dude ... wow. um, they're goose stepping (4.00 / 2)

trogdolytes.

I suppose if one finds The Prince complicated, or Richard III, or Julius Ceasar, or Hamlet, or Timon of Athens, or 1984, or Animal Farm ... THEN there is all this need for complicated analysis of why some people are such despicable pieces of shit.

I figure it is the evolutionary biology at work - we've had about 8? 12 millenia of agricultural / economic SURPLUS stolen by a ruling elite who spent all their time manipulating us and shitting on us and pissing on us and using us for doormats and asswipes and nose wipes ... THAT IS ALL THEY CARE ABOUT.

THEREFORE, they gotta fight over abortion and homos and the flag and every other peripheral hting, cuz,

otherwise we'd be trying to build a world where EVERYONE had education, safe food water sewage, retirement security, sick security, decent shelter, transportation, holidaze with friends and family, vacations to the great wall of china and the amazon and the grand canyon and antartica ...

and IF we're focused on door #2 monty, instead of gutting each other as the puppet masters pull the strings in door #1, well who needs puppet masters?

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

---

by: seabos84 @ Sun May 31, 2009 at 22:00:22 PM CDT

All laws could be labeled coercion (4.00 / 2)

could they not? And those laws protect us from each other, and sometimes our own selves, do they not?

You are certainly right to condemn today's killer, and to call for various security policy steps that might prevent such actions in the future.

But to try and extrapolate that such behavior is a natural extension of rightly and strongly questioning the casual termination of new life...well, that is "unbecoming" to put it mildly.

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Sun May 31, 2009 at 22:35:32 PM CDT

But why does the violence, (4.00 / 2)

often organized violence, always come from the anti-choice (your) side?  

---

by: wobbly @ Sun May 31, 2009 at 22:57:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

WTF??? (4.00 / 5)

This isn't about laws.  It's about controlling other people's bodies, which is what the anti-choice movement is all about.

And there's nothing casual about abortion.  That's just part of the anti-choice fantasy, part of the whole infantalization fantasy that justifies treating women as children, who have to be told what they can or can't do.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun May 31, 2009 at 23:09:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You usually have (0.00 / 0)

the best analysis of anyone on here, Paul, but I would have to disagree with you on this one.

What the wide swath of people who could be considered pro-life are concerned about is honoring our obligation to respect life. By sometime in the second trimester, a child's life is well on its way: it certainly resembles us anatomically...it thinks, it feels, it may even dream. By the third tri, it is sensing and responding to external stimuli. At some point, we now have two lives, mother and child, both of which demand equal consideration IF we are sincere in respecting the sanctity of life.

That obligation is there, whether we choose to recognize it or not. It's not an easy task to balance the two, nor is it fair that women are impacted more than men. It may be news to some that pro-lifers did not create that scenario. We have all of us gotten to this point because 1)a million years of biological evolution placed the task of reproduction primarily on one gender, and 2)over two thousand years of evolution in Western thought embedded in all of us a deep respect for life. The same impulse to respect the self-determination of the mother is the same impulse that causes us to take measures on behalf of the child; to deny either one is to fail in our obligation to one of the key underpinnings of Western culture.

As Progressives, we shouldn't let extremists like NARAL or Randall Terry distract us from that obligation. It's in our political DNA to identify the inconsistencies between what our society claims and what it actually does, to fight for the marginilized and the weak, to replace ignorance with education, to augment the better instincts of our frail human nature, to speak of common dreams, and to question our own complicity when we miss the mark on any one of these.

I would strongly suggest to you that our society is falling short, when we try to convince ourselves that legally allowing for the termination of a fetus-practically up until the point of what would be its natural birth-is somehow consistent with our values, and therefore acceptable.

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 03:22:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But late term abortion is nearly always performed because (4.00 / 2)

the health of the mother in serious jeopardy or because of serious birth defects in the child. Is the sanctity of life more valid in an unborn child than in an adult female? George Tiller was in the business of saving women's lives. There is very little that's less "casual" than a late term abortion.

---

by: sb @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 05:27:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Based on... (0.00 / 0)

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 14:02:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reality (4.00 / 1)

Oh, THAT!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 15:55:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And, in fact, no state allows for abortion past the age of viability (4.00 / 2)

without medical indication. You've created a red herring here, one that is enormously disrespectful to the realities of the situation.

---

by: sb @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 05:40:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have a question. (0.00 / 0)

Is rape wrong? If so, why?

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 07:37:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There is no common ground to be found with terrorism (4.00 / 2)

and Operation Rescue and its adherents are terrorists. They should be treated as such.

---

by: Helzapoppin @ Sun May 31, 2009 at 23:21:56 PM CDT

How are terrorists to be treated? (0.00 / 0)

The US has often found common ground with terrorism, especially when its our allies that are doing it.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 11:01:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

In that case (0.00 / 0)

given that there is no common ground and these are not our allies, there is simply no excuse for treating them as anything other than the terrorists they are.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 16:10:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Didn't think you could answer that. (0.00 / 0)

Authoritarians always have the same blind spots.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 16:34:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Doesn't answer the question (0.00 / 0)

How are terrorists to be treated?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 21:11:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry (0.00 / 0)

I self-replied to the wrong comment. Didn't think anyone would notice on a dead thread. I meant that one for the question on rape.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 06:50:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Words and facts (4.00 / 4)

One of the odd things about the far right is that their deeds leave clear marks all over our national statistics that belie what is claimed to be their goals.  Bill James, the baseball statistician, used a phrase that is remarkably apt about the impact of poorly chosen theories and strategies.  He said that strategies, if clearly right or clly wrong, leave marks like elephants in the snow.  No, he just happened to pick the symbol of the GOP (and like the victim and murderer he happens to live in Kansas).

It is beyond strange.  It is beyond strange that under BushCo for the first time in 40 years the number and percentage of teen pregnancies rose.  And continued to rise.

It is beyond strange, that under BushCo the number of abortions which had declined under Bill Clinton sharply rose.

It is beyond strange, that under BushCo the number of executions nationally rose while "pro-life" Bush was Governor of Texas and dropped once he moved on to the Presidency.

It is beyond strange, that "prp-life" BushCo is responsible for as many as one million dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and now Pakistan.

It is Beyond strange, that the one movement that had recently committed massive terrorism within the United States (the far right militia types in Oklahoma City) was specifically exempted from investigation and monitoring).

It is beyond strange that the entire right jumped all over the FBI for Ruby Ridge when it sure looked like it was the nutjobs who initiated the killing.  They sure didn't feel the same way or give the same leeway at Jackson State or Kent State now did they?

Ir is beyond strange that the US has a constitutional amendment banning poll taxes and Republicans institute measures that cost poor people $20 to get a state photo ID to vote and that is somehow constitutional.  What kind of language do those freakin' strict constructionists use anyway?

It is beyond strange that anti-abortionism has taken over huge parts of the hierarchy of the Catholic church so that, unlike the recent past one never hears about justice for migrants and workers, unjust wars, or protests ahgainst racism.  It is further beyond strange that the only Catholic nominee since 1960 lost because he could not carry the Catholic vote due to virulent attacks from parts of the Catholic hierarchy (that was John Kerry, btw).

Yes, abortion is presented as murder but what of the murders, mass murders, by Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot.  Was anywhere near the level of protest linked to those murders.  The most incredible thing of the past century is that one madman kills 15 million civillians (Hitler) and another madman at the same time kills 15 to 20 million civillians (Stalin).

The man who did this thinks he is another John Brown.  OMG, Brown went on a killing spree in Kansas before he seized the arsenal at Harper's Ferry and was executed.  Kansas.  Does everything somehow run through Kansas?  Or at least Missouri?

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 00:42:12 AM CDT

Not strange. (4.00 / 1)

Not really. After they lost the battle against civil rights, the Right retreated into all-white "Christian" academies and Bible colleges to lick their wounds, then launched a new culture war against women and gays.

They thought for sure they could win this one but they were wrong.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 07:42:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ends vs. Means and a reminder of history (4.00 / 4)

Two reasons that I find this completely absurd.

First, the logic ends and the logic of means need not be connected, unless you are the strictest of consequentialists. It's perfectly logical to be for coercion (and I agree with glacierpeaks that many/most laws are somewhat coercive, btw) as a goal but take only non-violent or democratic steps to go there. It is also perfectly possible for those seeking maximum individual liberty to pursue this goal violently.

That brings me to my second point, which is your claim that pro-choicers are inherently less violent than pro-lifers precisely because one movement is about choice and the other is about coercion. The implication of this is that liberal (in the classical sense of liberty, not on the left) movements will never be violent, or at least will always be less violent. But that question was answered over 200 years ago during the French Revolution. A lot of blood was shed, French and non-French, in defense of liberty. Moreover, it's hardly a singular example. David Kowalski mentioned John Brown, for instance.

It is true that the pro-lifers in America have turned to violence as a movement in a way the pro-choicers have not. But I think it is mere historical happenstance.  

---

by: CT Student @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 02:01:33 AM CDT

Typical Rosenberg (2.00 / 2)

Movements of all stripes have fanatics that sometimes turn violent.  The anti-choice movement has a spectrum of opinions and approaches.  

I have no doubt that the radical right has some highly dangerous elements that need to be confronted.  But I don't view right wing terrorism any differently than Islamic terrorism.  Right wing murders, while horrific, are relatively rare (this is the first abortion killing in ten years), just as suicide bombers are relatively rare.  Many on the right claim that Islam itself is inherently violent.  Rosenberg claims that the wrongheaded belief that life begins at conception necessitates violence.

Rosenberg spends a remarkable amount of time constructing "arguments" that ideas he disagrees with (or ideas that are objectively wrong) are not merely pernicious propaganda to serve some elite or the consequence of simple ignorance, stupidity, antiquated ideas, or bigotry, but symptoms of mental illness or deficient development.  This sort of simple minded demonization is tiresome, bigoted in itself, and supremely unhelpful.  

---

by: kanzeon @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 02:25:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Serious, But Flawed (4.00 / 1)

I appreciate that you're making a serious argument here, but I think it's seriously misguided as a counter to mine.  (This is a polite way of saying you're using a straw man.  The politeness is deserved, because I think it's an honest mistake, not a product of malintent.)

While the logic of means and ends need not be connected, empirically they often are. (Note that "connected" implies a statistical relationship, which is precisely what I discuss in the diary.)  And this is the actual argument I'm making, as opposed to the one you are arguing against.

This is also why you're wrong to argue:

The implication of this is that liberal (in the classical sense of liberty, not on the left) movements will never be violent, or at least will always be less violent.

That's not the implication.  The implication is only that there is a tendency for them to be less violent.  And, indeed, this is what we see.  Yes, the French Revolution was quite bloody.  But that lasted for a relatively brief period of time, and came directly out of extremely dire circumstances.  A generation later, there war virtually no residual violence resulting from it.  Contrast that with the continuance of neo-Nazi violence not just in Germany and Europe, but in the US as well today.

Countless other examples could be cited.  The efforts to legally redress the violence of the Pinochet regime in Chile or the dirty war in Argentina are classic examples of how the left seeks redress as opposed to the violent vengeance of the right.

It is true that the pro-lifers in America have turned to violence as a movement in a way the pro-choicers have not. But I think it is mere historical happenstance.  

The empirical evidence is against you.  Rather, it's the relatively few instances when the left turns violent in any sustained way that qualify as mere historical happenstance.

For the cognitive background to all this, see, "Exceptions That Prove the Rule-Using a Theory of Motivated Social Cognition to Account for Ideological Incongruities and Political Anomalies: Reply to Greenberg and Jonas (2003)" {pdf}

The fact that you chose to engage as you did makes think that you'd really benefit from reading the above in detail.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 12:01:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The plural of anecdotes (0.00 / 0)

I appreciate the thoughtful reply (and its respectfulness!). I also like the link a lot - I completely agree that when it comes to authoritarianism, conservatives have it in spades. I don't, however, see a link between authoritarianism or mental rigidity and violence. I only skimmed the paper, so I might have missed it.

And I think that you're wrong on the history, to the extent that your argument is drastically weakened. First off, to say that the French Revolution was a one-off is just wrong. If the revolutionary period is 1789-1804, with Napoleon as a Revolutionary emperor for another 10 years, you have the next revolution a mere 15 years after the Revolution. And another in 1848. Second, let's look closer to home. Nearly every important piece of the progressive movement has or has had a violent wing. Labor, civil rights, environmentalism (which seems like it would be the most peaceful, stereotypically!), and on. Or goodness, look at Africa! There are also scads of non-violent right-wing movements. To counter your accurate examples of the Southern Cone countries, in Peru after Fujimori, the center-right president established a truth and reconciliation committee and so on.

Now it would be impossible to categorize all historical moments of violence and non-violence by the left and the right. But excerpting those types of violence that are specifically ends (I'm thinking about war here), I really don't look across history and see that the right tends more to violence as a means.

Finally, I don't think your data shows what you think it does. All you show is that pro-lifers are on average, actually concerned with policing women's bodies. Agreed on that count. But that has no bearing on whether logically ends in violence.  

---

by: CT Student @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 12:41:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

well... (0.00 / 0)

And the tens of millions dead at the hands of Communists during the 20th Century seem like they warrant a mention here...

---

by: Chachy @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 13:50:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Link (0.00 / 0)

is very much concerned to explain this.

But even beyond what the authors have to say, it's really no accident that the greatest loss of life under "leftist" regimes were socially quite backwards, where there was tremendous historical inertia to be confronted.  And it's no accident that the rulers who emerged were quite ruthless in killing off other leading figures who were strikingly more egalitarian in their thought and practice.

No one killed more communist leaders than Stalin did.  No one.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 16:23:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Link (0.00 / 0)

Is a response to a response to an exhaustive meta-analysis.  It seeks to deal primarily with the counter-argument that regimes like the Soviet Union, Red China, etc. undermine the argument about the nature of motivated social cognition.  The employment of physical violence is an offshoot.  This paper is significant in that it addresses the underlying logic involved, although I'm not 100% in agreement with their reasoning, I do think it's more right than not, and a useful starting point for clarifying debate.

As for the continuation of revolutionary struggle in France, that's really overwhelmingly a result of continued political repression, which continued to dominate continental Europe almost continually until the end of WWII.  I could be mistaken, but I don't think one can show significantly more left-liberal violence in such struggles in France than elsewhere.

Yes, people will fight to free themselves from oppression.  Slaves will kill their masters to escape from slavery.  The underlying point here, though is that ex-slaves generally will not come back and kill the slaveowners sons and daughters just for the hell of it.  There is no fundamental logic driving them to violence, once they've gained their freedom, unless the slaveowner's descendents come looking for them again.

The fact that violent elements exist on both sides doesn't negate the fact that there's a logic tipping the balance of violence firmly to the right.  As I've tried to make clear, many, many times, I have always believe in multiple causality, and it's clear that some forces leading toward violence are much more evenly distributed.  But the logic of coercion is not.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 16:14:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have some real problems with this (4.00 / 2)

I consider myself pro-choice, but statements like this make me understand how pro-lifers get frustrated with the way that the pro-choice view is often expressed:

This is the very essence of the issue: coercion vs. choice.  

You can make a completely reasonable pro-life argument without having a desire to coerce others; all you have to do is believe that fetuses should be granted certain rights. In fact, I happen to think that late-term fetuses should be granted some rights, and therefore that abortions uncer certain circumstances should be regulated. And I believe that a blastocyst shouldn't be granted rights. And most Americans, I think, are closer to my view than to either the view that all abortions ought to be banned or that all abortions ought to be legal. So when you frame this as simply a case of "coercion vs. choice," it really brings out the Obama in me: surely we can put aside the simplistic Manichaen us-vs.-them terminology and talk about this like adults (while at the same time denying any false equivalency between "extremists on both sides" - all the violence is on the pro-life side).

Also, as others have noted, laws almost by definition involve coercion of some sort. When the issue is, say, regulating pollution from a factory, would you frame that as an issue of "coercion vs. choice" - the coercive power of the state vs. the liberty to pollute? I assume not, and presumably you'd point out that there would be victims of pollution. But the pro-lifer believes there are victims of abortion, too, so framing it as coercion vs. choice is not going to convince anyone on the other side.

And this just strikes me as weird:

The violence of the anti-choice side is not simply a matter of unhinged emotion--although it certainly is that.  But it is also a matter of deadly logic: this is what their position must, inevitably lead to.  Coercion is the heart of the anti-choice, forced-childbirth movement.

Coercion inevitably leads to violence? So, to use the example above again, the desire to coerce factories into curbing pollution should inevitably lead environmentalists to violent actions? Or take a more parallel example: the desire to coerce others into refraining from smoking pot should inevitably lead people with anti-drug views to commit violence against stoners?

The most charitable reading I can give to this screed is that you are referring to some subset of the pro-life movement - the Dominionist extremists who have claimed that it is their duty to enforce the will of God on society through any means necessary, or some such. But if you had a subset of the pro-life movement in mind, you certainly didn't make that clear.

---

by: Chachy @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 03:26:10 AM CDT

"You can make a completely reasonable (4.00 / 1)

pro-life argument without having a desire to coerce others"

So let's hear it. Under what conditions should the government have the right to force women and girls to endure pregnancy and childbirth against their wills?

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 07:49:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Under Roe (4.00 / 1)

as I understand it, the government has the right to force women and girls to endure pregnancy and childbirth against their wills in the third trimester.  

As currently framed under current law, the question isn't whether women can be denied access to abortion services, but when.  

There are many positions on abortion.  Some people, for example, might support parental notification laws while recognizing a right to abortion for women over 18.  That position is more coercive than the typical pro-choice position but less coercive than the typical pro-life position.  Other people may support withholding pubic funds for abortion, without denying access to abortion for everyone.  That position is coercive on the poor, but not as coercive as the typical pro-life position.  Among pro-lifers, some will allow exceptions for rape or incest, others not.  Again, there is a difference in the level of coercion.

Framing this as "coercion v. choice" doesn't make much sense, because the coercion is advocated on both sides along a continuum.

---

by: kanzeon @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 09:07:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So Roe's Imperfect. This Is News? (0.00 / 0)

There's virtually no case when a woman in her third trimester wants an abortion that's not medically necessary.  So even though Roe is coercive in that sense, in reality, not so much.

But there's another conceptual flaw here, too:

Framing this as "coercion v. choice" doesn't make much sense, because the coercion is advocated on both sides along a continuum.

The problem here is two-fold:

(1) The pro-choice side doesn't advocate coercion.  There's a big difference between accepting some coercion (as one does in supporting Roe, in light of what I've said above), and advocating for it against a contrary position.

(2) Even if (1) weren't true, identifying the basic polarity of an issue ("coercion v. choice") is not dependent on a complete disjunction.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 11:37:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's not the question I asked. (0.00 / 0)

I asked when SHOULD the government force women and girls through pregnancy and childbirth against their wills.

The status quo, that the government may (not must) enforce forced childbirth a) in the final trimester and b) when it is non-fatal is obviously, not satisfactory to the forced childbirth movement. They want more, otherwise they wouldn't be killing people and blowing things up.

But Chachy here claims he has a reasonable, non-coercion based argument. I want to hear it.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 15:55:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I thought Anthony de Jesus made the point well enough. (0.00 / 0)

He said:

Place a value on a woman's liberty.  Place a value on the fetus.  If the latter is larger than the former, then one might justify the use of government.

I think a reasonable argument can be made that the value of a fetus' life beyond some threshold (which might be vague, but the third trimester is one way to go) should be given more weight than the pregnant woman's liberty to have an abortion.

Of course, you've already rejected this, saying:

News flash, women aren't property anymore, we are human beings. My life may mean squat to you but it doesn't make it yours for the taking.

But that argument isn't responsive to what A. de J. said. He didn't say your life means squat; he said women's right to have an abortion needs to be weighed against the fetus' rights (whatever they are) to live. When you're ready to respond to that substantive argument, we can continue the discussion.

---

by: Chachy @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 16:41:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh good, you're back. (0.00 / 0)

So answer the question -- under what conditions should the government force women and girls through childbirth against their wills?

So far you've said "an argument can be made" that forced childbirth is appropriate the third trimester, but you didn't mention anything about the life of the woman or girl involved. I can only take it you mean that the government should force them into childbirth even if it kills them.

They do that in El Salvador already, you know.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 17:37:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

re: (0.00 / 0)

It is difficult to engage with you when you insist on arguing against strawmen. What I said is

that the value of a fetus' life beyond some threshold (which might be vague, but the third trimester is one way to go) should be given more weight than the pregnant woman's liberty to have an abortion.

I didn't say the value of a fetus' life should outweigh the life of the mother; I said it would be reasonable to argue that the value of the fetus' life should outweigh the pregnant woman's liberty in the case of her choice to have an abortion. Obviously, if her life is at risk, that's a significant extenuating circumstance, and the vast majority of people would grant that in such cases, abortions should be legal.

So, to be perfectly clear: the government should "force women and girls through childbirth against their wills" in the third trimester when the mother's health is not at risk and the fetus wouldn't be subject to debilitating birth defects. I think that's a legitimate use of the coercive power of the state, and I think you could even justify that power on libertarian grounds, if you wanted to.

---

by: Chachy @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 17:59:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So you aren't really making (0.00 / 0)

any pro-life argument at all, let alone a reasonable or non-coercive one. You are arguing for pro-choice, and for the status quo, which is what the forced childbirth crowd is killing people to overturn.

Dang, and I thought you had something new to offer.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 19:42:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

_ (0.00 / 0)

As I started out by saying in my original post, I'm pro-choice. You asked me "under what conditions should the government force women and girls through childbirth against their wills" So I gave my view. But when you phrase the question the way you did it, you make it sound as if you object on principle to the government coercing women and girls to give birth in any situation. And if that's not what you mean, then I suggest you rephrase the question as "under what conditions should the government make the judgment that the life of a fetus outweighs the mother's liberty in choosing whether or not to have an abortion" - because you just spent an awful long time arguing against my view that the coercion-vs.-choice dichotomy was a false one, without ever indicating that you actually would allow government coercion when it comes to abortion in some instances.

All that aside, though it isn't my personal view, a person could make a reasonable argument that a fetus in the second or first trimester has a life that has value, and that that value might outweigh the pregnant mother's right to have an abortion. This view might depend on the science of fetal development, or on other subjective criteria, or whatever. (I wouldn't accept an argument that was based on religious dogma, however; and I don't think much of a case for the pro-life view in the case of blastocysts can be made without resorting, in some way, to a religious justification. But this could be argued.) I don't think I'm proposing anything new, and I never claimed I was. And I don't know why you thought I was. All I meant to do was refute Paul's point that the pro-life view necessarily derived from a desire to coerce women, and I did so by arguing that the pro-life view can simply depend on an interest in the rights of fetuses.

But listen: when you talk about "the forced childbirth crowd," you really seem to imply that your problem is with the principle of "forced childbirth." But evidently not, if you accept the status quo, in which "forced childbirth" is sometimes considered acceptable. And you also make it sound as if anyone who would support "forced childbirth" belongs to the "crowd" that is killing people to overturn the status quo. And Paul's post seemed to imply that as well, which of course is what  Iwas originally objecting to. Obviously a lot of pro-life people are opposed to engaging in terrorism. It doesn't do much service to the debate to ignore that distinction.

---

by: Chachy @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 20:34:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Still not buying it (0.00 / 0)

and this talk of "value" really skeeves me out. Like women are cattle to be bought and sold. You are not entitled to place a "value" on me.

And no, I don't believe forced childbirth occurs now when women carry normal, third trimester pregnancies through because who on earth would abort in those cases? It just doesn't happen, and the idea that it does is another lie of the forced childbirth movement.

But you still haven't provided your "reasonable and non-coercive argument" for forced childbirth. Maybe you don't get the contradiction between "forced" and "non-coercive?"

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 07:00:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

State interest (0.00 / 0)

Maybe you can help me out, because I never understood this.

Legal status is a real world, practical question, and has been for as long as legal systems have existed.  The experience of millenia of births seems to be that either the fetus lived or didn't, and the society knew the day it exited the womb.  If it exited live, it would be recognized as a person, and would be granted whatever legal protections were available in that society.  If it didn't, it was a nonperson, as far as the law was concerned.  I think this is perceived as cold, but the fact is that childbirth was a cold, brutal process for most of human history.  I think the sentimentalism about fetuses is a product of the last century.

There have always been debates on when the soul enters the body, etc., but these weren't legal debates, but philosophical and religious debates.

The only thing that has changed is technology.  Now, it is possible to take a fetus at a fairly early stage out of the womb, spend $100,000 to hook it up to a machine, and it may have a 70% chance of becoming a normal infant.  That is the basis, it seems, for the claim of "state's interest."  But, let's say I grant that the state is interested in pulling fetuses out of the womb and putting them on machines - then make the state fork out the $100,000 and do it.  If we want to place a "value" on renting the woman's womb, that value is $100,000.  

If the state believes that the fetus is a separate, independent human life, endowed with rights, then it has no right to occupy the womb unconditionally, any more than you deserve free rent.  But of course, only the radical prolifers really believe that - everyone else uses the "state's interest" in preserving life, without going the extra step of granting that life rights. When the state prohibits murder, it isn't so much acting on an interest to perserve life, as defending the person's right to live.  

Looking at this from an anthropological point of view, birth is the dividing line for personhood.  Everything else is a hypothetical.  I think it's great that we can grow fetuses in test tubes or implant them in other wombs, but I don't see how the possibility that something might happen under some rare circumstance dictates policy for everyone.  If someone chooses to pull the fetus out of the womb and try to keep it alive, great: once it's out of the womb, we can consider it a person.  The rest is misplaced sentimentalism that is unique to our era.

---

by: kanzeon @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 17:22:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bottom Line Is The Conservatives Are Changing The Age-old Definitions (0.00 / 0)

Conservatives have nothing against the most radical changes, if it suits their purposes.  That's why life now begins at conceptions, where it once began at live birth.

Similarly, they were all States Rights until the Dredd Scott case came along.

Same as it ever was.
Same as it ever was.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 15:19:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Coercion (4.00 / 1)

My only thought was that coercion exists no matter where one draws the line.

My own position has always been that rights should be considered to be conferred at birth.  That, as I understand it, has been a traditional legal definition of when life begins for most purposes.  You get a birth certificate, a name, and a social security number at birth, not before.  We don't have funerals for miscarriages.  

I don't see the point in the law mucking about in the details of development, determining when viability or sentience or any other benchmark occurs and imposing a philosophical and basically imaginary line as the basis for sending people to jail.  

One could argue that an abortion in the last week of pregnancy is the equivalent of infanticide, and I would concede that it does make me squeemish - but women don't seek abortions at that late stage, and never have. It is a theoretical concern, like constructing torture policy by talking about the ticking time bomb example that never occurs.    

I realize that the framework of Roe does give most women in most circumstances ample time to make a considered decision.  But I still see the framework as coercive, because I don't see the value in acknowledging the state has any interest in a woman's womb.

---

by: kanzeon @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 19:26:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a very simple calculus (4.00 / 2)

It doesn't matter which side you are on.  Place a value on a woman's liberty.  Place a value on the fetus.  If the latter is larger than the former, then one might justify the use of government.

I would argue that, in general, the variation in attitudes toward abortion tend to be influenced more by differing estimations of the value of the fetus than in differing estimations of the value of a woman's liberty.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 12:06:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wrong. (4.00 / 2)

News flash, women aren't property anymore, we are human beings. My life may mean squat to you but it doesn't make it yours for the taking.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 15:57:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pro-Life (0.00 / 0)

I am not convinced that this: "Under what conditions should the government have the right to force women and girls to endure pregnancy and childbirth against their wills?" is the sum total of what it means to "pro-life". Obviously, it is not possible to accomplish such without coersion. More directly, such a plan would fail as a "pro-life" argument because it does not consider the life of the women involved.

A "reasonable" pro-life argument? 1) Provide a safe, legal means for women to obtain abortions. 2) Use public education, ad campaigns, and outreach programs to provide the means to reduce unwanted and dangerous pregancies. Of course, the latter does nothing about pregancies from rape.
3) Use community education methods to change/obliterate the stigma attached to having an abortion. Put simply, the women that confront such a decision should be supported by their society, whether they decide to abort or give birth.

Now, you might be tempted to say that I'm making the "pro-choice" argument. I don't see it that way because I will accept that the fetus is a living being, even at conception, something few pro-abortion folks are willing to do.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 13:59:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's a fine argument (4.00 / 2)

but it's not remotely "pro-life." It's pro-choice.

Only the pro-choice side believes "the women that confront such a decision should be supported by their society, whether they decide to abort or give birth."

The pro-life side want that decision to be made by the government, not by women themselves. That's what makes them not pro-choice?

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 16:03:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

All of it affirms life (0.00 / 0)

Therefore, Pro-Life.

The real point is that the terminology is separating us.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 21:18:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not a coincidence. (4.00 / 1)

"Pro-life" is a lie, because it implies that the other side is anti-life. That's why I call it what it really is - forced childbirth.

If you don't believe in forced childbirth then guess what, you are pro-choice.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 07:03:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Please don't tell me what I should call my positions (0.00 / 0)

Its quite arrogant and not at all in accord with the open mindedness you generally convey.

Why do you feel the need to label my position?

PS: I don't think any woman should be forced to bear a child.

 

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 13:12:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

44, you have your answer (4.00 / 2)

now the next move is yours, negotiate with criminals or protect law abiding members of society, your response should be obvious, at least to most in america.

---

by: pc @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 05:40:25 AM CDT

Thanks Paul! (0.00 / 0)

You totally get it.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 07:50:26 AM CDT

Those r-values (4.00 / 3)

Don't look dry to me. They make a compelling case that we're not observing a movement that is truly concerned with suffering of unborn fetuses.

The urge to control and coerce others, and even more so, see others controlled and coerced, is central to all right wing politics (see The Authoritarians.) This isn't about political choices or even religious choices. This is about animal behaviors that are common to nearly all social mammals: in any group there are a few who are inclined to be aggressive and to dominate others in the group, and an even larger set who are driven to facilitate this aggression.

I think it would be easier for more progressives if we realized that our struggle with the right wing is not really a philosophical or moral debate. Those are tactics only. It is a struggle about whether or not animal aggression will direct our society.

---

by: Mark Wallace @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 08:28:27 AM CDT

I think your hypothesis is flawed (0.00 / 0)

If anti-choice activists and voters really are sincerely trying to stop abortions, then they ought to disproportionately favor sex ed and contraception.  But if controlling women's bodies is the agenda, then they ought to disproportionately oppose sex ed and contraception.

One, is that at least some anti-abortion activists seem to believe that the birth control pill to be an abortifacient because it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.  Thus, measuring opposition to contraception is probably not as useful as you may think.  If the data existed, a better measure might be to see if there is any difference between opposition to birth control pills and opposition to other forms of birth control, such as condoms, among opponents of abortion.  Of course, such data is probably hard to find, if it even exists.

Likewise, sex education is a broad term.  It is possible that opponents of abortion disproportionately oppose sex education that includes teaching about contraception, but would disproportionately support "abstinence-only" sex education.  Again, that's something that probably no one has bothered to ask.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 12:51:19 PM CDT

The forced childbirth movement (4.00 / 1)

is the same one who brought us the "marry for sex" curriculum in our public schools. Oops, I mean "abstinence education."

Maybe you are fortunate enough not to know what that means, but basically it boils down to lying to kids and telling them contraception doesn't work. Naturally, young people who have been exposed to "marry for sex" conclude that since contraception doesn't work, why use it?

And the results are predictable -- higher rates of pregnancy in those populations exposed to "marry for sex."

It's disgusting. Conservatives fuck up their own kids with their warped values, then they try to mess up other people's as well.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 16:17:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You've Got The Causality Reversed (4.00 / 1)

The right starts out hating women's autonomy, and then comes up with reasons to rationalize it.  The rationalizations came after the fact.  They opposed birth control even before the pill existed, just as they opposed all aspects of female autonomy.  Go read about Victoria Woodhull and the origins of the Comstock Act.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 16:28:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bingo. (4.00 / 1)

And speaking of female autonomy, look how long it took for women to get the right to vote. Infantalizing and controlling women has been the agenda; the tools and tactics change over time.  

---

by: CMYK @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 02:44:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oxymoron (0.00 / 0)

Abstinence only "sex education" is an oxymoron.  There is no education just the preaching and teaching of ignorance.
Abstinence only is certainly relatively ineffective as a policy and leads to either more abotions or more unwanted childbirths, particularly among teens.  It is a fact that both abortions and teen childbirths are rising in this country and that the Bush Administration played a big role in these unhappy outcomes.

I am not sure if the majority of those opposed to abortion actually favor opposing contraception as well.  I really think those are two separate and very different questions.  I do believe, however, that those who rule the roost among the anti-abortion crowd vigorously and totally are against both abortion and contraception.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 16:39:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

They do. (0.00 / 0)

You can look it up.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 17:39:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, David, they do (4.00 / 1)

oppose contraception, too. Huge numbers of 'em do, anyway. When I first found that out I didn't quite believe it, didn't want to believe it, because it seemed too extreme and regressive to believe. But I know now that the movement agenda is to curtail the bodily autonomy of women by any means necessary, and they spin facts to fit the cause, not the other way around.  

---

by: CMYK @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 02:58:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Most Of The PEOPLE Opposing Abortion Don't Oppose Contraception (4.00 / 1)

It's the activists and organizations that do.  This is the pattern across a wide range of issues.  There's a bigger issue gap between movement conservatives and the base of conservative voters than there is between conservative and liberal voters.  That's why demonization of liberals is so fundamental to the conservative movement.  It's absolutely vital to keep their troops in line.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 11:45:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great diary. (4.00 / 1)

Well done! Thanks Paul.

What puzzles me is that extremist groups that are known to be violent are allowed to harass, intimidate and threaten women and care providers when they try to exercise their legal right to safe, private medical care. Roe needs to be strengthened with provisions for violence prevention, security, privacy and penalties for abuses. But that's a diary for a different day (I hope).

---

by: CMYK @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 02:33:15 AM CDT

Well, I guess the "value" (0.00 / 0)

of women is just not high enough.

Sorry, kind of bitter about this.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 07:06:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]