework, in which abortion is fully legal for any reason at any point in the pregnancy, with only a handful of restrictions, is unacceptable. Fetuses are human life, and as such, should at least have the bare minimum of legal protection — it should not be legal to kill them.
Adam Villani Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
The idea that a fundamental desire to preserve life is at the heart of the movement is patently false.

The problem here is your monolithic characterization of “the movement.” Maybe that’s true for some; there are certainly a lot of anti-abortion people out there who advocate for “traditional” roles of men and women with whom I disagree. But again, I encourage you to look up “consistent life ethic,” since that’s the tradition my own stance came from.
SP Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I love that they take the trouble to censor the genital region of the decapitated fetus. Kind of sums up the lunacy of the anti-sex right.
Asher Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Raising children in poverty can be extremely dangerous. Economic hardship is a leading reason given for abortion. Wouldn’t the same necessary evil axiom apply?

Typically we don’t fight wars of humanitarian intervention to stave off mere economic hardship. Similarly, I’m sure you wouldn’t argue that it’s moral to kill a newborn because it’s been born into economic hardship (although Peter Singer, distinguished philosopher at Princeton, just might – I know he thinks it’s permissible to kill malformed or retarded infants). So I think the onus is on you, the pro-choicers, to explain why exactly a fetus has less rights than a newborn. Is it because it’s parasitic and therefore lacks full personhood? That’s an argument but it’s never been quite clear to me why viability is morally significant. Especially since it isn’t as if newborns are viable in any practical sense – they’re still extremely dependent beings.
Jasper Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
As for “pro-choice of what?”, the answer is obviously “pro-choice regarding the continuation of one’s own pregnancy” which doesn’t fit well in headlines or on letterhead, but is at least more honest than the “pro-life” label adopted by those who actually only defend a particular kind of (arguable) life.

Well no, the most honest labels would be simply “anti-abortion rights” and “pro-abortion rights.”

“Pro-choice” doesn’t strike me as being more “honest” or objective than “pro-life,” given the fact that the fetus obviously isn’t consulted as to what its choice in the matter would be.
funkydays Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
I definitely agree that pro-choice and pro-life are misnomers, but I do agree with Ryan that ‘pro-choice’ tends to be a bit more honest than ‘pro-life’.

In the case of Sarah Palin (and maybe I’m just picking at her words), I found it very hypocritical that she repeatedly said she “chose to have” baby Trig. If she is most definitely pro-life, would there even be a choice in the matter?
Dilan Esper Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
As for “it wasn’t your decision to have sex”, well (a) it isn’t, always. Or have you not heard of rape? (b) Birth control is imperfect, nor (thanks to Republicans) is knowledge about it universal. And (c) If you accept those as acceptable grounds for an abortion right, do you really think the state should be in the business of interrogating every abortion-seeker as to the circumstances under which she became pregnant?

True, but it goes beyond that. A lot of politicians are afraid to say this, but having a good sex life is tremendously important. This is why I prefer the writing of a lot of young feminists like Amanda Marcotte on this issue. Saying that someone could have avoided pregnancy by not having sex is like saying that someone could have avoided an auto accident by not driving to work. It’s really, really important that people be able to be sexually active and enjoy sexual pleasure and experience sexual intimacy, without having to fear having their lives ruined by an unwanted pregnancy.

And that’s why, at bottom, this issue is about enforcing the sexual morality of people who believe that nonprocreative sex is a sin (at least for women).
Luke Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Adam, your movement FUNCTIONS as a monolith. If you vote for an anti-choice Republican, you are voting for Sarah Palin.

It works this way because anti-choicers are inherently being childish about this issue, so they don’t question the policy proposals of the lunatic fringe that Palin represents. Thus, we’ve seen 8 years or unfettered lunatic policy, which–OMFG–has resulted in more teen sex, more teen pregnancies, AND MORE FUCKING ABORTIONS.

Your movement has no interest in ending abortion.
Adam Villani Says:
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Adam, your movement FUNCTIONS as a monolith. If you vote for an anti-choice Republican, you are voting for Sarah Palin.

Guess what, bud? I’ve been an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama for a year now. Did you miss the line where I said “I’m opposed to just about everything else Sarah Palin stands for.” It’s true. That’s why I’M NOT VOTING FOR HER.

If you’d clicked on the link to my blog, for example, you’d see a very long post on why Sarah Palin is bad. I AM NOT NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN A SUPPORTER OF SARAH PALIN. I just happen to agree with her on one issue.

Your movement has no interest in ending abortion.
What is your problem? Did you read anything I wrote? Did you read anything as simple as the Wikipedia entry on “Consistent Life Ethic?” Why do I even try to explain my point of view, when obviously you’ve got a preconceived notion of what an abortion opponent thinks?

Do you really want to engage in a wacky game in which we each accuse the other of holding their political beliefs in absolute bad faith? What kind of wacky Orwellian word games are you playing here? Does the anti-war movement have no interest in ending the war in Iraq? Do opponents of the PATRIOT Act oppose civil liberties?

Feel free to respond when you’re ready to actually pay attention to what I wrote and not just invent motivations out of thin air.
Mark D Says:
September 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
First of all, thanks to Adam for the discussion — and to note that I never saw you as some pro-life nut, just someone who had failed to explain how one can be anti-abortion, yet support other policies that can wind up leading other innocent deaths.

I will, however, look up “consistent life ethic” and get back to you to continue to talk (although much later — got stuff to do).

Oh, and I should note that:

I’m pro-choice (or “pro-abortion rights” or whatever), because I see it as a medical issue between a woman and her doctor.

I’m pro death penalty in cases where DNA evidence is rock-solid because (to quote Jane’s Addiction) “Some people should die — that’s just unconscious knowledge.”

And I’m pro non-idiotic wars because, unfortunately, there are times when the military needs to go kick some ass. For example, IMHO, we should’ve gone into both Rwanda and Sudan to stop the genocide, and should have gone to Afghanistan with overwhelming force, followed by massive reconstruction aid, so we don’t fall into the same trap as the Russians.

Just so you know from where I’m coming …
Adam Villani Says:
September 4th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Thanks, Mark. There’s no point in carrying on a discussion where one side says, “I believe X” and the other side says, “You really believe Y, and have no interest in X.” How does a discussion proceed from there, except for a schoolyard “Yuh huh!” – “Nuh uh!” back-and-forth?
Hector Says:
September 4th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Adam,

Pay no attention. This is par for the course of the abortion lobby. The irony of course is that there might be a very good reason why people like Dilan support abortion ‘rights’. The nonsense about ‘freedom’, ‘choice’, etc. is so silly that it surprises me that anyone could believe it. It seems quite possible to me that, instead, Dilan is an amoral young gentleman who likes using women for sex, and wants to be able to dispose of the consequences if necessary, even if he has to destroy a human life to do it. Now I am not going to suggest that that is Dilan’s hidden agenda, but I could easily imply that if I wanted to. That might be the reason why men are typically more likely to be pro-choice than women.

The comparison of abortion to things like war and the death penalty is absurd, and one would think that a thinking person would see through it in an instant. The operative principle is that it is wrong to deliberately take innocent human life. Capital punishment is legitimate because the offender is no longer innocent, and has forfeited his right to life by his own action. While war inevitably involves some loss of innocent life it is important to note that it’s intrinsically wrong to deliberately target people who are neither part of the military nor the government, and that this is considered a war crime. Abortion, unlike either war or the death penalty, involves human persons who are by definition, as innocent as they come, and involves their being killed _deliberately_ and with foreknowledge.

You point out correctly that the law treats different types of killing differently. I would also add that many people who carry out abortions are acting out of ignorance, and not malice. They sincerely believe that what they are destroying isn’t a human life. They’re wrong, of course, but this isn’t murder, which requires the subjective element of malice; it would be better described as manslaughter. I would think that abortion would be better treated as a form of manslaughter.

The key point at issue here isn’t about freedom of choice and certainly isn’t about women’s rights, nor is it about birth control. Only about 5% of Americans oppose contraception, and only about 35% are morally opposed to pre-marital sex, while 60-70% want abortion to be much more heavily restricted than it is today. It’s worth pointing out that Latin American countries are typically reasonably liberal in terms of general sexual morality but strongly opposed to abortion, while abortion is legal and widely practiced in the countries of East and Southeast Asia which generally have quite strict sexual morality. I haven’t noticed that the restrictions on abortion in Ireland or Poland have particularly hampered womens’ rights there, either.

As it happens, I don’t think that either men or women are ‘entitled’ to self-interested economic success or purely consequence-free casual sex. The idea that abortion is necessary to allow women the right to capitalist success and casual sex says nothing to me since I oppose both capitalism and casual sex. Tolstoy was right: the moral progress of society depends on demanding of men the same kind of self-sacrifice and self-abnegation that were traditionally demanded of women, not in allowing women to behave badly in the same way that men have traditionally.
gosha03 Says:
February 13th, 2009 at 8:16 am
A3HujQ hi! http://msn.com my site
levitra Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:06 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
zyban Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Incredible site!
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:10 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
buy viagra online Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:51 am
buy viagra online
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap viagra Says:
April 8th, 2009 at 7:01 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
viagra

Matt Yglesias

God Have Mercy

72 Responses to “God Have Mercy”

Blogroll