There are two broad political camps in the pro-life community: the incrementalists and the absolutists.
The absolutists are political idealists. They want a "Human Life Amendment" and a Federal ban on all abortion. Some of them don't even want Roe overturned since it would give the power to the States.
Incremenatlists, on the other hand, are political realists. They know that the issue of abortion won't disappear when Roe is overturned. Their position is that the best that can be hoped for is that the issue be returned to the people and to the individual states.
Once in the states, they will have 50 separate fights, some of which they will win (Louisiana, South Dakota) and many they will lose (New York, California). It's a fight that will take several decades, perhaps even a century, before the moral issue is completely resolved.
I am a political realist, which is why I am an incrementalist. Because I'm a political realist, I also believe than in the long run electing Rudy Giuliani will be even more detrimental to the pro-life cause than would a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Before I explain my reasoning, let me clear up one of the most common counter-claims that is used to justify Giuliani as the "lesser evil." Many well-intentioned pro-lifers believe that it doesn't matter if Giuliani is pro-abortion so long as he appoints judges to the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe. That point was raised yesterday in a post by my friend Justin Taylor:
I think there are good reasons to believe that Giuliani would appoint constructionalists and originalists, as he has promised to do--in part because I think he will want to placate the Republican base. (Even if he does this for only one term in order to win reelection, which I think is doubtful, then the next point still stands.)
I completely agree and think that Giuliani will indeed appoint "strict constructionist" judges as he understands the term. Pro-lifers hear that term and assume it means a justice that would overturn Roe. But Giuliani has been clear--crystal clear--that this is not the case.
Back in April, Giuliani was interviewed by CNN reporter Dana Bash on this topic:
BASH: And many people see that as code to conservatives who say that means that he is giving me a wink and a nod saying he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. Do you want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
GIULIANI: Dana, I don't wink and nod. I'm a very direct person. I tell people what I think. Sometimes I get in trouble for it.
BASH: So what is the direct answer?
GIULIANI: The direct answer is, a strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade. They can look at it and say, wrongly decided 30 years ago, whatever it is, we will overturn it. They can…
BASH: But what is your personal deal on Roe v. Wade?
GIULIANI: They can look at it and say, it has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent. Conservatives can come to that conclusion as well.
If Giuliani gets elected, pro-lifers can't complain that he lied to them about appointing "strict constructionist" judges. He'll be able to say that as he understands the term a judge can be a strict constructionist and still believe--as he does--that a woman has a constitutionally protected right to abortion.
Any pro-lifer who thinks Giuliani's position on judges makes him the "lesser evil" is only fooling themselves. (Pro-lifers should keep in mind that Justice Alito can't necessarily be counted on to overturn Roe either.)
During that same interview, Giuliani also restated that he believes in public funding of abortion:
BASH: So you support taxpayer money or public funding for abortions in some cases?
GIULIANI: If it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, yes, I mean, if that the status of the law, then I would, yes.
Giuliani supports abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion. He supports public funding of both abortion and embryo destructive research. Giuliani is unapologetically in favor of the right to end the life of the unborn. His position is almost indistinguishable from that of Hillary Clinton.
Anyone who thinks that Giuliani would disregard his deeply held commitment to abortion rights to placate a constituency who he despises doesn't know the former Mayor of New York. He will relish sticking it to social conservatives, a group that will have done nothing to help him get elected. He will reason that his socially liberal positions will help win over enough Democrats to help him during his reelection efforts. And besides, if conservatives were willing to compromise and vote him in as the "lesser evil" in 2008, why would they do otherwise in 2012? Will the Democratic candidate be any better?
So on the issue of abortion, there will not be a shred of difference between Clinton and Giuliani. What will be different is that Clinton and the Democrats are already members of what Ramesh Ponnuru calls the "party of death":
The party of death should not be confused with a conventional political party: It has members (and opponents) within both of America's major political parties, although it is much stronger today among Democrats than Republicans.
However, if Giuliani is elected everything changes. Despite what a plank in the party platform might say, when the de facto leader of the GOP is pro-abortion then the party has crossed the line over into the "party of death."
A pro-abortion Republican President would be devastating, leaving the pro-life movement without a viable political party. As a friend of mine recently wrote in a personal email:
No more cynical notion can be imagined than the idea that a President has nothing to say about abortion policy. Theodore Roosevelt coined the phrase "bully pulpit." And the ability to communicate directly to the American people has been the hallmark of every successful President since.
People who make this false argument must have been asleep during the Reagan Presidency. President Reagan chose to defend unborn children in his State of the Union messages. Those addresses are delivered to the broadest audience imaginable. People who pay no attention to politics at least watch that. And they heard their President siding with them on this fundamental question of justice.
President Reagan did not stop there. He regularly addressed the Right to Life March. He issued a host of Presidential Proclamations defending the sanctity of human life. He wrote hundreds of letters affirming his commitment to unborn children.
He appointed hundreds of pro-life officials to his administration. He thereby legitimized an entire social movement that the academic/media/juridical elites were desperately trying to marginalize. There was even a pro-lifers' Inaugural Ball in 1985. If people are policy, Ronald Reagan made pro-life people policy makers.
Reagan was the first sitting President to publish a book of any kind. The President chose to write "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation." It was not to him simply an issue among issues. It was a question of simple justice. A nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal cannot long endure if it denies those great principles upon which it was founded.
Even worse than Rudy Giuliani's stance on the great questions is the bottomless cynicism of those who say it doesn't matter. If it truly does not matter, than politics--democracy itself--does not matter.
During the past year that I've been in D.C. I have noticed the attitude among Republicans to the pro-life cause veers between apathy and scorn. Even the "conservatives" in this town tend to become more exercised over "earmarks" than they do the destruction of human life in the womb.
Still, I am shocked that Republicans are willing to signal their utter disregard and disrespect for social conservatives by considering Giuliani as a tenable candidate. They used to think we were a force that had to placacted. Now, they have gauged our resolve and realized they can treat us with impunity since we will set aside our principles in the name of pragmatism.
Recently, several Christian conservative leaders attempted to fire a warning shot by making it clear that Giuliani is a completely unacceptable candidate. And how did the social conservative movement respond? By denouncing these committed pro-lifers and reassuring the GOP that, though we may not like it, we'll willingly vote for a pro-abortion candidate since he is the "lesser evil."
I can only speak for myself but I want to make the message clear: If Republicans choose to spurn the field of pro-life candidates, chooses to spit on the values of social conservatives, and chooses to remake the GOP into the "party of death", they will do so without me. This isn't a bluff; it’s a statement of principle. I'm a pro-life conservative who will never cast a ballot for a pro-abortion liberal.
Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. And God help this country if social conservatives aren't willing to stand with me.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3960
1
Joe, I totally agree. It would be better in the long run for the Republicans to lose the election and learn from it than to risk decades of pro choice republicanism.
However, are you forgetting that we also elect congressmen? Just b/c the republican president is pro choice doesn't mean that the whole party has gone to hell. But perhaps it could push it that way.
posted on 10.11.2007 2:15 AM2
Joe,
You've done a good job of explaining why it will be a shame if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee. You never got around to explaining why it will be worse than Hillary Clinton.
posted on 10.11.2007 2:29 AM3
Joe,
You've convinced me and here I stand with you.
In a couple of months ive gone from Hugh Hewitt's position of, "If Rudy is our primary candidate, or whoever is our primary candidate, i'll vote for him." to, "I'm not so sure anymore." to this morning. You've finished my 180 turn. Hugh Hewitt is wrong. It would be better in the long run if Hillary beats Rudy and the pro-life movement continues to have a political party in the United States.
posted on 10.11.2007 4:55 AM4
Bravo!
The next step -- how to communicate to more evangelicals that our principles must be unifying, not "our" party.
Collin
posted on 10.11.2007 7:23 AMhttp://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
5
Drbill:
You've done a good job of explaining why it will be a shame if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee. You never got around to explaining why it will be worse than Hillary Clinton.
What about the bit where Joe writes:
A pro-abortion Republican President would be devastating, leaving the pro-life movement without a viable political party.
Right now, social conservatives consider the Democrats a lost cause, but they can still imagine that the Republicans actually care about their issues. A Guiliani presidency would confirm that the GOP sees social conservatives as just a source of votes to be exploited and ignored.
I'm not convinced that shattering illusions is a bad thing, but I guess you could conclude that having an enemy where they expected an ally would be more demoralizing for the soc cons than a Democratic president.
The probability of a Guiliani presidency is proportional to the fear of terrorism in the electorate. If people are scared of Bin Laden and the nasty Muslims, then the death of fetuses somewhere else seems much less compelling. If I were a soc con, I'd be doing all I could to tone down the panic that is fostered by the current administration and lots of right wing blogs.
posted on 10.11.2007 9:02 AM6
Joe seems to have basically adopted my 'game theory' arguments I presented earlier in his last post about Rudy. Geesh, a little credit would be nice.
posted on 10.11.2007 9:09 AM7
So you guys think the Republican Party would lock-step its way toward the position held by Rudy Guiliani, even indeed that he expects the Republican Party to lock-step its way toward his position? I was aware that Hillary Clinton expects the Democratic Party to lock-step its way behind her, but I'm a little bit surprised that you believe the same of Mr. Guiliani.
Joe, I think you are an absolutist in truth, though you believe yourself a realist.
Anyway, I see no reason in not working toward both ends (Federal Life Amendment/abortion ban, and overturning Roe) regarding abortion. If Roe overturned arrives first, then we should continue working toward the Federal Life Amendment and banning abortion altogether. If Federal Life Amendment arrives first without Roe being overturned then work on legislation to repudiate the Roe decision for use in any other precedent. Both things must happen eventually.
But to repudiate the Republican Party for selecting Guiliani as its candidate of choice? Be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it.
posted on 10.11.2007 9:22 AM8
Right now, social conservatives consider the Democrats a lost cause,...
Which is why social conservatives have been a lost cause for maybe 15+ years now and are becomming almost post-satire (as I keep reminding my father-in-law, if they put The Colbert Report on FoxNews more than a few would have a hard time recognizing its satire).
Pro-lifers have been co-opted by legalists in the GOP. Notice how just about every post about whether or not pro-lifers have made progress or had setbacks has almost nothing to do with actual abortions? Instead its always legal calls. Are 2% or 0% of abortions covered by Medicaid? Did some miscellaneous notification law get upheld or denied. It has even become a source of dishonesty (Thanks Joe for giving up the lie that any of you guys actually cares about 'states rights'....you care only about 'right states').
If pro-lifers actually started to care about actual abortions rather than just the legal status of abortion they would be surprised to find how much common ground there is. Take the 'baby bonds' idea that Hillary picked up (originated, I believe by a Republican).
Many decisions to abort are taken at the margin, meaning it probably wouldn't take a lot to shift the call from abortion to not-abortion. The idea that every baby born will have an automatic endowment would probably avert a lot of abortions by mothers who think they are not in a position to provide for a child. A variation of the idea I had presented a while ago was something like a $2500 'gift' to any woman who has a live birth. If you believe society should force women to bear children then it isn't unfair to ask everyone else to help a little bit...
Policies like that would find a lot of common ground with Democrats who are concerned about inequality of opportunity. I wouldn't be surprised if they produced a massive decrease in abortions (20-40%) that would be much more impressive than the marginal 'progress' pro-lifers have made with petty harassement, annoying regulation and occassional terrorism.
posted on 10.11.2007 9:22 AM9
You have your work cut out for you.
"Thinking ahead to the November 2008 presidential election, what is the single most important issue in your choice for president?" Open-ended
%
35 War in Iraq
13 Health care
11 Economy/Jobs
6 Terrorism/National security
6 Ethics/Corruption in government
5 Immigration/Illegal immigration
2 Morals/Family values
13 Other
9 Unsure
posted on 10.11.2007 9:29 AMABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 4-7, 2007. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
10
Rudy seems to be the perfect wolf in sheep's clothing. I have no doubt that Joe's analysis is spot-on when he writes "[h]e will relish sticking it to social conservatives, a group that will have done nothing to help him get elected" I'd sooner deal with a wolf in wolf's clothing than a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I am also concerned that Giuliani has not met a single civil liberty that he doesn't seem to hate, and I have heard nothing from him to alter my belief that he is agressively pro-torture. This man scares me more than any other candidate of either party.
posted on 10.11.2007 10:13 AM11
Why are evangelicals trying to lower the number of abortions in this country through political and legal means? The mahority of evangelicals are dubious about the value of government handouts to the poor via high taxes. Why should do we trust the government when it comes to reducing abortions.
If Christians took all of the energy they devoted to winning elections with pro-life candidates, lobbying lawmakers and being involved in the political, and instead focued on the women who feel they have to have an abortion imagine what we could accomplish. Right now there a many Christian organizations dedicated to helping women who are considering abortions get the financial help they need, or find a loving home for them to adopt the unwanted babies. Imagine if we could double or triple the effectiveness of these ministries.
If you could prevent a 100,000 abortions through one-on-one relational ministries, isn't that way better than fighting it out politically where there has been no change for 30 years. Christians are never going to have the power to overturn Roe. It's just not going to happen. What we can do is make it possible for individuals to see that they have alternatives to abortion and reduce the number of abortions that way.
posted on 10.11.2007 10:14 AM12
I think Dobson and Perkins should just go ahead and consider forming a third party. Then everyone will see what political clout they have....
posted on 10.11.2007 10:16 AM13
Oclarki,
Re: Post 11, I have to say I am in complete agreement with you on this one.
posted on 10.11.2007 10:19 AM14
Oclarki
Probably the biggest preventers of abortions is Medicaid and WIC. Suppose tomorrow those two programs were gone and young women without insurance were told in addition to being pregnant you're going to come out of the hospital with a huge bill and have to start buying food for your baby from day 1. But the abortion can be had for less than $500.
I'll say it again, many abortions happen on the margin. It would only take a small incentive to swing the decision one way or another. If pro-lifers were willing to ditch (pragmatically) conservative ideology they could form useful partnerships with liberals that pro-choicers would find almost impossible to object too.
posted on 10.11.2007 10:21 AM15
Guess who shares your view on this pretty much exactly.
posted on 10.11.2007 10:23 AM16
Meanwhle, President Bush makes great moral strides for Christian's everywhere by insisting that the United States should not aknowledge the Armenian Genocide of 1.5 million Christians at the hands of Muslims in Turkey during WWI.
I guess you can't be a "Party of Death" so long as the victims are Armenian.
posted on 10.11.2007 10:45 AM17
Joe,
I think you are right about Rudy and what will really happen if he is elected. Republican Presidents who were pro-life still have had a so so record on judicial appointments. A pro-abortion President can appoint judges he considers "conservative" without appointing any pro-life judges. Part of the problem is that legal philosophy and law schools are dominated by the ideas that led to legal abortion and similar problems in the first place. Only a handful of schools even discuss the older judicial philosophies of the framers, reformers like Calvin and Turretin, Presidents like Lincoln and Coolidge, and great judges like Hale and Coke. Our system is creating judges who allow legal "evolution" based on elite social opinion to either occur fast ("liberals") or slow ("strict constructionists"). It turns out almost no one who can and will argue persuasively for the right principles in the right way. And if it did, who would appoint such men and women when the politicians are used to, and like, the judiciary we have?
We need to educate and equip a generation for the battle of ideas that needs to be waged. We need the institutions willing and able to do this.
As for your comment on the different approaches to abortion, I do not believe incremental abolition is unrealistic. Once abortion is limited it will loose support. Once people think about it the right way it will loose even more support. The thing is we must stop the open embrace of immorality in the law that made it so hard to abolish slavery in the 1830's on up to the civil war. We also need to be better witnesses for Christ in and out of the public square. When I speak to people involved in DC they say one of the reasons they do not find common cause with the radical pro-lifers is the personal abrasiveness, untrustworthiness, and general lack of character of many of those on "our side." It should not be so. Perhaps they have a distorted view, but it is a common enough view even if incorrect.
So, a lot is needed, prayer, discipline, education, and work. Hilary may interfere with our work and education, but loosing our foothold in the one party that does anything pro-life as a result of a Rudy Presidency would be tragic. My fear is that several other Republican front runners, while not as openly hostile, may not be much better. I hope Thompson or Huckabee would do well.
posted on 10.11.2007 10:46 AM18
Boontoon is moving towards the right direction on this abortion issue. Politicians on the right and left are abusing this issue for their personal gains.
People could agree that abortion should be avoided and work together to give mothers other options. Both sides on the issue would have to give a little though.
posted on 10.11.2007 11:56 AM19
Thanks JohnW, in fact there's no need for people to even agree abortion should be avoided. Take the idea of giving women $2500 for birth. A person who thinks abortion is perfectly ok can still agree to this on the grounds that by giving birth the woman is helping someone else so the payment is society's small way of giving her something back....a bit like a soldier's pay doesn't really compensate for the risk of death or injury he takes on but it is still important.
The pro-lifer and pro-choicer never have to actually agree on abortion being bad in order to agree on policies that can dramatically reduce abortion. Pro-lifers can still advocate absolute bans and other policies that will never find common ground with everyone else but so what? The Roe side in Roe.v.Wade wanted abortion untouchable up until birth and they didn't really get that.
posted on 10.11.2007 1:43 PM20
Dukakis was Republican? I don't think so.
posted on 10.11.2007 2:23 PM21
Have to agree with Boonton. I know many libertians who support abortion, but are against Roe vs Wade because they don't believe the federal gov't should have that type of power. Take what allies you can.
posted on 10.11.2007 2:24 PM22
One sits in amazement and seeks to understand how our political culture could even present us with this
posted on 10.11.2007 2:32 PM"Hobson's choice". But, when the political culture is understood as a dirivative of the larger culture, amazement turns to dispair. God's "almost chosen nation" has exhausted it's moral capital and "almost" is as fitting an epitaph as it is a designation.
23
Dukakis was Republican? I don't think so.
I thought there was a Republican with a similiar idea but the amount was only $500?
Have to agree with Boonton. I know many libertians who support abortion, but are against Roe vs Wade because they don't believe the federal gov't should have that type of power. Take what allies you can.
I'm not sure how this would be libertarian? Roe limited power of both the Fed. and State governments. Perhaps they are more Constitutionalists who disagree with Roe's reasoning?
posted on 10.11.2007 2:39 PM24
re; Oclarki, Boonton, and Smmtheory's comments:
If the Republicans are becoming a "pragmatic culture of death," it's starting to sound as though the Democrats could easily support a pragmatic culture of life. Who should "political realists" support?
posted on 10.11.2007 2:40 PM25
According to http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/bonds-newborns-wont-raise-nation/story.aspx?guid=%7B281C9C2D-88FE-4EDF-9852-F89843B62269%7D Rick Santorum (R) & Jon Corzine (D) both proposed $500 bond ideas in 2004. The UK did it two years ago and Spain is considering doing it. I'm not sure who originated the idea but it seems like its been bubbling around both sides of the political fence in a low key mannor.
posted on 10.11.2007 2:43 PM26
It seems to me that if someone really wants to lower the number of abortions, he or she should focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies. The most effective way to do that is by increasing the availability and affordability of contraceptives. In most of Western Europe, where contraception is usually free and easily available, the abortion rate is one fourth to one half of the U.S. rate. Which political party do you think is most likely to increase access to contraceptives by the poor?
posted on 10.11.2007 3:25 PM27
Here is an interesting and relevant link to this discussion:
www.third-way.com/press/release/49
posted on 10.11.2007 6:10 PM28
Like abortions are going to go away if conservatives manage to make them illegal. On the plus side, for these hard-hearted ideologues, it will provide a legal way to compound the suffering of these already-suffering young women. Maybe a few hundred will even die from their back-alley procedures; that'll show the little harlots.
I hope Giuliani is the Republican nominee so pro-lifers will stay on the sideline during the general election. If Democrats pick the next couple of SCOTUS justices, Roe v. Wade is the law of the land for the foreseeable future. As for the amendment you dream of, none of you will live to see it.
Why don't you see what you can do to make life better for those of us that are here and stop obsessing over other people's embryos?
posted on 10.11.2007 7:15 PM29
The most effective way to do that is by increasing the availability and affordability of contraceptives.
A one month supply of Birth Control Pills can be had for under $30 (Ortho Novum 7/7/7 equivalent for $26.99), a 36 pack of name brand condoms goes for under $20 (prices from drugstore-dot-com) and both can be found in just about any drug or grocery store. Granted BCP's require a prescription, but your local Planned Parenthood can probably find an OB to write the Rx for free or close to it. As if that weren't enough, Medicaid covers both Rx and OTC contraceptives in most states. The problem is not cost or availability; try again.
posted on 10.11.2007 7:24 PM30
Like abortions are going to go away if conservatives manage to make them illegal.
School shootings are illegal in most states (Texas and Montana may be exceptions), but amazingly they still happen fairly regularly. It is also illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm, yet many do. Should we make both of those actions legal because people are going to do them no matter how stringent we make the laws against them?
posted on 10.11.2007 7:31 PM31
I see no evidence that Republicans have actually been an active part of the Culture of Life anyway. It's true that most Pro-Life people have gravitated to the Republican party. It's also just as true that a lot of Pro-Life people are still in the realm of the Democratic party. The secular culture has always been the Culture of Death, and there ain't no way around it. Short of this nation becoming 100% Christian, it will remain that way. The best that people who believe in the Culture of Life can hope for is to influence public policy in a positive way toward practices resembling the Culture of Life. Even if the Republican nominee turns out to be a Pro-Life candidate, it wouldn't make one iota difference as to whether or not the Republican party was in the Culture of Life. That is where Joe is wrong. Sitting on his hands on election day isn't doing anything positive about influencing public policy toward practices which resemble the Culture of Life. Praying for the Republican nominee (should it be Guiliani or other candidate which might not be Pro-Life) to have a change of heart toward the Pro-Life belief would be doing something to positively influence public policy... probably a lot more than hoping a Pro-Choice Guiliani doesn't get elected. Of the current crop of Democratic candidates, I don't think there is one of them that is Pro-Life, and most of them are staunchly against being Pro-Life and would be tougher nuts to crack where it comes to praying for a change of heart.
posted on 10.11.2007 8:24 PM32
Joe,
I hear you loud, but not clear. I feel that your post is a bit confusing. You begin by saying that Rudy would be worse than Hillary. And the entire post builds and builds on a Rudy vs. Hillary scenario. But you end by saying that socon's shouldn't abandon the all-important issue of life...in the primaries.
I agree wholeheartedly. I am looking forward to attending the Values Voters Summit next weekend as an Event Blogger and I am very much looking forward to working and volunteering for conservative candidates that are pro-life in my state.
I just think that when we're encouraging conservatives to vote pro-life, we need to separate the scenario's. One for the primaries and one for the nat'l election, if it's Rudy.
In order to avoid the dreaded scenario, I'd prefer to see socon's get behind one solid candidate in the primaries than spend so much time giving the Democrats what they want-division in our party.
Thanks for your post.
posted on 10.11.2007 10:38 PM33
OK, ucfengr, then tell me why abortion rates are so much lower in most of Western Europe than in the U.S.
posted on 10.11.2007 11:19 PM34
So Joe and those who agree w/ him (I'm still on the fence)...
If faced with this dreaded scenario, are you advocating that we pull the lever for Clinton (as it would be better to have a pro-abortion (D) president as opposed to a pro-abortion (R) president?
posted on 10.12.2007 12:22 AM35
The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization Advance Access published an article online by Jonathan Klick and Thomas Stratmann on September 4, 2007 entitled, "Abortion Access and Risky Sex Among Teens: Parental Involvement Laws and Sexually Transmitted Diseases."
State parental notification laws result in lower STD rates in those states.
The article reviews facts about laws that restrict abortion and their effects on health, pregnancy rates and abortion rates.
When abortion was legal in a few states, those states had higher STD rates than the national average. When R v W made abortion legal in all states, the STD rates went up all over, to match those found earlier in the states with legal abortion on demand.
There's also evidence that restricting legal abortion does not increase illegal abortions. When the Hyde Amendment was first passed in 1976 to forbid federal funding of abortion, abortion rates, pregnancy rates went down but there were no increased rates of illegal abortion.
posted on 10.12.2007 6:09 AM36
OK, ucfengr, then tell me why abortion rates are so much lower in most of Western Europe than in the U.S.
I don't know, but it sure ain't the lack of availability of birth control in the US. It could be related to cultural differences. Absent some data, I don't really know how big the difference in abortion rates is. As far as I can tell, in the US abortions account for 25% of all pregnancies; what are the comparable statistics for France, Germany, and Great Britain and how do they keep their statistics? Do they use the same method for recording abortions?
posted on 10.12.2007 6:31 AM37
Just to follow up on your question ex, there seems to be a wide variance in abortion rates in Western Europe. For example, the abortion rates in Sweden and Denmark are much higher (a little lower than the US) than the rates in the Netherlands and Germany (from an AGI 1999 study). How do you explain that?
posted on 10.12.2007 7:53 AM38
On the plus side, for these hard-hearted ideologues, it will provide a legal way to compound the suffering of these already-suffering young women. Maybe a few hundred will even die from their back-alley procedures; that'll show the little harlots.
Rob, I would like to join you in ridiculing those pro-life politicians who advocate criminalizing abortion as a way of punishing loose woman, would you be so kind as to name a few of them for me? For the life of me, I just can't find them.
posted on 10.12.2007 7:59 AM39
From a report released yesterday (and yes, I know the Guttmacher Institute is considered evil by pro-lifers):
"London, UK: The number of induced abortions worldwide declined from nearly 46 million to under 42 million between 1995 and 2003. Abortion rates fell most significantly in Eastern Europe, a trend that corresponds with substantially increased contraceptive use in the region, according to “Induced Abortion: Rates and Trends Worldwide,” a new report by the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization (WHO) published in the 13 October 2007 issue of The Lancet."
. . .
"The lowest abortion rate in the world in 2003 was for Western Europe (12 per 1,000 women aged 15–44), where contraceptive services and use are widespread and safe abortion is easily accessible and legal under broad grounds. The rate was 17 for Northern Europe and 21 for the Northern America region (Canada and the United States). Africa, Asia and Latin America had the highest regional abortion rates, even though abortion is generally legally restricted and often unsafe in those regions."
posted on 10.12.2007 9:10 AM40
Great thoughts!! I am also an incrementalist and don't buy into Rudy's scam.
posted on 10.12.2007 9:58 AM41
Ex, my data came from Guttmacher as well and it showed a wide variance in abortion rates among Western European countries, so US vs. Western Europe is not really a good metric. What does the study you cited say about the rates in the different countries of Western Europe and how does it explain the discrepancy. Surely they aren't trying to make the case that it is much more difficult to obtain BC in Sweden than in Germany.
posted on 10.12.2007 11:52 AM42
I agree with you, I hadn't seen it that way until now, but I understand why Dobson would go to a third party candidate..
posted on 10.12.2007 2:45 PM43
I have no idea why Sweden is a bit of an anomaly within Western Europe, but the study seems to show pretty clearly that abortion rates are lowest in countries where birth control is most widely used. That's a no brainer. Are you going to argue with this? If not, then will you and other evangelicals start supporting easier and less expensive access to birth control, as well as sex ed classes that go beyond saying "don't do it"? Do you really want to lower the number of abortions or is your real objective something else?
What's less intuitively obvious is that abortion rates are also lower in countries where abortion is legal and safe.
"The report said an estimated 20 million unsafe abortions occurred in 2003, 97 percent of them in developing regions and places where the procedure is banned.
" 'Each year, about 70,000 women die due to unsafe abortion and an additional five million suffer permanent or temporary disability,' Paul Van Look, director of the WHO's department of reproductive health and research, said in a statement."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/women_dc;_ylt=Aru1Z8CesBHsmhZ79IVFgOYDW7oF
posted on 10.12.2007 3:34 PM44
"Should we make both of those actions legal because people are going to do them no matter how stringent we make the laws against them?"
Of course not. We want to punish these people to discourage others from acting in that manner. Which brings us to:
"Rob, I would like to join you in ridiculing those pro-life politicians who advocate criminalizing abortion as a way of punishing loose woman, would you be so kind as to name a few of them for me?"
I'm not talking about politicians; I'm talking about pro-lifers. I'm talking about you. Or do you want a law that has no penalties for breaking it? Or perhaps you only wish to the person who performs the procedure, not the person who seeks the service, without whom no abortionist could make a living. How do you justify either of those options?
Face it; the only reason to make abortions illegal is to reduce or eliminate them, neither of which can be accomplished without punishing those who violate the law.
posted on 10.12.2007 5:05 PMDon't act like you don't want to punish these women; you do.
45
"Should we make both of those actions legal because people are going to do them no matter how stringent we make the laws against them?"
Of course not. We want to punish these people to discourage others from acting in that manner. I freely admit that I want to see these people punished. Which brings us to:
"Rob, I would like to join you in ridiculing those pro-life politicians who advocate criminalizing abortion as a way of punishing loose woman, would you be so kind as to name a few of them for me?"
I'm not talking about politicians; I'm talking about pro-lifers. I'm talking about you. Or do you want a law that has no penalties for breaking it? Or perhaps you only wish to the person who performs the procedure, not the person who seeks the service, without whom no abortionist could make a living. How do you justify either of those options?
Face it; the only reason to make abortions illegal is to reduce or eliminate them, neither of which can be accomplished without punishing those who violate the law.
posted on 10.12.2007 5:06 PMDon't act like you don't want to punish these women; you do.
46
Rob, I don't want to criminalize abortion because I want to punish loose women, but because I want to save children. The punishment associated with breaking a law is not the purpose of the law, the purpose is to prevent the behavior. You seem like an educated person, so I am surprised you don't get this.
I have no idea why Sweden is a bit of an anomaly within Western Europe, but the study seems to show pretty clearly that abortion rates are lowest in countries where birth control is most widely used.
Did you read the study, ex? Sweden is not the only anomaly. Sweden's abortion rates are comparable to the US, but Great Britain, France, Norway, and Denmark aren't far behind. Looking at the study, Germany and Belgium have abortion rates that are about half that of GB, France, Norway, and Denmark. Abortion is legal in the US, birth control is cheap and easily available and sex ed is widely taught; obviously that is not the problem. I don't disagree with AGI's numbers, but their numbers don't support their conclusions.
posted on 10.12.2007 7:24 PM47
Well, I'm glad to hear that you at least accept the numbers. Why do you think there are as many or more abortions in countries where it is illegal as in countries where it is legal?
I don't agree with your opinion about the availability and affordability of contraceptives in this country. $30 a month for the pill may seem cheap to you, but it's not for everyone. A large segment of our society goes without health insurance and/or a primary care physician. And sadly, not every community has a Planned Parenthood clinic nearby.
Regardless of the relative ease or availability of bc in the US currently, would you support measures to make it even more available and inexpensive and for comprehensive sex ed to be even more widely taught? If not, why not?
posted on 10.12.2007 7:36 PM48
"The punishment associated with breaking a law is not the purpose of the law, the purpose is to prevent the behavior. You seem like an educated person, so I am surprised you don't get this."
I am an educated person; thank you for noticing. But one needn't be educated to realize that while some abortions might be prevented by the laws you would advocate, their main effect would be to criminalize and infuse with danger a practice that, in all likelihood, would continue largely unabated. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would be a matter of crossing a state line. If people will do this to buy a lottery ticket or a few cartons of cigarettes, they wouldn't hesitate to do so for an abortion. In the case of an amendment, it would merely force the whole industry underground. It would be as hard to get an abortion as it would be to get a nickel bag of marijuana. I fail to see how your conscience (on behalf of others, no less) would be assuaged by forcing a road trip or a back-alley transaction.
posted on 10.12.2007 8:43 PM49
$30 a month for the pill may seem cheap to you, but it's not for everyone. A large segment of our society goes without health insurance and/or a primary care physician. And sadly, not every community has a Planned Parenthood clinic nearby.
$30 a month is cheap for everybody, and let's be honest, BCP's are available for free in many, many places. The reason cheap, available birth control doesn't reduce abortions is because it doesn't take into account the human factor. In other words, most young people don't want to take the time to consider their actions, so hoping that they will use pre-planning and take a pill everyday or grab a condom is a fool's errand. Maybe the problem has to do with the lack of young people in many of the countries that have low abortion rates. It is much easier to get a 30+ year old to use birth control consistently then it is a 14 year old.
posted on 10.13.2007 8:09 AM50
You are in serious denial, my friend. Your unwillingness to support real measures to lower the abortion rate is a sad commentary on evangelicals.
posted on 10.13.2007 8:55 AM51
Thank you for this post, Joe. You make a very compelling case and I agree with what you say about Giuliani's position on abortion. Every time I listen to Hewitt repeat the some tired arguments about why we should support Giuliani I scream at the windshield, "But judges aren't the only issue, what about stem cells?" The more he tries to convince the audience to vote for Giuliani if he is the candidate, the more unconvincing he becomes. I really wish he would stop minimizing the impact of Dobson's position. I take the evangelicals at their word and if they do this then they will impact this race negatively and it's important for the Republicans to know that they will lose this race without them. I want them to know this going into the primaries so that they will vote for the pro-life candidate, knowing that if they don't Clinton will be the next president. The party needs to get that and stop thinking that a Clinton presidency will scare the evangelicals into voting for Giuliani. Your post sends the message that isn't going to happen and they need to hear that.
My hope is that the Reagan conservatives will remember that he understood the need to keep on sides of the coalition together. Finding a candidate that will please the social, fiscal and defense conservatives should be our goal. That's why I'm supporting a Thompson candidacy. I believe he's the only candidate that would meet the requirements of all three (I know that his position on gay marriage isn't pleasing to some but I'm hopeful that they will realize that no candidate is able to do anything about the amendment if elected).
posted on 10.13.2007 9:57 AM52
Ex-P, the point that ucfengr is trying to get across is that there is a big difference in making contraceptives available and youngsters actually using them. You know, the whole leading-a-horse-to-water bit.
Like ucfengr, I don't know the reason why there is a much larger incidence of pregnancy in the States. But i do know that there is no shortage of venues from which to obtain free--as in no $$ required from the acquirer--contraception, funded by monies confiscated from taxpayers. Your guess is as good as mine as to why couples elect not to use it.
Boonton #8 et seq: "Take the idea of giving women $2500 for birth. A person who thinks abortion is perfectly ok can still agree to this on the grounds that by giving birth the woman is helping someone else so the payment is society's small way of giving her something back"
We already subsidize childbearing, in the form of annual tax deductions, and for the low-income, particularly single women who make irresponsible decisions, via the EITC. I don't think there's any data out there, but my sense is that these handouts haven't done much to stem the incidence of fetuscide.
Also, if you award this ill-gotten payola just to women, you will be reinforcing the already popular notion that fathers just don't matter in our culture. I contend that this bizarre conventional wisdom results in more abortions, not less, so you would in effect be undermining your stated goal of abortion reduction by reinforcing the marginalization of fathers in our society.
posted on 10.13.2007 11:58 AM53
I fail to see how your conscience (on behalf of others, no less) would be assuaged by forcing a road trip or a back-alley transaction.
Rob, let's go ahead and knee-cap this moral high horse you've set yourself up on. Every year some non insignificant number of women die or are permanently injured obtaining "safe, legal abortions". In addition to that, millions of unborn children are killed before they ever get to see the light of day or take their first breathe. All this is to guarantee the right of people (not just girls) to avoid the consequences for their irresponsible sexual behavior. In other words, you are willing to trade lives for the right to behave irresponsibly. Now that is a perfectly legitimate political position, but please don't delude yourself into thinking that the position is any more moral than the alternative.
You are in serious denial, my friend.
Dude, walk into a freaking drug store. They have whole displays devoted to the various non-pharmaceutical methods of birth control. Talk to a pharmacist; he will be delighted to show you how you can obtain no cost birth control if $30 is going to put you on the street. You are not in denial, you are delusional. You don't live in some Falwell-esqe theocracy where birth control is kept under lock and key and protected by armed guards to keep the wrong people from getting access; you live in the freakin' US of A where they have CVS and Rite-Aid and Target and even WalMart where you can walk right in, bold as brass and grab a 12-pack of French Ticklers without even showing ID. I know; I've done it, even since Bush became President. Dude, you really need to get out once in a while.
posted on 10.13.2007 1:57 PM54
School shootings are illegal in most states (Texas and Montana may be exceptions), but amazingly they still happen fairly regularly. It is also illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm, yet many do. Should we make both of those actions legal because people are going to do them no matter how stringent we make the laws against them?
A better analogy might be making it illegal for a convicted felon to ever drink or buy beer. Yes you could lock lots of people up for violating such a law but overall it would be very difficult to really enforce it given a society that has at least a passing respect for civil liberties.
There's also evidence that restricting legal abortion does not increase illegal abortions. When the Hyde Amendment was first passed in 1976 to forbid federal funding of abortion, abortion rates, pregnancy rates went down but there were no increased rates of illegal abortion.
That sounds like an absurd statement. The Hyde Amendment banned Federal funding so how would 'rates of illegal abortion' go up? If abortion is legal then the rate of illegal abortion would be 0% always unless you're talking about abortions by unlicensed doctors or some other obscure metric.
For example, the abortion rates in Sweden and Denmark are much higher (a little lower than the US) than the rates in the Netherlands and Germany (from an AGI 1999 study). How do you explain that?
Good question but it demonstrates my point. You can have legal abortion but a wide array of abortion rates due to policy and cultural differences. Likewise there is also precedent for illegal abortion but abortion rates that are nevertheless high. This demonstrates the obsession pro-lifers have had over the legal technicalities of abortion have missed the boat.
Rob, I would like to join you in ridiculing those pro-life politicians who advocate criminalizing abortion as a way of punishing loose woman, would you be so kind as to name a few of them for me?
So you're saying pro-lifers are advocating criminalizing something but not punishing those who do it? Doesn't seem to make much sense.
Elusive
We already subsidize childbearing, in the form of annual tax deductions, and for the low-income, particularly single women who make irresponsible decisions, via the EITC. I don't think there's any data out there, but my sense is that these handouts haven't done much to stem the incidence of fetuscide.
1. Tax deductions are not immediate hence would have a lot less impact on the 'decisions at the margin'.
2. Tax deductions require a long term focus, many abortion decisions are probably made with a short term focus.
3. Tax deductions subsidize raising kids, not childbearing.
4. Tax deductions are irrelevant if you do not have earnings significant enough to pay income tax or itemize deductions.
5. Likewise the EITC is great for raising kids but likewise fails on many of the same grounds. There might be many single young women who would take the $2500 but choose adoption. The EITC would be of no benefit to them
Also, if you award this ill-gotten payola just to women, you will be reinforcing the already popular notion that fathers just don't matter in our culture.
1. Ill-gotten? This is for giving birth, certainly that is a worthy thing to do otherwise none of us would be here.
2. Fatherhood matters in raising kids and the various subsidies you mentioned applies equally to fathers or mothers. Fatherhood, though, does not matter in giving birth. That is a burden women bear due to biology. But should some bazaar sci-fi scenario result in a man who is pregnant, I would say he should get the $2500 should he give birth!
ucfengr
Dude, walk into a freaking drug store. They have whole displays devoted to the various non-pharmaceutical methods of birth control. Talk to a pharmacist; he will be delighted to show you how you can obtain no cost birth control if $30 is going to put you on the street. You are not in denial, you are delusional.
I don't think the issue is so much availability of birth control as it is knowledge and shifting more weight to long term thinking than short term (in economic terms, lowering one's discount rate). Sex ed is not as universal in the US as you claim and it has often been corrupted by 'abstinence eduction' types pushing a moral agenda rather than pushing knowledge. The 'discount rate' issue, though, is not easily altered. Kids by nature have a shorter term focus but as ex's statistics show there are cultural differences.
posted on 10.13.2007 3:49 PM55
Everyone must remember that just because abortion is legal now doesn't mean that islamofascists will accept the premise that hillary desires. i think the she president would make it possible to be conquered by the ancients and thereby the abortion issue will be moot. rudy would never let that happen even though abortion would be legal. liberty and freedom are much more important than the abortion issue which still has a chance to be overturned by a democratic society. look at the long range point of view before claiming rudy would be worse than hillary for the issue of abortion. what a sorry choice it would be.
posted on 10.14.2007 2:58 AM56
"Now that is a perfectly legitimate political position, but please don't delude yourself into thinking that the position is any more moral than the alternative."
I do think it is more moral, just as you think your position is more moral; otherwise, you wouldn't advocate it. My position requires no more self-delusion than yours. I think, in fact, it requires less.
posted on 10.14.2007 11:41 AM57
i think the she president would make it possible to be conquered by the ancients and thereby the abortion issue will be moot
Indeed, if she makes us all as stupid as this guy then we won't even be able to figure out how to make babies thereby making the abortion issue moot!
posted on 10.14.2007 11:49 AM58
I do think it is more moral,
Since you didn't dispute my charactarization of your position Rob (and I don't see how you really can), I can only assume that you think sacrificing lives so that people can avoid responsibility for their actions is a moral position. I am starting to question my assumptions regarding your education, especially that relating to morality.
Kids by nature have a shorter term focus but as ex's statistics show there are cultural differences.
No Boonton, that was my point, that availabilty of birth control does not explain the differences in abortion rates between the US and Western Europe. ex and AGI (Guttmacher Institute) were trying to use the statistics to argue that it did, something the statistics don't support.
posted on 10.14.2007 12:35 PM59
"Since you didn't dispute my charactarization of your position Rob (and I don't see how you really can), I can only assume that you think sacrificing lives so that people can avoid responsibility for their actions is a moral position."
It was a caricature of my position, not a characterization. As such, I deemed it unworthy of response. If you don't recognize your caricature as such, I must question your education...or your honesty. Since you press the issue, I could, of course, respond with a caricature of your position. I would if I thought it would be helpful.
posted on 10.14.2007 6:32 PM60
Expreacher:
The global Guttmacher Institute/WHO study on abortion is out in The Lancet.
Here it is in the NYT although it's well covered around the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html
2003 data:
It's about unwanted pregnancies and contraception.
...the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.
20 million abortions that would be considered unsafe are performed each year and that 67,000 women die.
Boontown mentioned numbers. The study has them.
posted on 10.15.2007 5:25 AM61
No Boonton, that was my point, that availabilty of birth control does not explain the differences in abortion rates between the US and Western Europe. ex and AGI (Guttmacher Institute) were trying to use the statistics to argue that it did, something the statistics don't support.
I would be careful with the use of the word availability. While in both countries it is probably easily available to those in the know, I don't think kids know as much about it in the US as those European nations. They know it exists in an abstract sense but they don't know it as in what each thing does, how it does it, why people use it etc. I also suspect abstinence nazis have created a binge atmosphere regarding sex. Kids don't think they need to know this stuff and then when the opportunity presents itself 'short term thinking' takes over. I think the same thing happens with alcholol. Kids are rarely introduced to it so they binge when they get the chance.
That being said, the fact remains the US has a hetrogeneous culture while many of those European nations don't. That means we have the ability to easily break ourselves away from our social networks, peer groups etc. and temporary indulge in different ones. This is often a positive thing but it will probably means that the US will always have higher rates of some social dysfunctions even when our policies are exactly like European nations.
posted on 10.15.2007 7:47 AM62
I don't think kids know as much about it in the US as those European nations.
Sounds like you think schools in Europe are rather reminiscent of the Playboy Mansion with teen and pre-teen boys running around in smoking jackets debating the pleasure inducing qualities of the various types and brands of condoms. I am going to hazard a guess that you have not spent too much time in Europe and/or don't know too many European children.
I also suspect abstinence nazis have created a binge atmosphere regarding sex.
I love the way you equate people who don't think the Kama Sutra is an appropriate high school textbook with Nazis. It really makes me want to carefully consider everything else you have to say.
Since you press the issue, I could, of course, respond with a caricature of your position.
I doubt you could Rob; I am a lot more realistic about the consequences of my position than you are about yours.
posted on 10.16.2007 8:30 AM63
The repetitive cycle of failure that your position has gotten into that led to ever younger audiences for sex education classes until way before any interest in sex and possibly even an understanding of connection between action and consequence is the probable cause for any lack of knowledge if indeed there is any lack of knowledge.
posted on 10.16.2007 9:13 AM64
It is you, ucfengr, who is unwilling to consider the consequences of your position. You have steadfastly refused to say whether or not you would support easier access to birth control and more comprehensive sex education.
In post 58, you say to Rob that you "can only assume that you think sacrificing lives so that people can avoid responsibility for their actions is a moral position." I can only conclude that you oppose easier access to birth control as this might lead to irresponsible sexual behavior. Therefore you are willing to leave the abortion rate at its current level, thus killing what you consider to be people, so as to prevent any irresponsible sex.
Opposition to birth control has been a fairly consistent position of Christian conservatives for over 150 years. The Comstock Laws of the late nineteenth century even outlawed the mailing of birth control information. Moralists insisted that U.S. troops in World War I not be given condoms. I don't recall Christians being especially happy about the invention of the pill. Fears of unbridled sex were always a greater concern for fundamentalists and evangelicals than the consequences of disease or unwanted pregnancies. Now that most of those unwanted pregnancies result in abortions, you are still unwilling to budge on birth control. I can only assume that you aren't serious about wanting to reduce the abortion rate.
posted on 10.16.2007 4:01 PM65
"I doubt you could Rob"
Why, of course I can. Caricatures are easy; one need only distort the features of a face or opinion for the desired effect, which is normally, but not necessarily, offensive to the subject.
When it comes to the legal status of abortion, ucfengr doesn't mind a few thousand grisly deaths or a few million ruined lives if it means he can impose his morals on others.
See? It all has to do with exaggerating to make the other guy look bad. Now you try it.
Oh, yeah...you alresdy have.
posted on 10.16.2007 4:59 PM66
You have steadfastly refused to say whether or not you would support easier access to birth control and more comprehensive sex education.
ex, I think it is fairly clear that I don't accept the premise the birth control is not easily accessible or that sex education is not comprehensive enough. I mean how accessible and comprehensive does it have to be? Do we start using the Kama Sutra as a textbook and Deepthroat as audio/visual material? Do we need to have classes on "erotic play" ala Brave New World before you think sex education is comprehensive enough?
a few million ruined lives if it means he can impose his morals on others.
Rob, I wasn't aware that having a baby ruined your life. Did you ruin your parent's lives? Maybe that's why you are take such a callous view of human life.
posted on 10.17.2007 7:54 AM67
I just had an amusing thought. What would Driver's Education look like if taught using the same standards ex wants to use for Sex Education. Well, we would give the youngsters keys to a sports car and a fifth of Jack Daniels, only after they had mastered the use of a seatbelt and memorized the number for emergency response.
posted on 10.17.2007 12:52 PM68
I'm glad you are so easily amused, ucfengr, but exactly where did I lay out any standards for sex ed? You have a knack for inventing absurd scenarios that bear no relation to the discussion at hand. I am nearing the point of deciding that there is no point in responding to your posts.
posted on 10.17.2007 2:59 PM69
"Rob, I wasn't aware that having a baby ruined your life."
It didn't; I wanted my children.
"Did you ruin your parent's lives?"
No; they wanted their children.
"Maybe that's why you are take such a callous view of human life."
There you go again with the caricature. I am a champion of human life, probably more so than you are. Once a baby pops out of the birth canal, I am his unwavering advocate. Before that, he is none of my business.
posted on 10.17.2007 5:09 PM70
To what length are you willing to go to reconcile the inherent contradiction you have presented? You cannot be a champion of human life, if you do not champion life even prior to 'popping' out of the birth canal. I call BS.
posted on 10.17.2007 6:17 PM71
No contradiction. When I say "life", I, like most of the world, refer to the period between birth and death. As far as I'm concerned, human life recieves the protection of society at birth. The law seems to agree with me. Gravestones and biographies record date of birth, not date of conception. Statistics in almanacs do not record abortions as deaths.
You may not like it, but it is not inconsistent.
posted on 10.17.2007 7:10 PM72
Woooohoooo! I wasn't aware we were in the presence of the world's foremost authority on what the rest of the world thinks life means. I suppose you know the exact date of your conception because your parents told you the very day that they did the deed. Unfortunately for you though, the writers of almanacs, biographies, and headstones don't go around trumpeting their claim to be champions of human life either in their capacity as record keepers. But I do agree that your belief is consistent... consistent with every other member of the Culture of Death, actually.
posted on 10.17.2007 8:41 PM73
It didn't; I wanted my children.
So when children are wanted, they are human and entitled to protection; when they are not, they are property that can be disposed of as the owner wishes.
When I say "life", I, like most of the world, refer to the period between birth and death.
This logic always puzzles me; somehow a 6 month preemie hooked up to life support machines and requiring 24 hour intensive care is a human being but the same baby in the womb is a lump of tissue. What magical transformation occurs the moment after the baby is exposed to air that transforms it from dead to alive?
posted on 10.18.2007 7:03 AM74
Once a baby pops out of the birth canal, I am his unwavering advocate. Before that, he is none of my business.
Why in the Hell is he any of your business after he "pops out"? Again, I fail to see to see the logic of why you think a baby one-day pre-term is a lump of tissue, but a baby one-day post term is an individual human being entitled to protection. Using your this logic, a Christmas present isn't a present until it's unwrapped. Prior to that it is just a box. Or a credit card bill isn't really a bill until I open the envelope. Any time before it is opened it can be shredded without consequence.
posted on 10.18.2007 7:52 AM75
Sounds like you think schools in Europe are rather reminiscent of the Playboy Mansion with teen and pre-teen boys running around in smoking jackets debating the pleasure inducing qualities of the various types and brands of condoms. I am going to hazard a guess that you have not spent too much time in Europe and/or don't know too many European children.
I'm not sure why you would say this. You are correct I don't know many European children and I haven't spent much time demanding Europeans I know tell me about the details of their sex education. Perhaps you have an can enlighten us?
I love the way you equate people who don't think the Kama Sutra is an appropriate high school textbook with Nazis. It really makes me want to carefully consider everything else you have to say.
Believe it or not the Kama Sutra is not used in any sex-ed class I have ever heard about nor was the class I had in High School anything like that. Perhaps your overactive fantasy life is taking up room that could be used to actually gather some facts.
posted on 10.18.2007 9:13 AM76
I am nearing the point of deciding that there is no point in responding to your posts.
"I don't care what you do with me, Brer Fox, says he, "Just so you don't fling me in that briar patch. Roast me, Brer Fox, says he, "But don't fling me in that briar patch."
Believe it or not the Kama Sutra is not used in any sex-ed class I have ever heard about nor was the class I had in High School anything like that.
I will type this slowly, cuz' I'm starting to get the impression that you don't read so fast, Boon. I used the Kama Sutra example as an (only slightly exaggerated) example of what folks like you and ex would like to see taught in sex education. When folks like you argue that sex education isn't comprehensive enough, you are not referring to teachers not doing a good job of teaching the biology of human reproduction (even in Kansas they don't teach that babies come from the stork); rather you are referring to sex education not teaching enough about the mechanics of sex. In other words, you think that sex education in the US is too PG when it needs to be more NC-17 or even XXX; like you imagine it is in Europe. Now, I am willing to admit that I may be misinterpreting your position and you really are arguing that schools do a lousy job of teaching kids where babies come from, but I doubt that is the case. The reality is that what you and ex want is the schools teaching children a state-approved menu of sexual techniques designed to prevent pregnancy and that's just something that most sane people don't want for their kids.
posted on 10.18.2007 3:41 PM77
And now for a dose of reality about what schools are actually teaching about sex ed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/opinion/18robb.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
posted on 10.18.2007 4:27 PM78
From a report comparing sex education, sexual activity, birth control and teenage pregnancy rates in the US, France, Germany and the Netherlands:
---------
Comparing the four countries, U.S. teens are the youngest—at an average age of 15.8— to experience first sexual intercourse.1 Teens in the Netherlands—which exhibits the most liberal attitudes about sexuality and sexual behavior—experience first intercourse at the latest average age, 17.7.2 The teens of Germany and France experience first sex at 16.2 and 16.8, respectively.1,2
Teen condom use is fairly consistent among the four nations. In the Netherlands, 85 percent of Dutch adolescents use protection at first sexual intercourse—46 percent use condoms and 24 percent use both condoms and the pill.2 Further, 29 percent of sexually active teens used condoms at most recent intercourse, while eight percent used both condoms and oral contraceptives at the same time.3 In Germany, 56 percent of sexually active male teens used condoms at first intercourse and 57 percent at most recent intercourse.4 In the United States, teens' use of condoms or other contraception at first intercourse has risen to 65 percent.5 Among sexually active U.S. teens, 65 percent reported using a condom at most recent intercourse.6,7 Finally, in a nationally representative sample of sexually experienced U.S. youth ages 14-22, 25 percent of young men reported dual use of condoms and oral contraception.8
Differences emerge strongly when teen use of other effective means of contraception is compared. In the Netherlands, nearly 67 percent of sexually active adolescent females use oral contraceptives.9 In Germany, about 63 percent of sexually active adolescent females report using oral contraceptives at most recent intercourse.4 By contrast, 20.5 percent of sexually active adolescent females in the United States report using oral contraceptives at most recent intercourse.7
The United States has much higher rates of teen birth and abortion when compared with the other three nations. In 1996, the U.S. adolescent fertility rate was 54.4 per 1000 women ages 15 to 19, four times higher than Germany's rate of 13 per 1000.10,11,12 The Netherlands has the lowest confirmed teen fertility rate in the world—6.9 per 1000 women ages 15 to 19.3 While teen abortion rates are not available for Germany, the abortion rate for U.S. teenagers is more than double that of France and more than triple that of the Netherlands.
posted on 10.18.2007 4:53 PM79
ucfegr claims that parents don't want comprehensive sex ed for their kids.
From Advocates for Youth:
The Facts: Only fifteen percent of American adults believe that schools should teach abstinence from sexual intercourse only and should not provide information on how to obtain and use condoms and other contraception.
Most Americans want a broad sex education curriculum that teaches the basics—from how babies are made to how to put on a condom and how to get tested for STIs.
99 percent want youth to get information on other STIs in addition to HIV.
98 percent want youth to be taught about HIV/AIDS.
96 percent want youth to learn the “basics of how babies are made.”
94 percent want youth to learn how to get tested for HIV and other STIs.
93 percent want youth to be taught about “waiting to have sexual intercourse until married.”
83 percent want youth to know how to put on a condom.
71 percent believe that teens need to know that they can “obtain birth control pills from family planning clinics without permission from a parent.”
posted on 10.18.2007 5:03 PM80
ucfegr claims that parents don't want comprehensive sex ed for their kids.
Number 1, I never claimed that; number 2, I don't accept your premise that kids aren't getting "comprehensive sex ed". Oh, and number 3, weren't you going to stop responding to my comments?
posted on 10.19.2007 6:54 AM81
And yes, I did follow your link, but I don't accept an opinion piece at the NYT by a woman in the process of writing an expose on the "abstinence movement" as authoritative.
Regarding you statistics on birthrates in Europe, Germany has the lowest birth rate in Europe. It's not surprising that teens aren't having kids in Germany; nobody else is either. Perhaps Germany's sex education program has become so comprehensive that they forgot how to actually make babies.
posted on 10.19.2007 7:07 AM82
"So when children are wanted, they are human and entitled to protection; when they are not, they are property that can be disposed of as the owner wishes."
There you go again. I never said that! Wanted or not, the embryo (we are not talking about children; children are those noisy things that run around, in case you have forgotten the distinction) is the concern of the parent, not society. I consider them the property of the parents, wanted or not. The law seems to support this view.
"What magical transformation occurs the moment after the baby is exposed to air that transforms it from dead to alive?"
Perhaps you consider the receipt of full citizenship a magical transformation. And I never said the fetus was "dead" before it was born. Don't you ever run out of straw men and distortions?
"Why in the Hell is he any of your business after he "pops out"?"
Because that is when he gets his rights. Why is it any of your business before he pops out?
posted on 10.20.2007 10:44 AM83
"So when children are wanted, they are human and entitled to protection; when they are not, they are property that can be disposed of as the owner wishes."
There you go again. I never said that! Wanted or not, the embryo (we are not talking about children; children are those noisy things that run around, in case you have forgotten the distinction) is the concern of the parent, not society. I consider them the property of the parents, wanted or not. The law seems to support this view.
"What magical transformation occurs the moment after the baby is exposed to air that transforms it from dead to alive?"
Perhaps you consider the receipt of full citizenship a magical transformation. And I never said the fetus was "dead" before it was born. Don't you ever run out of straw men and distortions?
"Why in the Hell is he any of your business after he "pops out"?"
Because that is when he gets his rights. As a citizen, I have an interest in protecting the rights of citizens. Why is it any of your business before he pops out?
posted on 10.20.2007 10:45 AM84
It appears that would be more along the lines of your pattern of thought considering your follow on in the same comment, which I quote, "Because that is when he gets his rights."
How archaic. I thought you were a progressive. I guess I was wrong.
posted on 10.21.2007 5:07 PM85
http://moreaboutmen.com/genre/jazz-contemporary-jazz/g86/
posted on 12.13.2007 10:54 AM86
http://moreaboutmen.com/genre/jazz-contemporary-jazz/g86/
posted on 12.13.2007 10:54 AM87
http://moreaboutmen.com/genre/jazz-contemporary-jazz/g86/
posted on 12.13.2007 10:54 AM