Choosing Your Battles
Dana Goldstein has interesting posts up about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Freedom of Choice Act. I would say that it’s when considering these kind of issues that it’s most important to keep the “strategic presidency” considerations in mind.
Even a one-term president has a long time in office — four years. And even a two-term president has only a relatively brief “honeymoon” period in which he has a shot at really bending congress to his will. So when thinking about your priorities, it’s important to front-load with the right things. DADT is really bad candidate for front-loading. The president could change it by fiat, and the key stakeholders the president would want to bend to his will are in the military rather than congress. So there’s no advantage gained by bringing this up during your key window of opportunity. Conversely, bringing it up could easily shift attention off whatever it is you’re trying to do. Once you’re key legislative priorities are sorted into a “things that have already passed” basket and a “proposals that died in congress” basket, that becomes a good time to turn your attention, strike a blow for justice, and give a key group of supporters what they want.
With FOCA it seems like more of an empirical issue. There’s no sense blowing political capital on the current strong FOCA if it’s nowhere near having the support it needs to pass the Senate. If that’s the case (and I suspect that it is) then let it get watered-down to something closer to passable before having the president deal with it. But if it’s actually on the bubble and could pass in its current form, then I see a case to be made for plowing ahead. You’d need to gauge the actual level of support for this bill in congress. But what wouldn’t make sense would be a basically symbolic push for doomed legislation in the early months of the new administration. There are lots of chances over a four year term to have symbolic pushes for doomed legislation, but during your window of opportunity you want to focus on accomplishing as much as can realistically be accomplished.
79 Responses to “Choosing Your Battles”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 26th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Correct.
Just a quibble, but I was under the impression that the Uniform Code that says sodomy is a crime needs to be amended by Congress. I seem to recall this from an old West Wing episode. Is that true?
November 26th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
There is only one word for FOCA: Legalized butchery, worthy of Verwoerd, Mao, and the Rwandan Hutus at their worst.
November 26th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
There is only one word for FOCA: Legalized butchery, worthy of Verwoerd, Mao, and the Rwandan Hutus at their worst.
I agree if fetuses were people. Luckily they aren’t
November 26th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
The GOP pushed through a bill that prevents the President from modifying the UC. But given that the UC only governs criminal conduct and sexual orientation is not criminal that is a different issue.
In fact the Bushies have already recognized that their need for troops is greater than their pursuit of bigotry and there are far fewer soldiers who are being discharged for being gay than earlier.
I disagree on the political cost. In 1993 the US military had mountains of public prestige following the first US-Iraq war. Now, sixteen years later their reputation is entirely different.
It is good tactics for Obama to demonstrate who is boss here. It also makes clear that he is going to be deciding which weapons systems are proposed to congress and when the withdrawal from Iraq takes place.
Obama can reasonably hold a meeting, tell the military top brass that he campaigned on a platform of equal rights and ask anyone if they have a problem with that. Anyone who does knows that they are effectively ending their career. I really doubt that the top brass really want to put their careers on the line to keep gays out. Anyone who does not speak up there and then has lost their ability to go round his back.
The fact that Clinton had a difficulty on this makes it more attractive, not less.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Re: I agree if fetuses were people. Luckily they aren’t
Er, yes they are. Like most people without a good grounding in metaphysics, you appear to be ignorant of the distinction between essence and accidents. A fetus is a human person in its essence, even if it lacks the accidental properties of personhood. Your ignorance is, perhaps, invincible and therefore not culpable, but I see no grounds why we should tolerate the legalized butchery of 40 million people, disproportionately Black people, just because you haven’t bothered to read Plato.
If a fetus isn’t a person then what the hell else is it? A starfish?
November 26th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Getting rid of DADT would actually change policy on the ground. FOCA simply codifies existing precedent, and as such it is rather pointless except as a political exercize in kicking sand in the face of the SoCon right.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Re: it is rather pointless except as a political exercize in kicking sand in the face of the SoCon right.
It does more than that. It kicks sand in the face, not just of the SoCon right, but of every moderately religious Jew or Christian, everyone who has a decent respect for human life, and everyone who has even the slightest qualms about the penchant of modern American society to denigrate children and motherhood.
This is the face of evil, unconcealed and unadorned.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Unfortunately, DADT was actually enacted into law by Congress. So it cannot, in fact, be changed by Presidential fiat. Therefore anyone who wants to get rid of it (which we certainly should), don’t hassle Obama about it; write your Congressman. Tell him or her to introduce a bill to get rid of DADT. All we should ask of the President-elect is that, when the Congress finally gets its act together and send him that bill, he sign it.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Yes Hector, bigots like you are the unadorned face of evil. The kind of mindless hatred of women that would make them nothing more than vessels for procreation because you have some weird fixation on invisible people.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Oh, Hector. “Study metaphyisics” is not the same as “mindlessly accept the tenets of Catholic theology”. The rest of us don’t get our morality from the scholastic thumbsucking by celibates pouring over their Aquinas. At least fundamentalists occasionally pay lip service to the purported Word of God, rather than warmed-over second-hand Aristotle.
You are the moral monster, Hector. You have a defect where your reasoning center is. Fortunately, the Almighty has seen fit to restrict your evil to ranting about how you miss the Middle Ages in Internet comment boards.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
It’s probably worth noting here that the Serious Democratic Consensus is always that now is the wrong time to push forward on social issues.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Abortion is murder because Plato says so! A HA HA HA HA HA HA you dumbfuck.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Abortion is legal – As AG Ashcroft himself noted, it is
established law. FOCA is gratuitous. It’s basically symbolic, but it will please both the pro choice lobby and the pro life lobby for fundraising reasons.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
jeebus: Abortion is murder because Plato says so! A HA HA HA HA HA HA you dumbfuck.
this.
“The offspring of the inferior, and any of those of the other sort who are born defective, they will properly dispose of in secret, so that no one will know what has become of them. That is the condition of preserving the purity of the guardians’ breed.” –Plato
November 26th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
It’s interesting that you people seem to think that abortion is somehow good for women’s rights. In truth, of course, a real concern for women’s rights would begin by recognizing and supporting the unique and essential nature of women, including the unique ability to give life. Every abortion (except when life or limb are at stake) is a denial of the essential nature of the woman involved, and in this sense a crime against every woman.
You can make the case, if you like, that abortion is necessary to allow women to participate fully in liberal society. (Although the experience of Ireland, Chile and other countries would argue the opposite). All this means of course is that liberal society is fundamentally false and wrong at the deepest level. But then again, we already knew that.
The proponents of legal abortion want to create a society without resitrictions on ‘freedom’, without obligation, without tragedy, without suffering: a world, in short, without the Cross. And of course, as with previous efforts that strove to make men happy without making them good, someone always pays the price: in this case, 40 million dead children.
Sola Scriptura is, for what it’s worth, a singularly absurd doctrine. Nevertheless, abortion is condemned implicitly throughout the Scriptures and condemned explicitly in several works regarded as inspired by the early church. There has never been a time when historic Christianity tolerated abortion, although it wasn’t already regarded as homicide.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Abortion is legal – As AG Ashcroft himself noted, it is
established law. FOCA is gratuitous.
In case anyone was wondering, this isn’t true. Plenty of abortion restrictions have been held to be consistent with Roe v. Wade; FOCA would invalidate them.
Every abortion (except when life or limb are at stake) is a denial of the essential nature of the woman involved, and in this sense a crime against every woman.
Take your Bible thumpery elsewhere, freak.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I wonder if Hector realizes that his extremist views are shared by no more than 20% of the country, a number that shrinks every year. Roughly the same percentage that thinks Obama is a Muslim.
And even South Dakota rejected their draconian anti-abortion proposition this year. It must be tough trying to advocate such views in a society that’s not in the 19th century.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
By the way, let’s make it clear: I’m not a Republican and didn’t vote for McCain (I voted for Nader, and I’m generally socialist in my politics). I am not defending the Republican Party. What I am defending is the perennial teaching that abortion is a grave and intrinsic evil, that in a just and humane society would be strictly forbidden except in a few circumstances, and that the fact that liberal modernity has ended up with Roe v. Wade is perhaps the best proof that liberal society is fundamentally false at its root.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Passing meaningful health care reform must come before either issue is even considered.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
You voted for Nader? Wow, you have your head even further up your ass than I thought.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
I’m pretty sure Nader isn’t actually pro-life, is he? Certainly not the “abortion under no circumstances ever” view I would think. Hector, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. And, given what we know about you, it would seem very unlikely of you to vote for anyone who wasn’t militantly pro-life regardless of any other views. Surely Baldwin or something was more in line with your views.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Adam,
No, I voted for Nader twice (’00 and ‘08) and Kerry once in ‘04. I wasn’t very pro-life, or even a Christian, in 2000. As for Kerry, while I think he’s wrong about abortion, he’s certainly a good man, and I greatly appreciated his support for Nicaragua in the ’80s. Kerry’s being pro-choice doesn’t mean he’s an evil man, it means that he’s implicated in an evil practice through ignorance more than through malice.
I have no particular faith that abortion is going to return to being illegal in the US in the foreseeable future. That’s why I do vote for pro-choice candidates, although I absolutely despise the pro-choice stance. There is a limit, however, and Obama crossed it.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Chuck Baldwin, of course, is enthusiastically for liberal capitalism, which is the poisoned tree of which Roe v. Wade is the fruit. See the last entry on my blog for more of my thoughts in this matter.
November 27th, 2008 at 12:01 am
See the last entry on my blog for more of my thoughts in this matter.
Of course you have a blog. OF COURSE! God bless you child. Now go in peace to love and service the LORD.
November 27th, 2008 at 12:19 am
There’s a real problem with passing a law that says “all restrictions on abortion are null and void” when a significant portion of the country’s health care, and disproportionately health care for the poor, are provided by Catholic hospitals. Most legal scholars think FOCA would force Catholic hospitals to allow abortions in their facilities- in which case the Catholic hospitals would almost certainly shut down. There is a freedom of conscience issue here. Plus, if you’re attempting a major reform in the health care area, it’s not such a hot idea to force hospitals that disproportionately serve low income people into shutting down.
Full disclosure: I also think fetuses are people, and I’ve never read Plato. At least after 8 weeks of development, they are a human organism with a body organized like human people. (I voted for Obama by the way.)
November 27th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Birth is not magic. What is human at 8.5 months is human at 4 months.
November 27th, 2008 at 1:39 am
The proponents of legal abortion want to create a society without [restrictions] on ‘freedom’, without obligation, without tragedy, without suffering: a world, in short, without the Cross.
Let’s see what he’s said here: the Cross is the source of obligation, tragedy, and suffering. No one, Christian or not, should let such a sick distortion of Christian doctrine pass unnoticed. Never mind that there is no one suggesting that allowing women to control their bodies brings about this utopia without tragedy or suffering.
And to those who imagine that a fertilized egg is a human being – no. That’s just stupid. No, there is nothing magic about birth, but there is also nothing magic that happens at conception. If your imaginary sky daddy tells you otherwise you might look into anti-psychotics.
November 27th, 2008 at 2:33 am
Evil Twin:
Conception is not “magic”; it does involve a fundamental change in the way birth does not, because a new and distinct human being is created.
Adam: there is certainly only a minority of people who want to see abortion banned in all cases. However, a majority would prefer to see it banned in many cases – including during the second and third trimester. Majorities also oppose abortions for non-health-related reasons. The average American’s views are far more moderate than the laws that are currently in place. FOCA would make the laws even more extreme, and more divergent from mainstream opinion, as it would override state laws that freedom of conscience or mandating informed consent or parental notification or parental consent – which more than three-quarters of Americans support.
Obama should respect, to some degree, the views of the people who elected him. He did not gain votes because people became more socially liberal, but because social issues faded in comparison to the economy and foreign policy, where people did agree with his proposals.
And, as someone who is generally left-wing, I think he would be far wiser to focus on issues like green jobs, health care and improving the education system, and on restoring respect for human rights rights and cutting back the surveillance powers of government, than on passing a bill that the vast majority of people would oppose, that would reignite the culture wars, and that would increase the number of abortions.
It is a simple fact that abortions cannot be reduced by providing greater social supports or health care for single mothers, though these things are valuable in and of themselves. Canada has a better social welfare system than the US, and provides sex education for high-schoolers, and does not have a significantly lower abortion rate than that in the US. Abortion is used because it is seen as a the simplest, easiest option, and until is ceases to be that way, it will be common. No matter how good a nation’s social welfare system, not having an unintended child will always be easier, in a materialistic sense, than having one, when there is no legal difference between the two choices.
FOCA is probably the single greatest problem I have with Obama (I agree with him on many things, and on virtually everything else I’m well to his left and would never find an American president whose positions were satisfactory. I was with McCain on two issues: abortion and ending corn ethanol subsidies). If it doesn’t go through – if the Senate kills it – I will be much happier. Harry Reid at least is pro-life so I doubt he’ll exert himself to get Democratic support for it.
November 27th, 2008 at 2:34 am
Ah, I forgot to add: my opinion statistics are from a Gallup poll. It can be found here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/9904/Public-Opinion-About-Abortion-InDepth-Review.aspx#2
November 27th, 2008 at 4:02 am
Most legal scholars think FOCA would force Catholic hospitals to allow abortions in their facilities
I trust you have taken a survey of leading legal scholars in this area to ascertain their views on the implications of FOCA, or that you have read the study of someone who has conducted such a survey. I trust you wouldn’t write something like this otherwise. Do you happen to have a link to the source so that I could peruse it at my leisure?
No matter how good a nation’s social welfare system, not having an unintended child will always be easier, in a materialistic sense, than having one, when there is no legal difference between the two choices.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Everybody should read this remark again; it is the heart of the anti-choice position. They want to make abortion as painful for women as possible, in every sense of the word. They want to make it suck so bad to have an abortion that most women won’t have one.
The logical conclusion of their beliefs is: throwing women in jail for having abortions. Don’t believe them when they deny this. They may not support prison sentences right now. But let me ask them this: when abortion is made illegal, and doctors are thrown in jail for performing them, and women STILL insist on having them, what are you going to do? Are you going to let those horrible women get off scot-free? Are you going to let all those precious fetuses die? Or are you going to start threatening women with long prison sentences?
You can bullshit me if you want and say “no,” but nobody will believe it. We all know what you want. Might as well come out of the closet so to speak.
November 27th, 2008 at 4:11 am
Hector, katherine et al. Don’t worry, the conventional wisdom in the Democratic party, led by the “I am most definitely pro-choice, how dare you question my commitment to choice, but yuck, abortion is icky” crowd will make sure that FOCA will never pass.
After all, there is a cottage industry of sort consisting of people who are adamant that Roe v Wade is the reason Democrats keep losing elections. You know, people like TNR writers, Will Saletan and Melinda Hennenberger. These people will take care of your interest, hector and katherine, no need to worry. They’ll support your position to make sure getting an abortion is as hard as possible for women, while simultaneously berating people who dare to question their pro-choice credentials. Ain’t democracy grand?
November 27th, 2008 at 4:24 am
Obama should respect, to some degree, the views of the people who elected him. He did not gain votes because people became more socially liberal, but because social issues faded in comparison to the economy and foreign policy, where people did agree with his proposals.
It amazes me how the conventional wisdom seesms to be that Obama should respect the positions of only the people who voted for him because of the crumbling economy, who wouldn’t have voted for him otherwise. Don’t do anything to anger the pro-life crowd, of the working class white men crowd etc etc. They are the valuable votes, you know. They are the ones who truly count.
Well, what about the opinion of people who voted for him because we actually believe in his positions? What are we, chopped liver?
November 27th, 2008 at 5:17 am
Obama made it abundantly clear that his top priorities were economy, energy and education, in that order. This is right, notwithstanding that DADT and FOCA are important too. As the poster says, ” Chill the F*&k out, I got this.” He should spend no political capital, for now, outside his top priorities. Let us preserve his honeymoon as long as possible. We’ve waited years, let’s not permit our impatience to blow it.
November 27th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Re: And, as someone who is generally left-wing, I think he would be far wiser to focus on issues like green jobs, health care and improving the education system, and on restoring respect for human rights rights and cutting back the surveillance powers of government
Absolutely! What’s more I see no reason for FOCA anyway, Roe vs Wade and related Court decisions are still in force. Abortion remains legal in all 50 states with only the most marginal restricions (generally those which command large majority support) in place. And with Obama likely to nominate at least two, possibly more, pro-Choice justices the chances that Roe vs Wade will be overturned in our lifetimes has become exceedingly low FICA is a solution in search of a problem.
November 27th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Re Hector
On the issue of abortion, being a male, I don’t have a dog in this fight. My position is very simple. This is an issue for women and is no business of the males in the population. In other words Mr. Hector, abortion is none of your god damn business so butt out.
November 27th, 2008 at 9:28 am
It’s easy to recommend pushing to a back burner matters that have little effect on heterosexual men, especially when you’re a heterosexual man.
But remember that DADT and FOCA could improve the lives of millions of your fellow Americans.
Remember that again, the next time you’re inclined to shunt aside millions of Americans who aren’t you.
November 27th, 2008 at 9:54 am
There is going to have to be a reordering of the military, there always is after a war. Lots of people will leave, there will be some reorganizing.
If I were doing it, I would put the end of DADT in the context of this. “We are modernizing the American military, and part of the military being modern will mean that it will accept the service of all Americans, including those who are gay. If you don’t want to be a part of the modern military, please leave with our thanks and gratitude during the post-war period.”
November 27th, 2008 at 10:02 am
K,
Er, no. Some hetersexual men would find their lives very much improved by FOCA. I mean the ones who like to use women for casual sex, and then dispose of the consequences so that they dont have to interrupt their fun. Can’t live the Manhattan hipster Yglesian lifestyle with a baby in tow, don’t you know. That is why young men are such staunch advocates of the right to legalized abortion.
The Freedm of Choice Act, if it is past, will go down in history as the equivalent of Jim Crow, the Nuremberg laws, and the laws of Apartheid South Africa.
November 27th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Hector, you are an idiot. I’m sorry, but there is no question that your imaginary friend is giving you bad information (if he, and given your patriarchal “force a woman to breed” stance, I feel comfortable assuming your invisible friend is a “he”). To compare abortion with slavery is moronic. To compare it with Hitler’s Germany is beyond offensive.
Abortion is not infanticide. Over the course of (roughly) nine months, a fertilized egg becomes a human being, but not a single person here is qualified to say when that embryo is human.
To absolutist nutters like Hector and Katherine, a single cell is a human being. A spontaneous abortion (more commonly known as a miscarriage – and a very common occurrence) is therefore negligent homicide. This situation is too stupid for words.
Happy Thanksgiving, even to the nuts – they need joy more than the rest of us who at least have rationality to fall back on when things are bad.
November 27th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
It’s amazing how the loudest pro-life voices are usually male. Reading people like William Saletan (ok, Saletan claimed he’s pro-choice, but I have my doubts), Ross Dhoutat etc telling women what is good for them is disconcerting, to say the least. And of course our friend Hector here. Is this a personal issue for you in any way, Hector? Any personal experience in the past? Otherwise, I just don’t understand how strident you are about this issue.
November 27th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Matthew is right. For gods sake, put off the culture war stuff until after 2010. Culture stuff, has been, and will be, the only thing Republicans will have to run on. Why give them ammunition?
November 27th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
The text of FOCA (I’m using the senate version) says that no branch of the government is allowed to “discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information”. Currently an explicit “conscience clause” allows Catholic hospitals which refuse to allow abortions on their premises to receive federal funds for other services- i.e. the government is allowed to fund discriminatory services in this one instance. The plain sense of the text is that such discrimination is outlawed.
You could argue that the Catholic hospitals could continue to operate without receiving any federal (or state) funds, and that’s theoretically true, but is an economic impossibility. Without federal funds, they’d have to close.
You could also check out this article from Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2205326/.
November 27th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Hector makes a valid point – I for one am sick of Yglesias flaunting his Manhattan hipster lifestyle in our faces. Enough!
November 27th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I am with Hector in terms of opposing abortion, but Hector, you must realize that your fundamental point of view — theocratic, anti-democratic, and socialistic — has no place in the American public sphere.
Count me in with Katherine instead. While personally I think personhood begins when the new human comes into being — that is, at the moment of conception, there can be some legitimate debate as to the status of a zygote or embryo. What cannot be supported by any honest understanding of what modern science tells us about human development is that a viable fetus is a human being in every respect. The notion that birth magically grants the right to be free from indiscriminate killing is absurd.
November 27th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Re: The plain sense of the text is that such discrimination is outlawed.
If that’s the case then any medical clinic that does not offer abortions would be in trouble– even if the reason is that they didn’t have a gynecologist on staff. I really doubt the law would be interpretted that broadly, otherwise any doctor who doesn’t perform abortions would be barred from receiving Medicare payments which would be ridiculous.
November 27th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
If you google FOCA you will find that only the right wing cares about it. That’ll say something about its chances of passing. If I didn’t know any better I’d think it was a straw man issue like the Fairness Doctrine.
Public opinion is on the Democrats’ side when it comes to keeping Roe v. Wade. But that may not be true when it comes to removing existing restrictions on abortion. The pro-choice groups need to make a better case that these are too onerous, like they did in the early 70s.
November 27th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Jon F, what you said doesn’t reflect the reality of the relationship between doctors and hospitals. Obviously, a opthamology clinic isn’t discriminating because they don’t perform abortions. A full-service hospital is.
A hospital doesn’t perform surgery- a hospital makes available an operating room and surgical equipment, support staff, etc. to doctors who perform surgery. Normally, if there’s only one hospital in an area, every local doctor who is qualified to perform surgery (which includes obgyns in the case of abortion) gets accredited to that hospital.
Catholic hospitals are currently saying to those local doctors: you can deliver babies here, you can do operations for out-of-control menestruation, remove uterine tumors, fix the aftermath of a miscarriage, etc.- but you cannot perform elective abortions. THAT is the discrimination that FOCA would probably prohibit. And that discrimination is what allows Catholic hospitals to continue to operate.
November 27th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Matt,
I see that at least one other commenter caught this (though most seem more focused on abortion), but DADT is a Congressionally enacted law, not a presidential policy. See Pub. L. No. 103-160 (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 654). This isn’t something Obama can just up and change. I, for one, certainly hope that Obama is willing to push this as part of his legislative agenda sooner rather than later.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Re:I am with Hector in terms of opposing abortion, but Hector, you must realize that your fundamental point of view — theocratic, anti-democratic, and socialistic — has no place in the American public sphere.
I’m not sure where you get ‘theocratic’ from anything I’ve said. While my ideal society would be a Christian one, the laws of the state would be based more on neo-Platonistic natural law consideratons rather than Scripture.
You’re certainly correct that a Christian, socialistic, anti-liberal world view has no real place in the American public sphere. To which I say, not for the first time, so much the worse for America. The values of the United States political system are simply wrong, and mine are right.
DTM,
It appears as though you’re deluded enough to think that respecting women means using them for casual sex and then encouraging them to negate their essential nature by becoming complicit in the homicide of their offspring. In truth, of course, a true respect for women would mean respect for he gift of bringing life into the world, and a true respect for our common humanity would mean rcgnizing that sex and love are inseparable and to separate them is against the natural order.
Sarah,
Actually I care about a lot of issues- overfishin, lobal warming, deforestation, socialism vs. capitalism, and Latin American politics among them. As reards abortion, I regard it as one type of direct and frontal attack on everything that I hold of value. Abortion is an attack on the value of inoccent human life, on motherhood, on the natural order, on the natural tie between mother and child, on charity, on mercy, on pity, on the idea that we should submit ourselves to something higher than ourselves. And all this in the name of ‘freedom’, which in itself is hardly one of the higher values. You may convince me that for the time being America is sufficiently corrupted that there is no poliical solution to this problem, but the fact remains that a just society should never and can never tolerate abortion, either legally or socially.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:45 am
hector,
Look, being pro-choice doesn’t mean that I am pro-abortion. I completely agree with the need to reduce the number of abortion by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in the first place. The problem is, when people like you use rhetorics like these, I find it hard to believe that you guys are operating in good conscience, rather than just operating from a premise of you knowing what is best for those poor, deluded women:
It appears as though you’re deluded enough to think that respecting women means using them for casual sex and then encouraging them to negate their essential nature by becoming complicit in the homicide of their offspring.
Why not focus on birth control and proper sex education to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, thus reducing the need for abortion? Why is it that the same people who talk about sanctity of life, are usually also the loudest voice in calling for abstinence-only sex education, and opposes making it easier for all women to use birth control?
November 28th, 2008 at 10:52 am
And hector, do you believe in giving any exception at all for health of the mother? Because it doesn’t seem so from your posts. You seem to believe that all women use abortion as a form of birth control, egged on by their irresponsible boyfriends or something. Please tell me you are not that deluded?
November 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Sarah,
Since you asked, I’ll respond. I think that abortion is a morally and legally acceptable choice when the mother’s life is at stakes, and in cases of rape, incest, serious non-lethal threats to the mother’s health, or severe fetal malformation such that they won’t survive long anyway, I think it should also be legal. As I recall the statistics, these account for less than 10% of abortions today. Those decisions should be made by qualified medical personnel, not by a single abortionist.
I’m fully in favor of birth control. I have carried out educaton sessions about birth control for women in small African villages before, and I talked about the need for family planning, and various methods (the birth control pill, injections, and natural family planning, etc.) as well as the need to delay sexual intercourse until adulthood. Bu if we really want to reduce abortions then birth control and financial and social support for motherhood will have to be a big part of the solution, but so will changing the laws. (And of course, an even bigger part of the solution will be changin the culture so that people realize abortion is a grave moral evil.)
November 28th, 2008 at 11:55 am
hector, you seem to hold some reasonable positions, and I appreciate your willingness to engage with people who have criticized you here.
But for me personally, (and I think for a lot of women) there are just certain type of rhetorics that bring out my bullshit detector. When people start talking about “moral evil”, “changing the culture of death”, “sacred bond between mother and child”, “abortion is a form of genocide”, “we have to protect the mothers from the consequences of abortion” etc, I start to question whether to the people making these arguments, abortion is really the issue after all. Especially when the people making these arguments are men. I find it hard not to suspect these people of actually hankering over a long-gone version of the world where men know what is best for women, the so-called “barefoot and pregnant” world.
I think rhetorics matter, and it’s possible to alienate people who probably agree with many of your positions by overheated rhetorics.
November 29th, 2008 at 7:44 am
I’m going to chime in here, as I believe that Hector’s POV is being miscontrued, perhaps deliberately.
Hector has not written a word against birth control, and he has never indicated that he opposes people having (presumably consensual) sex for purposes other than procreation.
I have to ask what sort of men Sarah and DTM in particular have encoutered in their lives. These posters (and others on the pro-Life side) seem to think there is some vast population of men who want to use unwilling women as mothers for their children and then keep them chianed to Kinder, Kuche and Kinder (a German expression: kids, kitchen and church). This is incorrect. You may find a few Neoprude Patriarchs like that, perhaps at Mormon church picnic or a meeting of the Society of St Pius X. But far more common are the Lounge Lizard Lotharios, who want women mainly for sex, for a night or a season, and they will gladly cut a check for an abortion should that diversion lead to pregnancy. Because the last thing these men (whom your grandmothers would have called “cads”) want is kids, which would either tie them down in marriage or toss a grappling hook into their bank accounts for 18 years. These guys, and they are unfortuntely common, are the ones who really are out to use women as conveniences and abortion serves their purposes quite well. I can’t credit that some of or more ideologically strident posters have never encountered the type.
Being that Im gay I can watch the Games Straight People Play with a degree of impartiality. Mr Love’em And Leave’em is a much bigger danger to women than Mr. Barefoot And Pregnant.
November 29th, 2008 at 9:24 am
JonF,
Indeed. The one group of people thta have been empowered by abortion are the ones we used to call ‘Cads’. Indeed, I believe that the high rate of divorces and relationship breakups these days is mostly because of legalized abortion, which has changed the way that people think about relationships, and has empowered the bad boys while disempowering the nurturing father types. I think sociobiology is on my side here.
Sarah,
I’m going to respond here because you seem nicer and more reasonable than DTM. The reason I indulge in overheated rhetorics about the evils of the modern age, is because I believe that abortion won’t go away on its own, it is symptomatic of many modern trends like the desire for absolute, unrestricted autonomy, and the emphasis on rights over duties.
I enthusiastically support women’s rights to participate fully in the workplace, and to control their number of children, in all ways that do not involve homicide. (I have moral concerns about the use of some types of birth control, but I would not have any of them be illegal). When I lived in a developing country most of my coworkers were women, and I did talk to women about taking control of their lives, quite a bit.
I’m not sure why you disapprove of my calling abortion a grave moral evil. If it ISN’T a grave moral evil, then what would possaibl justify making it illegal, when the consequences will be dire for so many women? I fully acknowledge that the cos of making abortion will be high, and many women will suffer for it, in some sense. I would just say that firstly, protection of innocent human life is an important enough value to justify those costs, and secondly, legalized abortion has had many costs of its own, not all of which are paid by the unborn.
The bond between mother and child IS a sacred one, and it is the prototype of all other natural loves and relationships. The bond between father and child is sacred too, of course, but unfortunately we can’t actually literally nourish babies because we don’t lactate.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Why, thank you very much JonF for worrying about what kind of men I have encountered in my life. How nice of you. I guess I’m a bitch who hadn’t encountered many men at all, you know, because according to you, I’m a strident woman who believes men are out to chain me to kids, kitchen and church.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:26 am
BTW, what a novel concept. We should make abortion illegal to punish those cads, those Mr Love’em And Leave’em! I wonder if the pro-life movement would jump at this interesting approach of framing the issue.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:52 am
But far more common are the Lounge Lizard Lotharios, who want women mainly for sex, for a night or a season, and they will gladly cut a check for an abortion should that diversion lead to pregnancy. Because the last thing these men (whom your grandmothers would have called “cads”) want is kids, which would either tie them down in marriage or toss a grappling hook into their bank accounts for 18 years. These guys, and they are unfortuntely common, are the ones who really are out to use women as conveniences and abortion serves their purposes quite well. I can’t credit that some of or more ideologically strident posters have never encountered the type.
Being that Im gay I can watch the Games Straight People Play with a degree of impartiality. Mr Love’em And Leave’em is a much bigger danger to women than Mr. Barefoot And Pregnant.
This is my problem with this argument – you are treating women as if they have no faculties of their own, no capacity to make their own choices, and must be protected from the evils of the world. Don’t you think that’s condescending? And paternalistic in a “we know best” sort of way?
But I guess by making this argument, I am “proving” your point that I am one of those paranoid women who think men are out to chain me to kids, kitchen and chuch. Oh, darn it! Men-hater me. I should know better.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Re: And paternalistic in a “we know best” sort of way?
Sarah raises an interesting point here. Yes, I am a paternalist in some sense. Its not that I believe men know better than women. But I do think that the Twelve Apostles know better than the rest of us. I think that those of us who know something about virtue based, natural law morality do ‘know better’ than people who subscibe to a rights-based or a consequenced based moral theory. I think that the collective conscience of society, as codified in our laws, is a better guide than the thinking of any individual person. And I think that ultimately those who trust their intuitions and feelings about the protection of innocent children, do know better than those who silence their intuitions and listen only to cold ‘reason’ of Judith Jarvis Thomsen and suchlike creeps.
If that is paternalism, then I happily plead guilty. Every abortion has two victims: the mother, and the child.
November 29th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Re: you are treating women as if they have no faculties of their own, no capacity to make their own choices, and must be protected from the evils of the world.
Haven’t you had occasion to notice that when people start “thinking” with body parts below the neckline they become quite stupid? That’s true of EVERYONE, men, women, gay straight– everyone. I’m not denigrating women to point that out. I too have ridden that carnival ride to my regret before– haven’t you? It’s a rare person who doesn’t make at least one really dumb mistake in the love/lust category. I fail to see how it’s condescending or disrespectful to point that out.
Nor does your reply to me really address my core argument: radical feminists have created this bogeyman of the Patriarch who wants to stick women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. I was pointing that that’s fairly rare in today’s world, and not a real danger most women face. The real danger is the jerk who wants to use them for cheap sex– and stick them with the consequences. If feminists aren’t being condescending to warn women away from the (rare, largely mythical) Patriarchs, why am I being condescending to warn against the fairly common cad types?
November 29th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Nor does your reply to me really address my core argument: radical feminists have created this bogeyman of the Patriarch who wants to stick women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. I was pointing that that’s fairly rare in today’s world, and not a real danger most women face.
Well, reading people like hector, or Ross Dhoutat and WIll Saletan arguing about what is good or not good for women makes it hard for me to buy your argument that it’s just a bogeyman. But I guess that makes me a radical feminist, so you don’t really have to believe me. I believe in the mythical Patriarch, paternalistic society after all.
November 29th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
re: Well, reading people like hector, or Ross Dhoutat and WIll Saletan arguing about what is good or not good for women makes it hard for me to buy your argument that it’s just a bogeyman.
They are not just talking about what’s good for women, they are talking about what’s good for everyone. And what’s wrong with that? Human beings are capable of doing really stupid stuff and ought we not try to have social institutions and, where appropriate, laws to restrain some of that idiocy? Right now we are in a huge economic crisis precisely because we did too little to rein short-sighted greed and folly. Unless you a total anarchist who thinks we would somehow do better if everyone could just do their own thing no matter what it is, I would hope you could agree that we can’t just have a free-for-all trusting in human goodness and wisdom to make everything work out OK. I rather wonder how old you are because you sound as if you are still dealing with the adolescent rebellion phase of life and can’t admit the possibility that other people, having learned from their own mistakes, might indeed know better.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:54 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
buy viagra online
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:32 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 7:00 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra