Politics, it is often claimed, makes strange bedfellows. What is less well-known is that this saying is adapted from a line in Shakespeare’s play The Tempest: “Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.” In the play, the line is spoken by Trinculo, a court jester, who has been shipwrecked and finds himself seeking shelter beside a sleeping monster.
This original version of the trite saying provides a rather apt analogy to the leadership of the Democratic Party: shipwrecked, seeking shelter, and curled up next to a sleeping monster -- abortion rights. “Abortion is so ugly that nobody who supports it can look moral,” says journalist William Saletan. “To earn real credibility, [Democrats would] have to admit it's bad. They often walk up to that line, but they always blink.” The more moderate and sensible wing of the party has to be distraught over this precarious situation. As much as they want to change their image in order to appear to voters with traditional, conservative values, they can’t stray too far from the monster.
Earlier this year, for example, Hillary Clinton, who many consider the front-runner for the Presidential nomination in 2008, called abortion a "a sad, even tragic choice” and, in a stunning change from the typical party line, admitted:
There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances. [emphasis added]
While Mrs. Clinton’s sentiments are admirable it is surprising that she doesn’t consider using one of the Democrat’s favorite methods for “providing assistance”: increased government regulation on business.
In America, abortion isn’t merely a political issue; it’s a multi-million dollar industry. Planned Parenthood alone has made nearly half a billion dollars in profit, mainly from providing abortion-related services, in the past eighteen years. The industry is extremely lucrative and lobbies hard to protect their cash cow. Politicians can hide behind the language of “rights” but what it comes down to it, abortion is about money. If the Democratic Party is seriously committed to reducing the number of abortions, though, they should start by paying attention to Say’s law.
According to Say's law, an economic principle loosely based on the work of Jean-Baptiste Say, there can be no demand without supply. While there may be a desire for a product or service, the demand is based on the available supply. In other words, supply must be created before demand can come into being.
The demand for abortion, of course, has always existed. But when the procedure is illegal and dangerous, the “cost” is higher than most people are willing to pay. Because the supply of illegal abortion services is relatively low, the demand is also kept to a minimal level. When the procedure is legalized, though, the supply increases and creates a greater demand for abortion services.
On the surface, this may appear to be stating the obvious. Pointing out that unwanted pregnancies are more likely to lead to abortion when the procedure is made more safe and legal is hardly controversial. But what is often overlooked is that legalized abortion does more than just shift the number of abortions from the category of illegal to legal. Legalized abortion increases the number of conceptions thereby creating a new demand for abortion services.
In 1999, the brilliant economist Stephen Levitt wrote a controversial paper on “Legalized Abortion and Crime”* in which he pointed out, almost as an aside, that the evidence fairly strongly suggests that legalization of abortion has substantially increased the number of conceptions:
We know this because studies examining the decline in births in the wake of Roe v. Wade show a drop that is far smaller than the total number of abortions. Thus, Levine, Straiger, et al. (1996) find that legalization is associated with only a roughly 5-10 percent drop in birth rates. One way to reconcile the finding that abortion legalization reduced births by only 5-10 percent with the fact that, in 1975, nearly one out of four pregnancies were terminated by abortion is to posit that legalization substantially increased the number of pregnancies. That is, the insurance that abortion provided against unwanted pregnancy induced more sexual conduct or diminished protections against pregnancy in a way that substantially increased pregnancies. (pg. 10)
Most pro-choice advocates claim that they do not support the use of abortion as a means of birth control. Why then do they support it as a form of pregnancy insurance? If the Democratic Party is serious about keeping abortion “safe, legal, and rare” then they can start by formulating a plan to limit the supply of abortion services. Limiting the supply will increase the “price” and make other options – contraceptive use, abstinence – more attractive. (As Clinton herself noted, “"Seven percent of American women who do not use contraception account for 53 percent of all unintended pregnancies.”)
The Democratic Party has never balked at regulating the insurance industry. So why does the DNC refuse to place more stringent limits on an industry that provides abortion insurance?
(HT: LaShawn Barber for the link to Levitt's article. I hope to address the main point of the paper -- that abortion reduces crime rates -- in the near future.)
1
Joe Carter: “…abortion is about money.”
Bingo! Give that man a cigar!
posted on 04.25.2005 8:07 AM2
hmmm.. like you don't have enough to raise a child properly, so you have one?
posted on 04.25.2005 8:13 AM3
Actually limiting abortion is about money.
There are no James Dobsons lining their pockets- or Bill Frists or Tom DeLays, ready to swindle the public blind to favor their corporate donors- without a steady supply of voters worked up over "baby killing."
In fact, Republicans and conservatives, and immoral "pro-life" folks have demagogued this issue for decades.
Immoral?
Yes. You read it right.
We have an example of such demagoguery above; the idea that the a "a drop [in births] far smaller than the total number of abortions" can be traced, in fact, to limiting pregnancy termination services for the poor, which happend via the Hyde ammendment.
The other problem - and Democrats are in fact working on this- is making contraceptive use widely available.
So this whole post above is about, actually, nothing.
4
From a college biology textbook: “Even if ways are found to increase food supply to feed the seven billion people expected on the earth in the year 2000, compared to the 3.5 billion living now, man may well be limited by the supply of air pure enough to breath, the supply of water pure enough to drink, or the availability of places to put his accumulated trash and garbage.”(p.590)
"The human population is clearly in danger of multiplying beyond the ability of the earth to support it . . . .Some limitation of human reproduction is clearly inevitable. It remains to be seen whether man will do this voluntarily or involuntarily.”(849) -------------------------“Biology” Villee, Clause A., Harvard U. 1972,
Scary stuff. And perhaps the origin of the left wing's desperate promotion of abortion.
G.M.
5
Mumon:
Immoral?
Yes. You read it right.
Wow, you called someone who you disagree with immoral. You only do that about every other post.
We have an example of such demagoguery above; the idea that the a "a drop [in births] far smaller than the total number of abortions" can be traced, in fact, to limiting pregnancy termination services for the poor, which happend via the Hyde ammendment.
The statement is not demagoguery but a different theory to explain what happened. Plus, considering that Planned Parenthood likes to operate in poor neighborhoods (have to keep down the human weeds you know), there is some question to your theory.
The other problem - and Democrats are in fact working on this- is making contraceptive use widely available.
What planet do you live on Mumon? There is no limit to the availability of contraceptives in this country. You can buy condoms in bathrooms. Talk about demagoguing an issue.
Now isn't it possible that contraceptive use would go up if abortion was extremely limited as a fallback position?
posted on 04.25.2005 8:54 AM6
What planet do you live on Mumon? There is no limit to the availability of contraceptives in this country. You can buy condoms in bathrooms. Talk about demagoguing an issue.
Ah yes, but can you buy one in the restroom of your local middle school? More to the point, can you get one for free from your local middle school nurse? Even the suggestion of it makes me sick. Yet I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear that its already happening thanks to the fine work of Planned Parenthood et al.
posted on 04.25.2005 9:29 AM7
No judge, no standard, power rules with waxen 'principles' compliant to the caprice of the wielder as he strives to accumulate more.
posted on 04.25.2005 9:34 AM8
You're confusing cause and effect, as illustrated by Mumon's post, above.
Liberals and Democrats believe in abortion. Period. And why does this baffle conservatives so? Why is this view, so cherished by the Left, confound us on the Right? It shouldn't. The Left has always appeased the most bloodthirsty, mass-murdering regimes. The Left supported Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Soviet Communism, Mao Tse Tung, the African Marxist kleptocrats, and Fidel Castro. Still do, in fact. Even when the people themselves revolt, out of sheer revulsion at the massive crimes committed against them, the Left continues to believe it is to the victims' benefit.
Leftism is the culture of death. Which is why we are called immoral for not seeing that abortion is good for the baby murdered. Which is why Saddam Hussein would be merrily filling up mass graves in Iraq had Al Gore won the election. Which is why Yassir Arafat visited the Clinton White House more than any other foreign "leader".
No. The Democrats' view of abortion is NOT an aberration, or a "strange bedfellow". It is a bedrock principle of their philosophy. We conservatives should be thankful, that we don't have to go too far to find reasons to never, ever vote Democrat.
posted on 04.25.2005 9:43 AM9
Earlier this year, for example, Hillary Clinton, who many consider the front-runner for the Presidential nomination in 2008, called abortion a "a sad, even tragic choice” and, in a stunning change from the typical party line, admitted:
Yea, that's a real stunning change. More than ten years ago her husban said that abortion should be 'safe, legal and rare'. Rights are not candy kanes on Christmas morning. They often impart hard and difficult choices on people. There's the famous story of the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky. In it Jesus returns to walk the earth again but is promptly imprisoned by the Inquisitor. Before he is allowed to say a word the Inquisitor silences him and attacks him for giving humanity the ability to choose salvation but not the strength to do it. He declares that by oppressing and terrorizing people he has removed that burden of choosing from them so as to ensure they are saved.
In America, abortion isn’t merely a political issue; it’s a multi-million dollar industry. Planned Parenthood alone has made nearly half a billion dollars in profit, mainly from providing abortion-related services, in the past eighteen years. The industry is extremely lucrative and lobbies hard to protect their cash cow. Politicians can hide behind the language of “rights” but what it comes down to it, abortion is about money. If the Democratic Party is seriously committed to reducing the number of abortions, though, they should start by paying attention to Say’s law.
We've been thru the 'half billion dollars in profit' line before. The numbers were not there and even if they were it is hardly much of an industry. I'm skeptical of this type of Marxist line of thinking about human nature. Often there is a lot less value in 'follow the money' than you would think from watching Michael Moore movies, Oliver Stone's JFK or this sorry line from the pro-life crowd.
1. The profits to be reaped by providing pre-natal & live birth servies are many times greater than the profits from providing abortion services.
2. Of course, live births generate a lot of profit for third parties. Think of the toy industry, the education industry, pediatrics, clothing manufacturers and so on. If you're going to subscribe to the 'big industry is the man behind the curtin of history' theory then abortion legalization in a capitalistic economy would be inexplicable.
According to Say's law, an economic principle loosely based on the work of Jean-Baptiste Say, there can be no demand without supply. While there may be a desire for a product or service, the demand is based on the available supply. In other words, supply must be created before demand can come into being.
You misread Say's theory. His theory was that supply creates an equal amount of total demand. Say you have ten groups of ten workers (100 total) who are paid $1 per week to build ten different model cars. The total pay for all the workers is $100 which came from the 'supply' of ten different cars. It does not follow that demand will be there for each of those ten different cars. Instead of each car selling for exactly $10, the cool sports car may end up selling for $30 while 3 of the sorriest brands might only sell for $1 (which will be a diaster for those employers since their wage costs were $10 per car!). You have only to look at the large quantities of goods that are thrown away by stores or discounted to below cost prices.
Say's law only referred to total demand and was an attempt to assert that a 'general glut' was impossible. (that would be a condition like the Great Depression where great quantities of goods could not be sold & large amounts of labor could not be employed). Needless to say, the Great Depression did happen & Say's Law only applies in very limited circumstances.
Most pro-choice advocates claim that they do not support the use of abortion as a means of birth control. Why then do they support it as a form of pregnancy insurance? If the Democratic Party is serious about keeping abortion “safe, legal, and rare” then they can start by formulating a plan to limit the supply of abortion services. Limiting the supply will increase the “price” and make other options – contraceptive use, abstinence – more attractive. (As Clinton herself noted, “"Seven percent of American women who do not use contraception account for 53 percent of all unintended pregnancies.”)
A while ago I noted that many pro-lifers are obsessed with making America pro-life 'on the books' only. In some Eastern European countries, abortion rates actually fell when abortion was legalized yet pro-lifers howled that this was a defeat...despite the fact that it would result in objectively fewer abortions.
I wonder and still wonder what would have happened in an alternate universe where pro-lifers accepted abortion's legal status but instead opted to join forces with liberals to make abortion as unnecessary a choice as possible. Instead they joined with the right which seeks to outsource the entire cost of unwanted pregnancies on the people least able to bear the burden (women in vulnerable positions) with the rest of society only intervening to punish them when they make the wrong choices.
The Democratic Party has never balked at regulating the insurance industry. So why does the DNC refuse to place more stringent limits on an industry that provides abortion insurance?
Abortion clinics are as regulated as any other medical provider. Is Joe making a serious argument or just playing word games?
The statement is not demagoguery but a different theory to explain what happened. Plus, considering that Planned Parenthood likes to operate in poor neighborhoods (have to keep down the human weeds you know), there is some question to your theory.
Abortions in rich neighborhoods are usually provided by high end gyncologists who provide such services discretely and without advertising.
posted on 04.25.2005 9:49 AM10
If Paris Hilton decided to have an abortion do you think she would travel to a clinic in South Central LA?
posted on 04.25.2005 9:50 AM11
Kevin W. should marry Ann Coulter and start a new race of super-intolerant, hateful right-wing extremists. They both create one hell of an ugly strawman for their pummeling pleasure.
When he caricatures liberals and democrats, the picture he produces is about as accurate as one that draws all conservatives, Christians, and republicans as reconstructionist, bigoted theocrats.
His credibility would be enhanced with a reduction of foamy-mouthed vitriol and a little more understanding.
posted on 04.25.2005 10:44 AM12
Abortions in rich neighborhoods are usually provided by high end gyncologists who provide such services discretely and without advertising.
I know there are abortion providers in affluent areas. My point was that poorer areas are also serviced and the Hyde amendment isn't necessarily the explanation Mumon thinks it is.
I wonder and still wonder what would have happened in an alternate universe...
I still wonder what would have happened had abortion remained illegal except in extreme circumstances and the left joined the right in promoting responsible and mature sexual behavior.
Abortion clinics are as regulated as any other medical provider.
Can a minor walk into a plastic surgery clinic and get surgery without the consent of a guardian? The rules are a bit different for abortion providers.
posted on 04.25.2005 11:14 AM13
Kevin W
"Liberals and Democrats believe in abortion. Period. And why does this baffle conservatives so? Why is this view, so cherished by the Left, confound us on the Right? It shouldn't. The Left has always appeased the most bloodthirsty, mass-murdering regimes."
Has the Left appeased the regime running the United States for the past 5 years? Under which abortion has increased? And under which scores of thousands of innocent men, women, children and unborn children were killed by US soldiers?
No, I don't think so. In fact, I've been protesting the current regime regularly the entire time. Ironically, Kevin W has been cheering them on.
Why? Because Kevin W believed that Saddam was going to going to drop a nuclear bomb on his house. And we all know that Jesus approves of killing innocent human beings when enough Americans are soiling their diapers worrying about Condi's mushroom clouds.
Kevin W is a very naive and paranoid human being, easily manipulated by slogans and propoganda. Sadly, he's not unique.
posted on 04.25.2005 11:24 AM14
Lutz
"the left joined the right in promoting responsible and mature sexual behavior."
And Chris knows that "mature sexual behavior" is because there's a whole chapter about it in his holy book, right? Or at least some preacher has led Chris to believe that his deity is deeply concerned about adult human sexual behavior.
That's wonderful. Now, we can ask Chris why so many Christians are opposed to birth control. Let's see if Chris can give us an answer that makes sense and accounts for the fact that in order for religions to wield political power, they need a substantial number of believers.
Can Chris figure this one out? Tick, tock, tick, tock ...
posted on 04.25.2005 11:29 AM15
Boonton:
While Say's Law is generally very useful, it does have its limits. That's why we don't have urine banks.
However, apparently the religious right's appetite for dishonesty and unethical behavior has not been sated yet.
posted on 04.25.2005 11:30 AM16
Can a minor walk into a plastic surgery clinic and get surgery without the consent of a guardian? The rules are a bit different for abortion providers.
Most likely, this is along the lines of the 'my kid can't get an aspirin from the school nurse' type of argument. There is no law saying minors cannot get medical services (hint, give your kid $5 and send him into Wal-Mart...see if anyone stops him from buying a bottle of Aspirin). Schools simply do not want the hassle of getting sued if anything goes wrong. Now let's look at the flip side of the question; can parents order plastic surgery on their unwilling minors? How about the choice not to have an abortion? I imagine there are probably many parents who would demand their child get an abortion rather than face the problems of being a 'teen mom'. If you believe parents have the right to stop an abortion in an environment where abortion is legal then the reverse follows as well.
I still wonder what would have happened had abortion remained illegal except in extreme circumstances and the left joined the right in promoting responsible and mature sexual behavior.
The law fits to society or it is ignored. Look at the Catholic Church's attempts to deny contraception to its members. The leadership is simply ignored. If Roe didn't happen abortion laws would have probably been slowly liberalized anyway (they already were in the process of being changed up until Roe nuked them away). I suspect they would have become like the sodomy laws today. Repealed in the liberal states and mostly ignored in the conservative ones.
Which is why Saddam Hussein would be merrily filling up mass graves in Iraq had Al Gore won the election.
Actually Hussein filled up most of his mass graves long before Al Gore ran in 2000. He filled his graves up in the late 80's as Reagan was President and defeated Democratic attempts to impose even mild sanctions on Saddam for his gross abuses of human rights. By the time we get to 2000 Saddam's grave filling activities paled in comparison to what he pulled off in his younger years as the right took his side.
posted on 04.25.2005 11:53 AM17
However, apparently the religious right's appetite for dishonesty and unethical behavior has not been sated yet.
Another leap. mumon better be careful with all the leaping he's doing. He might come down with whatever is affecting those toads in Germany.
18
If you believe parents have the right to stop an abortion in an environment where abortion is legal then the reverse follows as well.
No, I don't think the reverse necessarily follow,s Boon. I think most people realize the differences between allowing the refusal of an optional medical treatment for one's child and allowing the forcing of an optional treatment onto one's child. Even dismissing the special circumstances of abortion, we could look at the other situations such as child custody cases, for example, where the child's preference of parent is taken into consideration.
posted on 04.25.2005 12:15 PM19
The irony of using a link to your own blog's home url, for "dishonesty and unethical behavior", is a bit stunning :P
Sure you wanna do that mumon? :D
posted on 04.25.2005 12:17 PM20
Hillary's comments can be read here: http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/2005125A05.html
Note that she never assigns any value to a fetus at any stage of development. She's worried instead about the (potential) mother of the (potential) child. She is only concerned about children once they have achieved the legal status of a person. She says abortion is a tragedy because of the effect it may have on the mother and because it's a symptom of an uncaring society.
This is considered moderate for a progressive.
Can't we just go back to leaving abortion to the states? If we could defuse the abortion debate maybe the evo-vs-creation nut could be cracked.
posted on 04.25.2005 12:19 PM21
No, I don't think the reverse necessarily follow,s Boon. I think most people realize the differences between allowing the refusal of an optional medical treatment for one's child and allowing the forcing of an optional treatment onto one's child. Even dismissing the special circumstances of abortion, we could look at the other situations such as child custody cases, for example, where the child's preference of parent is taken into consideration.
Perhaps but then giving birth isn't quite like getting your nose pierced, is it? Especially for very young girls I can see many parents who would argue that for them abortion is less of a procedure than giving birth. If you assume no rights for the fetus it is pretty hard to argue with their logic. Trivia, a few years ago I heard a brief news report about an unusual case where PP and Pro-Lifers joined sides...it involved a girl they alleged was being 'forced' to have an abortion. If anyone else heard of it or knows more details share.
Can't we just go back to leaving abortion to the states? If we could defuse the abortion debate maybe the evo-vs-creation nut could be cracked.
This doesn't seem very consistent with the arguments of either side. If abortion is murder then how can the states decide under the Equal Protection clause (unless some state decided to abolish all prohibitions against murder)? Pro-lifers have painted themselves into a corner. You can't just 'go back' to pre-Roe days because pro-Roe days is not consistent with pro-lifers stated ideology. Abortion was never treated as murder in US law.
posted on 04.25.2005 12:26 PM22
Another leap. mumon better be careful with all the leaping he's doing.
It's mumon's typical villification of anyone who disagrees with his stance. Heaven forbid that someone believes that the advice and consent role of the Senate doesn't mean that the minority can filibuster a vote once the candidate is out of committee. Also, it has nothing to do with the current topic and is just another ploy to up his blog traffic.
If you believe parents have the right to stop an abortion in an environment where abortion is legal then the reverse follows as well.
That's perfectly consistent and based on today's law I would agree. However today it's not consistent since a minor can't receive non-emergency care with the consent of the guardian and yet, the minor can receive an abortion. You have to admit, that is not consistent.
The law fits to society or it is ignored.
Which is why the SC decision has caused so much strife. You are correct in that some states would have permitted abortion. However, I don't believe the law would have been ignored in states that had laws banning it. Instead, we would see varying differences in each state from outright bans all the way to anytime-any reason-anywhere. In the end, it would have cut out a lot of rancor in the debate.
Larry:
Now, we can ask Chris why so many Christians are opposed to birth control
And a large number support birth control. Wow, some Christians even believe that abortion is okay. If your theory is all about political power Larry, then your attempts to foist birth control on certain groups is nothing more than an attempt to enhance your own political power.
posted on 04.25.2005 12:26 PM
23
[W]hen the procedure is illegal and dangerous, the “cost” is higher than most people are willing to pay. . . . If the Democratic Party is serious about keeping abortion “safe, legal, and rare” then they can start by formulating a plan to limit the supply of abortion services. Limiting the supply will increase the “price”
Joe, I can't tell you how offensive this is.
I don't know if you think you're being clever, or simply not thinking, but you've stepped outside the bounds of decency. I'm very disappointed by this post.
You explicitly note the "price" of illegal abortions - that they are "dangerous". (That's underselling it by quite a lot: they are hideous, but nevermind.) You explicitly advocate making abortion illegal so that the danger of illegal abortion will deter women from having them. You seem to think that the fear, misery, and death caused by underground abortion are policy tools for controlling women's lives. You are perfectly - almost gleefully - willing to consign women to horror to prevent them flouting your will about sex and abortion.
I've never seen a better illustration of the indifference, and in fact outright malice, of the anti-choice movement toward women's health and freedom. I didn't want to see it from you, but the right wing long ago taught me never to be surprised at how low it would go.
I'm really disgusted by this.
posted on 04.25.2005 12:30 PM24
Now, we can ask Chris why so many Christians are opposed to birth control.
Are you sure you don't want to qualify that statement in any way Larry? Like, what do you mean by "most Christians" or "birth control"?
posted on 04.25.2005 12:31 PM25
That's perfectly consistent and based on today's law I would agree. However today it's not consistent since a minor can't receive non-emergency care with the consent of the guardian and yet, the minor can receive an abortion. You have to admit, that is not consistent.
So Wal-Mart told your kid that they can't buy a bottle of aspirin without your specific consent?
Which is why the SC decision has caused so much strife. You are correct in that some states would have permitted abortion. However, I don't believe the law would have been ignored in states that had laws banning it. Instead, we would see varying differences in each state from outright bans all the way to anytime-any reason-anywhere. In the end, it would have cut out a lot of rancor in the debate.
Yes because the pro-life states would have been able to be pro-life in name only. Likewise we saw a mini-version of this principle in action when the Court struck down sodomy laws. 'Anti-sodomy' advocates went a bit ballistic despite the fact that nearly everyone agrees the 'no gay sex' laws did nothing to decrease the amount of gay sex happening in Texas, Georgia and so on. What such laws do accompish, however, is randomly entrap innocent people and breed a general disrespect for the laws.
I don't argue that laws don't shape society only that society shapes the laws more. That's barring the use of extremly evil measures by the gov't to enforce its laws such as used by Hitler and Stalin. Even there, though, many historians will debate whether those gov'ts were imposed on society or were created by a dysfunctional society.
posted on 04.25.2005 12:36 PM26
If you assume no rights for the fetus it is pretty hard to argue with their logic.
True. Although parental notification can do nothing but reduce the number of abortions. Consider that even without requiring parental notification parents can and probably often do force their children to have abortions. The only thing parental notification would do is to reduce the number of instances where the child unilaterally opted for an abortion. Now, given that there are a large number of pro-life parents in this country it is highly probably that many parents would not give the approval to these girsl who would otherwise have opted for abortion. Thus, requiring parental notification would decrease the toal number of abortions. Additionally, I think this has, in many cases, more to do with people revolting against the state circumventing parental rights that abortion proper even though it would reduce the number of abortions.
posted on 04.25.2005 12:42 PM27
So Wal-Mart told your kid that they can't buy a bottle of aspirin without your specific consent?
Come on Boon, now you are being dense for no reason. I'm pretty much agreeing with you. But you do know that your kid can't walk into a doctor's office and get treated without your consent. That's not the same as buying aspirin or any other OTC drug.
Yes because the pro-life states would have been able to be pro-life in name only.
Not necessarily. You seem to assume that the pro-life states would not enforce their laws and you have no proof of that. And the people caught would not be innocents since they are breaking state law.
posted on 04.25.2005 12:46 PM28
In this respect parental rights are highly limited. For example, if a girl opts not to have an abortion (whether or not the parents want her to have one) the law does not allow them to force her to put her child up for adoption. In fact, the law views her as an emancipated minor who has a child!
Mr. Ed, I think you sadly overestimate human nature. I think many parents might be 'pro-life' in theory but when confronted with the prospect of bringing their pregnant 16 yr old to the country club will be tempted to eliminate the 'dirty little secret'.
posted on 04.25.2005 12:47 PM29
I'll try this again:
Additionally, I think this issue has, in many cases, more to do with people revolting against the State circumventing parental rights than it does abortion proper -- even though it would reduce the number of abortions.
30
Come on Boon, now you are being dense for no reason. I'm pretty much agreeing with you. But you do know that your kid can't walk into a doctor's office and get treated without your consent. That's not the same as buying aspirin or any other OTC drug.
Are you sure about this? I'm not talking about plastic surgery (which many doctors may refuse a child without serious defects even with parental consent). And I'm not talking about the fact that many doctors will be uneasy about treating a minor without the parent present. Do you have actual law that says a 14 year old cannot walk into a doctors office, with say a sore throat, and purchase an exam?
Not necessarily. You seem to assume that the pro-life states would not enforce their laws and you have no proof of that. And the people caught would not be innocents since they are breaking state law.
I'm talking about a situtations like the anti-sodomy laws where the law is rarely or never enforced. In that case people 'caught' are more a function of randomness (or a vendetta) than actual justice. I think we all agree that criminal laws should not be on the books for 'show purposes', they should either be enforced consistently or scrubbed.
posted on 04.25.2005 12:56 PM31
Mr. Ed, I think you sadly overestimate human nature. I think many parents might be 'pro-life' in theory but when confronted with the prospect of bringing their pregnant 16 yr old to the country club will be tempted to eliminate the 'dirty little secret'.
Of course you know, Boon, that the majority of pro-lifers, like the majority of most groups in the country, are working class. Besides, we're constantly lead to believe that those country club types operate "above the law" anyway (with a wink and a nod and a few dollars in the coffers). So that argument can go both ways. What I think is an overestimation of human nature is the idea that even a minority of cases where a minor is forced to have an abortion would end up in the legal system.
posted on 04.25.2005 12:57 PM32
True, I was just trying to paint an illustration. I could have just as easily used Madonna's 'Pappa Don't Preach' video about a young girl who is pregnant and wants to keep the baby...even though she knows her working class father won't approve. But then I was afraid of using such a dated reference that may elude our hipper commentors here.
posted on 04.25.2005 1:01 PM33
Alas, once again my lack of hipness has been validated.
posted on 04.25.2005 1:11 PM34
"When the procedure is legalized, though, the supply increases and creates a greater demand for abortion services."
Legalized abortion creates the demand, is that what you are arguing?
So, similarly, during prohibition, nobody was interested in drinking alcohol, but, revoke the amendment, and, suddely, to everybody's surprise, the country, out of nowhere, develops an overwhelming taste for alcohol?
Get real.
posted on 04.25.2005 1:40 PM35
And, why the need for a hatchet job on democratic party members interested in reducing the number of abortions. Why not recognize the fact you share some common ground and take advantage of that?
posted on 04.25.2005 1:42 PM36
Next, since you now see how money can infect political policy, perhaps you'd be willing to discuss the manner in which money has infected other policies of our government, namely, Iraq.
Or is that monster a bit too scary.
posted on 04.25.2005 1:48 PM37
I'll ask it again because the first time I asked the locals just dissembled:
why are so many Christians opposed to birth control?
posted on 04.25.2005 2:15 PM38
RazorsKiss:
Unlike James Dobson, I tend to check my facts.
posted on 04.25.2005 2:18 PM39
Boonton
"Mr. Ed, I think you sadly overestimate human nature. I think many parents might be 'pro-life' in theory but when confronted with the prospect of bringing their pregnant 16 yr old to the country club will be tempted to eliminate the 'dirty little secret'."
Not if those parents know they will be executed for murder if they are caught conspiring to effectuate that elimination. Then they will be
'pro-life' in practice, too.
And what a wonderful world that will be!
We can call it, "Ed's Dream World." But I'm sure he'll protest against that. The real question is would he protest against a state passing a law which would allow the death penalty for a woman who conspired to terminate her pregnancy along with her parents who drove her across state lines or took her to the back alley and suppressed evidence of doing so.
And what would be the principaled reason for not executing such people in a state where the death penalty is legal? Child killers, after all, are among the most loathsome of society's predators ... unless the child is terminally ill, of course, and you live in Texas and can't find a hospital to pay to keep it breathing another day.
posted on 04.25.2005 2:28 PM40
Saleton
“To earn real credibility, [Democrats would] have to admit it's bad. They often walk up to that line, but they always blink.”
So, Saleton is a blatant liar and Joe proves it in his own post, a couple paragraphs later. Fascinating.
posted on 04.25.2005 2:31 PM41
Thanks to Rob Ryan, LL et al for making my point for me. To say that the United States is a bloodthirsty regime the likes of which the liberals have celebrated for the past 50 years as being "progressive" is, well, I was about to say that it is over the top, but it isn't, is it? It is typical. Just like when we make a point about how liberals have been on the wrong side of every significant moral and political issue of the modern age, and we're told we need to be "understanding".
I understand that liberals hate our country for electing George Bush twice, and not squishy amoralists like themselves. I understand that liberals hated Ronand Reagan for taking on Communism, until the wall fell and they clambered aboard a train that had already pulled into the station. I understand that liberals hate conservatives because we're "anti-choice", anti-gay-marriage rights, and believe that the will of the people is better seen to through our legislatures than through our courthouses. I understand that liberals hate Fox News because it gives people a choice in media sources.
And, what's more, I understand that, with each election cycle, liberals take an increasing pounding. The leading liberals politicians of today have been eligible for Social Security for 10 years. Who are they? Byrd? Reid? Kennedy? And what does the Democratic Party stand for today anyway? Abortion on demand, Big Labor, Gay Marriage, and the education lobby.
I may be vitriolic, even at times hateful. But understanding is something I have quite a bit of.
posted on 04.25.2005 2:34 PM42
BTW, I don't know a single Christian who is opposed to birth control. Not one. I go to a large church, and know hundreds of people. It has never been preached that our body is opposed to birth control. I've never heard anyone say so, even on an individual basis. In fact, many of us have had vasectomies.
We are opposed to handing out birth control in the schools--is that what you mean?
posted on 04.25.2005 2:36 PM43
why are so many Christians opposed to birth control?
Just asking for some clarification Lar. Because I don't know that many Christians who oppose all types of birth control. I know a very large number, on the other hand, of Christians who oppose abortifacients. We do so because an abortifacient form of birth control is one that takes a human life.
posted on 04.25.2005 2:53 PM44
why are so many Christians opposed to birth control?
There are different types of reasoning towards birth control and I'll try to lay out the reasons in general terms:
No BC whatsoever - belief that God has intended sexual activity only for procreation.
BC that prevents conception - God intended sexual activity for procreation, enjoyment, and bonding of a couple. Using BC to control times of pregnancy is okay.
Anything goes including abortion - the reasoning is all over the place here so I can't do it proper justification
I can see the view of the first group, although I fall into the second group. The third group loses me on their understanding of Scripture. Understand I'm just giving general descriptions and there are all sorts of variations of beliefs.
I guess if you want more, in what specific sense do you mean opposition to BC?
posted on 04.25.2005 2:57 PM45
The real question is would he protest against a state passing a law which would allow the death penalty for a woman who conspired to terminate her pregnancy along with her parents who drove her across state lines or took her to the back alley and suppressed evidence of doing so.
Why would I? After all, in such a "dream world" the death penalty would also be administered with perfect justice and due process for all. Nay, in such a dream world the death penalty would be unnecessary because people would behave.
As long as we're dreaming.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:00 PM46
Kevin W
"We are opposed to handing out birth control in the schools--is that what you mean?"
Um, how do you say, "No sheet sherlock"?
My understanding is that many Christians are opposed to handing out birth control in schools, among other places where there are many people who are having sex with some regularity and who are more likely to get pregnant without access to birth control and education about how to use it. Like Africa and other so-called "third world" countries.
I think Lutz has answered the question and puts himself in a group where maybe he has a colorable Biblical argument.
The first group -- no birth control, period -- seems to have been suckered in by some post-Biblical preaching that benefits only the preachers and not those preached to.
"And what does the Democratic Party stand for today anyway? Abortion on demand, Big Labor, Gay Marriage, and the education lobby."
aka Freedom from discrimination, Freedom from theocracy and fundamentalism, and Freedom from corporate tyranny and imperialism.
The vast majority of Americans agree with these positions. Like you, Kevin, a substantial portion of that majority is also easily frightened and can't readily distinguish lies and propoganda from truth. That is what the education is about (and that is why Republicans are opposed to a solid education -- a good portion of their current base believes that knowing a few Bible verses is good 'nuff).
Of course, if you were paying attention during the Schiavo debate, you already know this.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:17 PM47
I asked
"The real question is would [Mr. Ed] protest against a state passing a law which would allow the death penalty for a woman who conspired to terminate her pregnancy along with her parents who drove her across state lines or took her to the back alley and suppressed evidence of doing so."
And for the record, Mr. Ed dissembled in response to this question. I wonder why?
48
Well, then, it sounds like the liberals have a communication problem, then, wouldn't you say? If the majority of Americans are all for the same things liberals are for, then what's the problem? Corporate tyranny, yeah, that sounds pretty serious, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Imperialists? Well, maybe we're the worst imperialists EVER, in that we don't take anything out of a country after smashing it's armed forces. Freedom from discrimination? Wow--sign me up for that one too. And religious tyranny? Like the Taliban? Or do you refer to the Southern Baptist church in your hometown? There is a difference, methinks, but gosh, I guess we're all liberals now. So why aren't our guys getting elected?!?!?
Oh, I see, you answered it later in your post: Americans are easily frightened, can't recognize the wisdom of liberals, and all we need to remedy the problem is a few more hundred billion a year shoveled down the black hole of the public education system.
Well, give it a go, and let me know how things turn out, preferably among those with short memories. After all, we all know what side the liberals were on during the Cold War, right?
posted on 04.25.2005 3:25 PM49
Chris Lutz:
There is no limit to the availability of contraceptives in this country. You can buy condoms in bathrooms.Can I buy them in my high school's bathrooms? As Mr. Ed points out, where the answer is "yes," conservatives strongly oppose it.
I think this may have been sloppy wording on mumon's part; we need widespread contraception coupled with people being encouraged to use it. Read Joe's blog and others like it and you'll see that much of the right wing works to vilify contraception, even to the point of some likening oral contraception and EC to abortion. Availability is one thing, but when you've got eighteenth-century-minded people prominently suggesting that if you actually use contraception, it somehow makes you a bad person, it tends to temper the effect.
I know there are abortion providers in affluent areas. My point was that poorer areas are also servicedNo, that wasn't your point at all: you were attempting to paint abortion as deliberately and intentionally racist because a disproportionate number of abortions are obtainted by poor minorities. At least be honest about the implication you're trying to make.
By the way, minorities have abortions in disproportionate numbers because a disproportionate number of minorities are poor. Want to fix that equation? Attack the poverty side, not the abortion side. I swear, you Christians really need to start reading Jim Wallis...
Can a minor walk into a plastic surgery clinic and get surgery without the consent of a guardian?So abortion is the same thing as cosmetic surgery? I'm surprised that you feel that way... Obviously, you don't actually feel that way; you're trying to imply that if we don't even allow them to have cosmetic surgery without consent, why would we allow them to have something more substantive without consent.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it falls apart if you use an honest example. Would we allow a teenager to walk into an emergency room and have an emergency appendectomy without parental consent? You bet we would. We would in this case attempt to notify the parents, but we wouldn't wait for their approval. Now make the parents Christian Scientists. Should we allow the teen to die because their parents don't want the treatment?
All that aside, I'm actually not terribly comfortable with the parental consent situation. The only reason I oppose parental notification is because the alternative is even worse: coathanger abortions and dumpster babies. Don't think for a moment that it wouldn't happen. It has happened, and would happen even more if we required parental consent.
Heaven forbid that someone believes that the advice and consent role of the Senate doesn't mean that the minority can filibuster a vote once the candidate is out of committee.Where, exactly, does the Constitution say that justices should be guaranteed an up-or-down vote? Where does it say that 51% approval is sufficient? The constitution says that justices should be approved under the advice and consent of the Senate. That means the whole Senate, not just the party that happens to have control. Why should the rules of the Senate apply everywhere except judicial nominations? Conservative David Brooks got it right when he said that the revocation of the filibuster, even just for judicial appointments, would be disastrous.
By the way, at the risk of getting off-topic, would someone please explain to me how lowering the bar for judicial approvals is going to result in fewer activist/extremist justices? If anything, I expect it would result in more, not fewer.
However, I don't believe the law would have been ignored in states that had laws banning it.History disagrees with you. Unless, of course, you think back-alley abortions are a made-up boogeyman and didn't really happen.
Kevin W:
Liberals and Democrats believe in abortion. Period.Umm, so do many conservatives. This is not a party-line issue, at least not within the electorate. Only 47% of Republicans are in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. And 26% of Democrats agree with them.
Terry:
Can't we just go back to leaving abortion to the states?Well, if we did, then we'd have the interstate squabbles concerning people crossing state lines to obtain abortions. It wouldn't solve the problem at all. Besides, if abortion were made illegal in your state and only your state, would that satisfy you? I doubt it.
Mr. Ed:
Although parental notification can do nothing but reduce the number of abortions.Apart from creating a black market for unsafe, illegal abortions, and for RU-486, and increasing the number of dumpster babies, you're right, it can do nothing else. But who cares about those inevitabilities when you can stake legal claim to "the high road?" posted on 04.25.2005 3:26 PM
50
What I find very interesting is to use the tragedy happening Africa as a reason to pass out birth control to children. One of the countries that has had the most "success" against the onslaught of AIDS, Uganda, has been "preaching" abstinence to their children in schools. What a concept! If you don't have sex, you won't get AIDS! Also, if you don't have sex, you won't get pregnant! Wow.
And contraception doesn't work all of the time folks, so passing out faulty material to kids won't prevent pregnancy. I know 3 couples personally that used "protection" and got pregnant.
Lastly, with the whole this whole abortion debate, we are talking about snuffing out the lives of innocent humans. The heart starts beating at 6 weeks.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:27 PM51
Boonton:
I'm talking about a situtations like the anti-sodomy laws where the law is rarely or never enforced.
I am assuming that a law restricting abortion would be enforced.
Are you sure about this?
From an ACLU guide for teens:
In Ohio, a minor {under 18} who understands the risks and benefits of
proposed care can consent to: emergency health care, limited
outpatient mental health care, alcohol and drug abuse treatment,
testing for HIV/AIDS, and family planning services. For other
treatments, a minor must generally get a parent’s consent. Since
a parent who does not consent does not have to pay, the minor
will generally be responsible for the bills.
Certain types of minors, generally those who are married or
emancipated, can consent to all of their own health care.
52
Unless that sore throat is life threatening, the teens is going to need a parent to provide consent.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:31 PM53
Kevin W:
BTW, I don't know a single Christian who is opposed to birth control.Then why the big fuss over the "Pharmacists' Freedom of Conscience" bills that are sweeping through the states? Most of these pharmacists don't just want to refuse RU-486 prescriptions; they want to refuse to fill prescriptions for the pill and for EC. Or maybe they're only opposed to that kind of birth control, and not birth control in general? posted on 04.25.2005 3:31 PM
54
I'll let pass the "third world" quotation marks, as if life in the Sudan weren't less preferential than in the "first world" countries. I'll also let pass the notion that children with ready access to marijuana, booze, and crack cocaine just break down in tears when denied a ribbed condom for the party next weekend. But it's hard to imagine that the "third world" isn't "educated" on contraceptive use. Is it that difficult to put your penis in a latex bag? Do you believe that they try to put them over their heads?
Typical of liberals again--they believe they can cure AIDS in Africa with free condom distribution, as long as it comes with a legion of Peace Corps volunteers to demonstrate, village by village, the proper assembly instructions.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:33 PM55
Kevin W.: "In fact, many of us have had vasectomies."
I would encourage this.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:35 PM56
By the way, my compatriot Kevin T. Keith does a nice job of responding to this.
Kevin W:
But it's hard to imagine that the "third world" isn't "educated" on contraceptive use. Is it that difficult to put your penis in a latex bag? Do you believe that they try to put them over their heads?Strawman often? It's not just an issue of knowing how to use them. It's also an issue of overcoming long-standing social stigmas associated with them. And, in many cases, yes, even knowing that such techniques are available. posted on 04.25.2005 3:36 PM
58
I've never heard of the Pharmacists' Freedom of Conscience bills, but why should I oppose them? If a pharmacist has religious or moral conviction about dispensing a certain drug, why should he be required to? Find another pharmacist. Sounds simple to me. This falls under the "religious freedom" that I hear out of liberals all the time, until a real-life example gets in the way.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:39 PM59
"And contraception doesn't work all of the time folks, so passing out faulty material to kids won't prevent pregnancy. I know 3 couples personally that used "protection" and got pregnant."
Where would be without geniuses like this?
posted on 04.25.2005 3:40 PM60
tgirsch:
No, that wasn't your point at all: you were attempting to paint abortion as deliberately and intentionally racist because a disproportionate number of abortions are obtainted by poor minorities. At least be honest about the implication you're trying to make.
The main point was as I stated. The snide little aside was the truth that PP as started by Sanger was based on racist/eugenics ideas.
Now make the parents Christian Scientists. Should we allow the teen to die because their parents don't want the treatment?
You are comparing having a baby under healthy circumstances to a life and death situation? And you say my example is bad. Unless there are medical complications, pregnancy is not an emergency situation.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:42 PM61
Oh, I see. So now we're going to dispatch thousands of people to Africa to "overcome long-standing social stigma" associated with their use.
Sounds a little imperialistic to me. And a little expensive. But hey, nothing stopping you from getting a complimentary hundred boxes of Trojans and heading out to Lagos on the next plane.
And how is it a strawman? LL brought it up . . .
WAIT! I get it! Anything you don't agree with is a strawman, right?
Fair enough. And good luck in 2006.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:43 PM62
Kevin W
"I've never heard of the Pharmacists' Freedom of Conscience bills"
Mail travels slowly through networks of caves. Try getting out of your bunker every once in a while.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:46 PM63
And for the record, Mr. Ed dissembled in response to this question. I wonder why?
For the record, you would have called any answer short of a direct yes or no "dissembling". But, tell me this Lar, yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
posted on 04.25.2005 3:48 PM64
No bunker, but still don't know why you find the bills objectionable. Unless you believe that people should be compelled to act in contravention of their religious principles, just because they happen to be pharmacists.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:49 PM65
"If a pharmacist has religious or moral conviction about dispensing a certain drug, why should he be required to? Find another pharmacist. Sounds simple to me."
Everything sounds simple to you Kevin.
Of course, everything from you sounds simple, too.
What a coincidence.
"This falls under the "religious freedom" that I hear out of liberals all the time, until a real-life example gets in the way."
Like that little inscription on all US currency that I'm forced to use. Oh -- I guess I could always just pay with my credit card or checks.
Yeah, it's all so simple.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:51 PM66
Larry Lord:
"Where would be without geniuses like this?"
Having trouble understanding the argument, or are you refusing to debate? Name calling is easy, so is sarcasm.
The point is that instead of encouraging sexual activity by passing out condoms to children, maybe we should look at alternatives. Why is teaching kids to be abstinent such a scary thing? Why should I trust a teacher, administrator, or school nurse to counsel my 13 year old about waiting and at the same time giving them a rubber? Or maybe 13 year olds should be having sex and as parents we shouldn't have a say.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:52 PM67
Kevin W
"Unless you believe that people should be compelled to act in contravention of their religious principles, just because they happen to be pharmacists."
How about the fireman who lets a Catholic Church burn down because it's a "false church"?
That okay, too? I mean, why should firemen be compelled to act in contravention of their religious principles, just because they happen to be firemen?
You tell me Kevin: why should anyone be expected to do anything just because they've accepted money for their employment?
68
tgirsch:
Can I buy them in my high school's bathrooms? As Mr. Ed points out, where the answer is "yes," conservatives strongly oppose it.
Actually I said middle school. But, yes, I would oppose condom machines in high school restrooms as well.
Read Joe's blog and others like it and you'll see that much of the right wing works to vilify contraception, even to the point of some likening oral contraception and EC to abortion.
Some oral contraceptives are abortive.
Apart from creating a black market for unsafe, illegal abortions, and for RU-486, and increasing the number of dumpster babies, you're right, it can do nothing else. But who cares about those inevitabilities when you can stake legal claim to "the high road?"
And making theft illegal creates an unsafe environment to thieves. So what? Does a dumpster baby have it worse than an aborted baby?
posted on 04.25.2005 3:55 PM69
These threads are a bit difficult because it feels like we covered this ground numerous times before (and we have). Here's a talking points summary of my criticisms of Joe's post:
1. Joe misreads and doesn't understand Say's law. Supply creates its own total demand...not demand for specific products and services.
2. The abortion 'industry' is not much of an industry by any objective measure.
3. There is no evidence that abortion is a created demand by the financial interests of abortion providers.
I didn't touch upon Stephen Levitt's work on abortion or Joe's interesting take on it. Levitt is probably one of the most interesting and offbeat economists alive today. His argument is that in 1975 conceptions went up while births went down due to increased abortions.
That's a logical conclusion. the fact is one of the implications of modernization is that technology has reduced the consquences dramatically. The sexual revolution didn't make people more immoral, the invention of the pill did. Or, rather, people would have been more immoral in the old days but nature had imposed a forceful threat on them to keep it clean(er).
The genie, however, isn't going to be put back in the bottle.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:56 PM70
Saff
"Or maybe 13 year olds should be having sex and as parents we shouldn't have a say."
News flash: you don't have a say and unless you lock up your 13 year old or his/her genitals, they will have unprotected sex IF THEY WANT TO.
Wake up and stop trying to legislate your freaking religious beliefs. It's the 21st century, not the 6th.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:57 PM71
Mr. Ed
"But, yes, I would oppose condom machines in high school restrooms as well."
How about urinals Ed? Urinals encourage gay guys to peek at each other's privates, don't they? Surely God doesn't approve of that.
posted on 04.25.2005 3:59 PM72
Ed
"And making theft illegal creates an unsafe environment to thieves."
Hilarious. Women with undesired pregancies are akin to thieves in Ed's strange universe.
Now we can understand why many women find evangelical "promise keeping" men especially misogynous.
posted on 04.25.2005 4:03 PM73
tgrisch:
Then why the big fuss over the "Pharmacists' Freedom of Conscience" bills that are sweeping through the states? Most of these pharmacists don't just want to refuse RU-486 prescriptions; they want to refuse to fill prescriptions for the pill and for EC. Or maybe they're only opposed to that kind of birth control, and not birth control in general?
Actually, although I believe there is a segment of the population who would refuse any form of contraceptive on the grounds that no clinical indication exists for them, for the majority of pharmacists in this camp the prevailing issue is the dispensing of abortifacient drugs.
posted on 04.25.2005 4:04 PM74
Larry Lord:
"Wake up and stop trying to legislate your freaking religious beliefs. It's the 21st century, not the 6th."
Oh, I see. I didn't say anything about religion. I just thought it may be common sense. You still didn't answer the argument that in some countries (Uganda, in particular) the teen pregnancy rate dropped and also the rate of AIDS infections.
So we pass out condoms to 13 year olds? How about a 12 year old? An 8 year old? Is there any line where we should discourage intercourse? Or, should it be free for anyone at any age?
75
You're right, I like things simple. For example, if a pharmacist doesn't want to dispense a drug on religious grounds, he shouldn't have to. Or, 38% of my income going to taxes is enough.
Or how about: the idea of kids not being able to get their hands on condoms is absolutely laughable. How about simple geopolitics?--You can give out all the free condoms you want in Africa, and in won't stop AIDS there. As an aside, you can send every spare morsel of food on planet earth to Africa, and it won't cure starvation there.
How about simple math? Like George Bush won the election by over 3 million votes, with continued majorities in both houses of Congress and in governors' mansions for the Republican party.
Yeah, I like 'em simple.
posted on 04.25.2005 4:04 PM76
Hilarious. Women with undesired pregancies are akin to thieves in Ed's strange universe.
What's amazing is that Larry has the nerve to comment on anyone else's lack of intelligence. Let me break it down for you, Lar. In my analogy, the "women with undesired pregnancies" would be akin to people who have needs for which they cannot pay. Women who get illegal abortions would be akin to thieves. That analogy works for the people who see a difference between people who have needs for which they cannot pay and thieves. Apparently you cannot.
posted on 04.25.2005 4:11 PM77
In America, abortion isn’t merely a political issue; it’s a multi-million dollar industry. Planned Parenthood alone has made nearly half a billion dollars in profit, mainly from providing abortion-related services, in the past eighteen years. The industry is extremely lucrative and lobbies hard to protect their cash cow. Politicians can hide behind the language of “rights” but what it comes down to it, abortion is about money. If the Democratic Party is seriously committed to reducing the number of abortions, though, they should start by paying attention to Say’s law. /em>
Mumon is correct. You are naive if you think that "conservative" organizations don't also make a bundle off of the abortion issue. Their money comes in the form of book sales, speaking fees and the selling of advertising during radio and television shows, as well as web sales. Just go to Focus on the Family's website. Research any given topic and soon you will be asked to pay for more information. The real money comes from radio advertising sales of course. A national program with a prime demographic audience such as FOF can command top price for spot placements. And of course, there are the "donations", "subscriptions", etc. Do you think Pat Robertson's television networks are in it just for spreading the Gospel? They still have to keep investors and shareholders happy you know. It's Big Business.
Speaking of strange bedfellows, I don't suppose there is anyone here with beliefs similar to mine in that I think abortion should be severely restricted and difficult to get. But I also think that condoms and other contraceptives and sex education should be widely disseminated and made available to anyone physically capable of having sex.
To me this is the "sensible" way to address the abortion issue. But no one seems particularly interested in "sensible".
posted on 04.25.2005 4:12 PM78
You're right, I like things simple. For example, if a pharmacist doesn't want to dispense a drug on religious grounds, he shouldn't have to.
In the cases mentioned not only did the pharmacist refuse to fill the script but they also refused to hand it back to the patient so she could go elsewhere. If you want to go the libertarian route and let anyone be a pharmacist then go ahead but pharmacists enjoy a gov't granted monopoly (don't have a licence, you can't compete with a pharacist). I'm willing to make allowances for one's religious convictions but there is a point at which a person should be fired if they aren't willing to do their jobs.
posted on 04.25.2005 4:15 PM79
Well, this whole thread is indicative of how fortunate we are to live in a land of 50 states, and with unrestricted freedom of movement.
For example, I could choose to live in a state surrounded by enlightened people who believe that if a fetus is fortunate enough to make it through the first two trimesters without being subjected to the whims of "maternal" "choice", and make it through the third without being partially removed from the womb and having a pair of surgical scissors plunged into the base of its skull before having its brains suctioned out, it is the obligation then of the state to ensure cradle-to-grave education regarding all matters sexual, including free contraception from the age of 5 on, free abortions for all their friends, free Viagra, and the death penalty for any pharmacist, educator, or pastor who isn't completely on board with the whole program.
These places would be referred to as "blue states".
And, how did you like that run-on sentence?
posted on 04.25.2005 4:16 PM80
Speaking of strange bedfellows, I don't suppose there is anyone here with beliefs similar to mine in that I think abortion should be severely restricted and difficult to get. But I also think that condoms and other contraceptives and sex education should be widely disseminated and made available to anyone physically capable of having sex.
I agree, it seems sensible to dodge the moral problem of abortion by avoiding situtation where people might be inclined to seek one! If you're not pregnant then the abortion debate can remain academic for you rather than personal!
One of the things I thought about in my alternate universe scenero would be to recognize it is not just that society impose the full burden of an unwanted pregnancy on the people least able to handle it. In an alternate universe where the pro-lifers focused their efforts on eliminating abortion rather than simply winning legal battles concrete proposals would be out there to share the burden of unwanted pregnancies. This could even go as far as cash payments to women to choose life.
posted on 04.25.2005 4:19 PM81
Abortion is not about money. Abortion is about convenience. It so happens that money buys convenience.
But politically, abortion is the Democratic Party in a statistical sense. A multiple regression of state-by-state demographics and other statistics reveals that 80% of the variance in state-level voting patterns is explained by a single factor - the number of abortions performed within those states. The number of abortions simply statistically overwhelms everything else. States with high abortion rates tend strongly to vote Democratic, very low rates tend strongly Republican, etc. Urban areas, obviously blue, tend to have very high abortion rates. Look at the data for yourselves. You don't need least-squares modeling to see it. The modeling just gives you the percentage cited above.
[Now please, before you start wetting yourselves and squalling that correlation does not imply causation - I know that. I am not saying that having abortions causes someone to vote Democratic. If you think I did, read the first paragraph again and repeat as often as necessary.]
So Democrats cannot, politically, give up on abortion. They can mouth platitudes about rarity, tragedy, etc. to appeal to gullibles in the red states, but now that they have the tiger's tail they cannot let go. That's why they brook no disagreement within the party on the abortion issue (oh, sure, go ahead and cite some oddball Demo party outsider that's pro-life to counter that point - and you've just re-made the point).
Democrats could rename themselves the Abortion Party and be better described to the average voter.
One interesting side effect of all this that has been pointed out tongue-in-cheek by James Taranto, is that the Democrats are demographically marginalizing themselves. As Rob Ryan implies, and probably correctly, as children reach voting age they tend to vote like their parents did. Abortions in the numbers we see today in the US are demographically meaningful. UPI pointed out in 2000 that
... for the 19 states with the most white babies per 1,000 white adults, every single state voted for Bush. Overall, states carried by Bush had white birthrates 16 percent higher than states carried by Gore.
If Taranto turns out to be correct, or even partially so, the irony will be exquisite.
Mr. Maddox:
Even the Democrats secretly know Paul Ehrlich and his Malthusian compatriots are idiots. They just can't admit it without getting crossways with the enviroloon contingent.
posted on 04.25.2005 4:19 PM82
Ed
"Let me break it down for you, Lar. In my analogy, the "women with undesired pregnancies" would be akin to people who have needs for which they cannot pay. Women who get illegal abortions would be akin to thieves."
Um ...yeah. Thanks for clarifying your misogynist position.
posted on 04.25.2005 4:20 PM83
Abortions in the numbers we see today in the US are demographically meaningful. UPI pointed out in 2000 that
1. They are only meaningful if they are causing people to have fewer kids. This is not as clear cut as it may initially sound. If a woman wants to have two kids in her life then she will do it. In an abortion friendly environment this may simply mean two kids and one abortion. In an abortion unfriendly environment it may mean two kids and being extra careful with birth control pills. It doesn't follow that if abortion was made illegal she would opt to have 3 kids instead.
2. Yea states with lots of whites went for Bush. That's more to do with the fact that Bush does much better in the white demographic than Kerry/Gore did.
posted on 04.25.2005 4:24 PM84
In the cases mentioned not only did the pharmacist refuse to fill the script but they also refused to hand it back to the patient so she could go elsewhere.
Actually, Boon, I don't know how widespread that practice is. Most of the cases I've read of involve a pharmacist simply refusing to honor prescriptions for abortifacient drugs. I don't doubt that it has happened but I'm guessing its been pretty rare.
As always, I hate to see these things come down to legislation. But I would prefer to see this new legislation than to see the pharmacist demographic changed by attrition.
posted on 04.25.2005 4:25 PM85
Kevin W
"I could choose to live in a state blah blah having a pair of surgical scissors plunged into the base of its skull before having its brains suctioned out"
So now we know your position on abortion. Can we have your position on "teen sex"? Please don't spare us the juicy details.
posted on 04.25.2005 4:28 PM86
George makes an interesting point above, which is bad news, long-term, for the Dems.
In the 10 fastest-growing states in the country, Kerry won only one of the them (Washington, #10). He managed only five of the top 25.
Looking past the short view, Repubs have much to be happy about.
posted on 04.25.2005 4:28 PM87
Um ...yeah. Thanks for clarifying your misogynist position.
Care to point out the misogyny?
posted on 04.25.2005 4:29 PM88
My views on teen sex:
Teenagers are too young to have sex outside of marriage. If they do, they can buy their own condoms.
Simple, but, if you remember, I like that.
posted on 04.25.2005 4:29 PM89
Mr. Ed
"Actually, Boon, I don't know how widespread that practice is. Most of the cases I've read of involve a pharmacist simply refusing to honor prescriptions for abortifacient drugs. I don't doubt that it has happened but I'm guessing its been pretty rare."
Actually in one of the most widely publicized cases, the pharmacist blatantly lied about the availability of the drug.
That's right: lied.
L-I-E.
That liar is the head of the group promoting these bogus bills for those poor Christian pharmacists who need a little extra help pretending that Roy Moore is president.
Evidently, it takes more than a small army of preachers to keep the brainwashing potent. Legislators are also necessary to keep the cult growing.
posted on 04.25.2005 4:32 PM90
Ed wants abortion to be illegal.
Ed says "Women who get illegal abortions would be akin to thieves."
Ed asks me to point out is misogyny.
I just did. Simply, as a gesture to Kevin.
posted on 04.25.2005 4:36 PM91
Actually in one of the most widely publicized cases, the pharmacist blatantly lied about the availability of the drug.
Ever wonder just why it was such a highly publicized case, Lar? Come on, you mentioned it in your post, you can figure this one out.
Yep, that's right, because it was the head of the organization. Now, how many other cases are there? Come on, Lar, the clock is ticking.
Evidently, it takes more than a small army of preachers to keep the brainwashing potent. Legislators are also necessary to keep the cult growing.
Was this supposed to mean something or do you just like to spout off non sequiturs every so often?
posted on 04.25.2005 4:37 PM93
Ed wants abortion to be illegal. Ed says "Women who get illegal abortions would be akin to thieves." Ed asks me to point out is misogyny. I just did...
Almost right. Ed wants abortion except for cases of rape or physical danger to the mother to be illegal. Do I have to explain that one to you too Lar?
94
boonton:
Of the 25 states above the median in white fertility, Bush won 24 in 2004. Michigan was the only counterexample. That is why Republican inroads into the Hispanic vote are such a political threat (Hispanics tend to have high fertility rates) and why the Democrats must at any cost whatever, hang on to the African-American vote.
posted on 04.25.2005 5:00 PM95
Recent poll reported in Washington Post (via kos):
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling:
Approve Disapprove
A. Social Security 31 64
B. Iraq 42 56
C. Economy 40 57
D. Terrorism 56 41
E. Energy Policy 35 54
So Kevin was right: I guess Republicans are looking better in the long term. Because in the short term they look like doo-doo.
Note the only descrepency in the trend: it's the diaper-soiling types that love our tough-talkin' Cowboy Chimpy.
posted on 04.25.2005 5:13 PM97
The Saff:
One of the countries that has had the most "success" against the onslaught of AIDS, Uganda, has been "preaching" abstinence to their children in schools.Evidence, please.
Kevin W:
If a pharmacist has religious or moral conviction about dispensing a certain drug, why should he be required to? Find another pharmacist. Sounds simple to me.Because it's his or her JOB, that's why. Prescription medications are tightly regulated, and there are only a limited number of sources where I can get them. A licensed physician has deemed a medication appropriate and/or necessary, and it's not the pharmacist's place to override the doctor's decision by withholding the medication. You don't want to fill birth control prescriptions? Don't be a pharmacist.
If I get a job as a cashier at Wal-Mart and refuse to ring ammunition because I'm "morally opposed" to gun ownership, I'll get fired, and that's as it should be. Why should we allow pharmacists to selectively sell or not sell things their employers stock?
And as to your "go to a different pharmacist" argument, I thought it was supposed to be liberals who were the big-city elitists. What about the woman in the small town where the local Wal-Mart is the only pharmacy? What is she to do when her pharmacist refuses to fill hre prescription? What is the AIDS patient to do when his pharmacist decides that he's "morally opposed" to treating AIDS because it's a "punishment from God" and so refuses to fill AZT?
This falls under the "religious freedom" that I hear out of liberals all the time, until a real-life example gets in the way.You have every right to practice your religion as you see fit. You have no right to use a position of power to impose your religious views upon others.
And how is it a strawman?Because nobody argued that the problem was people not knowing how to use condoms. That was a charicature made up out of whole cloth by you.
Anything you don't agree with is a strawman, right?No, a strawman is you attacking an argument that nobody actually made. Which is what you did there. And did again here:
So now we're going to dispatch thousands of people to Africa to "overcome long-standing social stigma" associated with their use.Moving on:
Or, 38% of my income going to taxes is enough.If 38% of your income went to taxes, you must be doing pretty well. I make well over the median income, and at most 28.9% of my income went to taxes, and that assumes I spent every penny of after-tax income on taxable goods within the state of TN, at our 9.25% sales tax rate. My federal income tax was barely over 12% of my pre-standard-deduction gross income.
How about simple math? Like George Bush won the election by over 3 million votes, with continued majorities in both houses of Congress and in governors' mansions for the Republican party.Or that the 3 million votes represents a margin of victory of less than 2.5%. Or that the 55 Republican Senators who currently control the Senate represent only 48% of the people. For some reason, conservatives never mention these things when they talk about their "overwhelming majority."
In the 10 fastest-growing states in the country, Kerry won only one of the themNever mind the fact that they're the "fastest growing" states because they're relatively small. Wyoming could double in population overnight, easily making it the fastest-growing state in the union, and that wouldn't change the fact that nobody lives there. :)
Chris Lutz:
Unless there are medical complications, pregnancy is not an emergency situation.You'll no doubt disagree, but something that ruins your life is every bit as much an emergency as something that ends your life. No, I'm not saying that every unintended pregnancy ruins lives, but many do.
Mr. Ed:
Some oral contraceptives are abortive.If by "abortive" you mean "sometimes prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus," then they all are. Of course, fertilized eggs fail to implant for natural reasons all the time, so I guess we better install filters in all the toilets to capture and save those holocausted unborn.
Does a dumpster baby have it worse than an aborted baby?Actually, yes. Unless you think a slow, painful death is equivalent to a quick, relatively painless one.
Actually, although I believe there is a segment of the population who would refuse any form of contraceptive on the grounds that no clinical indication exists for them, for the majority of pharmacists in this camp the prevailing issue is the dispensing of abortifacient drugs.Except that, as evidenced above, you (and they) include most forms of prescription oral contraception in the "abortifacents" category. Which brings me right back to my original point. posted on 04.25.2005 5:36 PM
98
The Saff:
I should clarify my request for evidence. Specifically, I want evidence that:
- Uganda is indeed the most successful African nation (or one of the most successful) in fighting the spread of AIDS.
- That preaching absitnence is the only thing they're doing (or, at least, the primary thing) to slow the spread.
- That people actually following that abstinence advice is the thing primarily responsible for slowing the spread.
For the record, I'm not aware of anyone who opposes teaching and encouraging abstinence. That's never been the issue. It's abstinence-only education (i.e., education that doesn't even teach about birth control at all) that is the hot-button.
posted on 04.25.2005 5:41 PM99
I should correct myself from above. Apparently, several of the fastest-growing states are indeed large ones, most notably Florida. But I wonder if it will sustain its growth rate once the baby boomers who retired there start to pass on...
For those interested, the growth rate story to which Kevin W refers is here. However, Kevin conveniently fails to mention this part:
posted on 04.25.2005 5:48 PM"It's the New America," Frey says. "It's taking population and political clout from the highly urbanized Old America."
But more people means change, and politicians should pay attention to the constant shifts of population in booming states, Frey says.
"The turbulent demographic change occurring in New America makes its political future much more up for grabs," Frey says. "Two groups which favor Democrats, Hispanics and Gen Xers, are a significant part of (its) recent growth."
100
It should also be noted that by itself, the growth of the red states means nothing; their growth could indeed indicate bad things for the Democrats, or it could mean bad things for Republicans, since more populous areas tend to vote Democratic, and high growth in red states means they're becoming more populous. Only time will tell.
The fact that Kerry only won one of the ten fastest-growing states is less telling than the fact that he won six of the ten most populous states.
posted on 04.25.2005 5:57 PM