Paul Ryan Won’t Help Romney With Women
The narrative forming around Paul “Ayn Rand” Ryan, so far, has centered on his wonkiness, his “intellectualism” and his fiscal “swoon inducing” prowess. (Can’t wait until Republicans start gushing over his government experience – which will be good for Ryan since working for the government is 99% of his resume). But there’s more to Ryan than a budget that doesn’t add up.
Less attention has been paid, though, to Ryan’s hard-right positions on social issues. Indeed, on abortion and women’s health care, there isn’t much daylight between Ryan and, say, Michele Bachmann. Any Republican vice-presidential candidate is going to be broadly anti-abortion, but Ryan goes much further. He believes ending a pregnancy should be illegal even when it results from rape or incest, or endangers a woman’s health. He was a cosponsor of the Sanctity of Human Life Act, a federal bill defining fertilized eggs as human beings, which, if passed, would criminalize some forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization. The National Right to Life Committee has scored his voting record 100 percent every year since he entered the House in 1999. “I’m as pro-life as a person gets,” he told The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack in 2010. “You’re not going to have a truce.”
No surrender! And in his 1998 run for Congress Ryan had this to say:
Both candidates backed a ban on so-called partial-birth abortion, but Spottswood believed there should be exceptions in cases where a woman’s life or health is endangered. “Ryan said he opposes abortion, period,” reported the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “He said any exceptions to a ‘partial-birth’ abortion ban would make that ban meaningless.”
During that campaign, Ryan also expressed his willingness to let states criminally prosecute women who have abortions. According to another Journal Sentinel article, he “would let states decide what criminal penalties would be attached to abortions. Ryan said he has never specifically advocated jailing women who have abortions or doctors who perform them, but added, ‘If it’s illegal, it’s illegal.’
Hey, if it’s illegal, it’s illegal. Lock ’em up! … or let ’em die.
That’s really the choice when you don’t allow exceptions. Of course, this stance doesn’t surprise me. After all, Paul Ryan belongs to a party that cheered the idea of letting a guy without health insurance die.
And women are paying attention:
The latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll showed that President Barack Obama leads Mr. Romney 54% to 39% among women. The gap gets truly staggering when it comes to college-educated women. Here, Mr. Obama leads 63%-32%.
Romney has a woman problem, and Ryan just made it worse.
Next the R’s will try to keep women out of college.
Ridiculous
“no exceptions” rules are set in stone for Ryan-type absolutists until the wife(child) of a decent white Republican needs an abortion.
His stance is pure PR for the very simple minded (aka. the Republican base) which cannot mentally cope with anything other than the most stark, stripped down choices.
Andrea Mitchell made the observation that the Ryan pick was not meant to capture suburban moms or women — two of the groups folks speculated that Romney would need to make some inroads into in order to be competitive. Instead, he made this into a base election. The women who are part of the R base are the ones who think like their old white men do, which means that they don’t have many. Really, they aren’t going to genuinely try to expand outside of their old white guy base. So I think that this is one more hint that there will be a massive blitz of media BS to try to demoralize segments of the D base.
Pro-life advocates cast abortion as the civil rights issue of today. Pro-choice advocates sometimes forget that pro-life advocates believe that fetuses are humans, with all the rights that humans have. Thus, for them, abortion involves a collision of rights.
If you accept the pro-life thesis, then the only acceptable abortion is an abortion that protects the mother’s life, as the fetus’s right to life trumps the mother’s other rights.
I am pro-choice, but even I accept that pro-life advocates have a moral imperative to prevent abortions.
As such, this is not “old white guys” vs. women. This is moralists vs. moralists. Because it’s hard to prove when life begins, it’s near impossible to convince a pro-life person to be pro-choice and a pro-choice person to be pro-life. Conservatives now accept this reality. (Side Note: Ryan has admitted that defining life is difficult and invites trouble.) Thus, to paraphrase cassandra_m, Republicans will not court pro-choice women.
@cassandra_m: Why use “old white guy” as a pejorative? The phrase smacks of identity politics and turns-off moderate liberals and serious people. The phrase also disguises the real divisions in America, at least on this issue.
“Pro-choice advocates sometimes forget that pro-life advocates believe that fetuses are humans, with all the rights that humans have.”
No we don’t. We merely insist that they consider some of the ridiculous situations that will ensue from that ill-considered claim. This they refuse to do. It’s not about morality. It’s about people living the real world vs. living in the conservative bubble.
“Why use “old white guy” as a pejorative? The phrase smacks of identity politics and turns-off moderate liberals and serious people.”
No it doesn’t. I’m an old white guy and I know who she means — Republicans, a plurality of whom are old white guys.
“The phrase also disguises the real divisions in America, at least on this issue.”
And what might the “real divisions” be, in your view?
In fact, most “pro-life advocates” are really, “pro-life industry fundraising and wing-nut infrastructure advocates.”
If “Pro-life advocates” like Ryan were sincerely interested in reducing abortions, they’d also be pro-birth control advocates and pro-family planning advocates.
Anti-choice advocates work overtime to try to mask the fact that they are asking for Government control over women’s decisions. The “civil rights” handwave is meant to hide that real agenda.
Jason is right too — if these anti-choicers were genuinely pro-life, they’d be working pretty hard to make sure that unwanted pregnancies are rare and that families (poor ones especially) were supported to care for their families. But all they want is for women to not have the ability to make their own decisions.
The current GOP skews pretty heavily to older, white males — more clinical language doesn’t hide that fact. If I wanted to make it pejorative, you’d certainly know it.
of COURSE you use it as a pejorative. MOST of us do. I think Dave is just reminding us that Joe Biden and Barney Frank (and others) are also men who would check “Caucasian” on a census and also get eh Sr Citizen discount at Denny’s.
I also don’t see ANY attempt to cover up the fact they want the gvt to control women’s bodies. They do it proudly… and for Jesus.
Keep dreaming, kids.
Speaking of ‘old white guys, we had a caller on today’s Al Mascitti Show, said he was 91 and had some kind of platinum designation for his years of service to the GOP. Sounded totally sincere. Said he could not vote for Romney/Ryan b/c of what they’re trying to do to Medicare and Social Security. Seemed truly saddened.
He may not be part of the new GOP wingnut ‘base’, but he votes. Just not for Romney/Ryan.
Love it. ryan = worst. Pick. Ever.
Seriously, go over the TPM and look at this video of Ryan being grilled by Brit Hume (!!!) over Ryan’s budget. Even over at Fox News, Ryan is not going to be allowed to run away from his budget. The one that RMoney has largely adopted anyway.
@Geezer: I wrote about the real division: Pro-life advocates believe life begins at conception, and pro-choice advocates believe life begins sometime later. And, please name one “ridiculous” consequence of the claim that life begins at conception. The only direct consequence is that a fetus has rights, including the right to life. You’re free to ask, “At what cost?” The consequences of this claim are not relevant to the claim’s validity. But, if the claim is valid, then, in responding to the claim, society should consider the consequences of possible responses. Pro-life advocates would assert that few circumstances (protecting a pregnant woman’s life?) justify an abortion. Pro-choice advocates would probably disagree.
@Jason330: There is no (ideological) conflict between opposing abortion and opposing most birth control. You’re arguing that many pro-life advocates should choose among moral convictions. You’re arguing that these pro-life advocates should sacrifice one ideal for another ideal. You’re arguing for pragmatism. Instead, these pro-life advocates want to promote both ideals. And, I’m sure that, if these pro-life advocates had (complete) control of the United States, they could reduce the amount of abortions and the use of birth control. (But, I would NOT want to live in that United States.) Also, there are many issues on which liberals pursue ideals, at the expense of results.
@cassandra_m: I like the rhetorical device of using “anti-choice” rather than “pro-life.” It conveys your contempt for the position. Also, does the term “pro-life” offend you? Do the terms “pro-death” and “anti-life” upset you? You can use the term “anti-choice,” but I’ll address the groups as they prefer to be addressed: “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” I’d do the same for other groups.
In all, you are questioning pro-life advocates’ motives. Your opinion reveals your cynicism. You think that pro-life advocates want to control women and that they want to prevent abortions in order to control women. No pro-life advocate would deny that (s)he will limit women’s choices. But, pro-life advocates assert that they will limit women’s choices only incident to preventing abortions. According to pro-life advocates, their goal is the preservation of life, not control. You believe otherwise. And, there is no way to change your mind.
@socialistic ben: How would you feel if I used the term “gay” as a pejorative? How would you feel if I used “young black fathers” as a pejorative for deadbeat dads? You accept the pejorative here, because you perceive “old white guys” to be entitled and not subject to any discrimination or other disadvantage.
Also, you’re right! Pro-life advocates want the government to limit women’s control of their bodies. The question, as outlined above, is what is the motive?
Really? You can’t think of a single absurd circumstance of granting a fetus “rights” independent of its mother?
OK, I’ll play along. Here’s one: Who does the state appoint as agent of the fetus’ rights independent of its mother, and how does this agent do the job of protecting the fetus? At what cost to the mother’s freedoms?
Personhood for the fertilized egg is absurd on its face, and on further examination is absurd all the way through. Until a fetus reaches the point of viability, it is wholly dependent on the mother. And if the mother doesn’t want it, then IMHO, nobody should be able force her to bear it. I guess I just believe in small government.
“it’s hard to prove when life begins”
No it’s not. “Life” begins when the egg is fertilized. That’s not the argument. The argument is when rights begin, and that’s entirely a determination of the government. And to claim rights begin at conception relegates a woman to a second-class status that no man can ever descend to.
If you can’t understand the terms of the argument, you can’t offer meaningful analysis.
In all, you are questioning pro-life advocates’ motives.
There is no questioning of motives in the descriptor “anti-choice”. All that does is define their position with a great deal more precision than their own (more deceptive) label of “pro-life”. Because limiting the reproductive choices of women is exactly their agenda. Whether it is banning abortion or certain types of birth control, there is little evidence that these people care about life as any one of us understand it. Most of them will profess their desire to protect the so-called unborn. Very few of them are interested in protecting (much less supporting) real live kids, or their families (unless it is their own), or bettering educational opportunity or any of those things that actually protect a live human being. Once that kid is born, they are born into the On Your Own Society that cares not one whit about protecting live children and uses those live children as an opportunity to look down on People Not Like Them. And should that kid murder someone? It is the so-called Pro-Life types who are at the head of the mob calling for blood. Because the government that they want to take over decision-making for women is apparently going to be infallible in killing its offenders.
Anti-choice advocates may have bamboozled you, but I can’t afford the luxury of that bamboozlement since my life is ground zero for their drive for government control. They aren’t interested in preserving any life whatsoever. They just want women to stop having sex in circumstances they disapprove of.
So step off with your silly lectures. The only way you can make your case is to pretend that the words “anti” and “choice” do not have precise meanings easily located in any dictionary. And then to pretend that said definitions do not apply with great precision to anti-choice crowd.
First, that is one confusing comment, Davy.
Second:
“You think that pro-life advocates want to control women and that they want to prevent abortions in order to control women. No pro-life advocate would deny that (s)he will limit women’s choices. But, pro-life advocates assert that they will limit women’s choices only incident to preventing abortions. According to pro-life advocates, their goal is the preservation of life, not control. You believe otherwise. And, there is no way to change your mind.”
Hell yes, this is about controlling women. Please notice how these pro-lifers vanish once the baby is born. Notice also how the pro-life movement is found in the GOP – a party that cuts/wants to cut women’s health benefits, assistance, Head Start, etc. Yeah, that’s pro-life.
And then there’s this…
“There is no (ideological) conflict between opposing abortion and opposing most birth control. “
Why yes, yes there is. Using birth control = less abortions.
Here’s the deal, Davy. If a woman is pro-life and chooses not to have an abortion that is her CHOICE. No one will force her to abort. Now, do the flip side of this argument. You know, the one where a pro-choice woman chooses to have an abortion because that is her CHOICE – only she can’t because pro-lifers will force her to continue the pregnancy. See how that works.
Finally, to add to Geezer’s examples… Can I declare a fetus as a dependent on my taxes? Hey, could someone going through in vitro declare all their frozen embryos?
@Geezer: Delaware appoints people to represent the interests of children (guardians ad litem). I’m confident that pro-life advocates could expand that program to include fetuses.
Thank you for asking the right question: “At what cost?” as I put it, or “At what cost to the mother’s freedoms?” as you put it. (Note: You imply that I missed this question. Read my post. I didn’t.)
This is always the question in court:
“Do the ends justify the means?”
“Are the means sufficiently related/tailored to serve a sufficiently important governmental interest?”
“Are the costs too great?”
Pro-life advocates argue that the protection of fetuses, as human life, justifies the near-prohibition of abortion. For pro-life advocates, almost nothing trumps a fetus’s right to life.
You disagree, which is reasonable, because you don’t believe rights are incident to life. (Note: Other pro-choice advocates don’t believe that fetuses qualify as life.”) But, does a woman’s right to choose flow from a government’s benevolence or her humanity? Do people have human rights? Are fetuses not human? I imagine that you think women have the right to choose regardless of her residence, citizenship, or government.
In international law, rights are incident to life. They are incident to our humanity. They are not gifts from a government. And, the government must justify any deprivation.
Returning to MY question: “At what cost?”
Finally, stop disrespecting me. If you think I don’t understand the terms of the argument, prove it. If you think my analysis is meaningless, prove it.
When these guys start talking about the forced vasectomies of men who don’t take care of their children, I will believe it is not just about controlling women!
Hmmm…don’t pay your child support? Report for a government-provided vasectomy! That sounds like great policy, AQC.
@Pandora:
(1) If I prevent a mother from murdering her seven year-old, should I pay for the seven year-old’s living expenses? If I prevent a mother from murdering her fetus, should I pay for the fetus’s living expenses? Pro-life Republicans want to shrink government but still have the government prevent (what they perceive to be) murders.
(2) Assume a person believes that contraception is morally repugnant and that abortion is murder. If the person sacrifices the former value to promote the latter value, the person is being pragmatic, because more contraception = fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions. But, there is no ideological conflict. There is a regime in which both contraception and abortion can be banned and minimized. And again, I would not want to live under that regime. Please read my entire paragraph.
(3) I don’t care if a fetus is a dependent. But, the government provides an exemption for dependents to offset the costs of support expenses. Fetuses = prenatal care = support expenses. I think it’s reasonable. (Note: There are qualifying children and qualifying relatives. The exemption is about subsidizing support to family.)
@AQC: In Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court held that force sterilization is constitutional. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote the opinion. The Court has never explicitly overruled Buck v. Bell’s holding.
And, for now, States do arrest and confine deadbeat dads.
@cassandra_m: To Republicans, there is a difference between the government helping people and private parties helping people. In general, Republicans embrace the latter, while reject the former. Republicans care, whether you think that they do or do not.
And, like I said, you can use any term you want. You have that right. Further, it’s your web site. But, no one has bamboozled me. I use the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” because people self-identify as “pro-life” and “pro-choice.”
But apparently republicans are willing to give up the distinction you just made for so-called unborn people. Because recruiting the government to “protect the unborn” simply does not jive with what you claim they want. Right. They’ve *quite* bamboozled you. But then, you are just what they’re looking for.
Davy, did Buck v. Bell refer to deadbeat dads?
@AQC:
In the early 20th century, progressives promoted eugenics. And, to remove undesirables from the gene pool, Virginia (among other States) passed a compulsory sterilization law. Under that law, a Virginia hospital sought to sterilize an 18 year-old woman who was “feeble-minded.” In upholding the law, Holmes (a dissenter in Lochner v. New York and later liberal hero) wrote that “There generations of imbeciles are enough,” as the woman’s mother was (allegedly) a prostitute and the woman’s daughter (allegedly) gave birth to a child before 6th grade. After the Holocaust, progressives abandoned eugenics.
Nevertheless, compulsory sterilization is still constitutional. For now.
@cassandra_m:
Republicans still support statutes prohibiting murder, correct? Republicans want a small federal government, not no government. According to many Republicans, my rights end at your nose. According to pro-life advocates, a pregnant woman’s rights end at the fetus’s nose (or cluster of cells).
In general, Republicans believe in negative liberty, and Democrats believe in positive liberty. I recommend Isaiah Berlin’s lecture “Two Concepts of Liberty,” in which Berlin described both negative and positive liberty. (Note: Justice Breyer adopted positive liberty as the basis of his constitutional jurisprudence, which he described in the book “Active Liberty.” In interpreting the Constitution, the Justice always leaned toward promoting participation in government and protecting the political process. I also recommend this book.)
What anti-choice people believe is of NO importance to me, at all. They can believe they’re postage stamps. Rock on. However, a pregnancy is not a baby, not a person. Therefore, I want my government to abstain from “giving”, because that’s what they are being asked to do, the rights of people to non-people. It’s not right for corporations, and it’s not right for semi-organized clusters of cells.
I’ve been pregnant. Several times, and always when I REALLY wanted to be, and worked hard for it. And, even under those conditions, it was hard work. It’s significantly harder, and more dangerous, than any natural function men can manage. Not labor, pregnancy. And I say, if there was a magic wand that could make men pregnant, you wouldn’t be allowed to do it to prisoners. It would be banned by all countries by agreements like the Geneva Convention.
Forced pregnancy is an act of war… all across the globe and during all periods. It’s a deliberate act of hate to destroy societies. You may think that couching your terms in these ‘people prefer to call themselves ‘pro-life” terms disguises what this is, but we’re on to you.
Hear me? We’re on to you.
@heragain:
As I stated above, I am pro-choice. So, you’re on to nothing.
A corporation is not a person. But, a corporation represents the interests of people. And, when the government restricts a corporation’s speech, the government restricts the speech of the people who the corporation represents. The same is true for any group of people. The First Amendment protects corporations and other groups, because they comprise people and the people have the freedom of speech and the right to assemble peaceably. [Note: Justice Stevens, dissenting in Citizens United, argued that the government can restrict the speech of ANY association.]
Also, whether money is speech is a different question. Money is the real issue, not associations and their members’ rights.
Now, I don’t know if a fetus is a person. In fact, I am skeptical of anyone who claims to know whether a fetus is a person. And, because there is no rigorous answer, I prefer to approach abortion cautiously. Here is where I am at:
(1) When a pregnancy endangers the life of a woman, the woman should have the choice to abort.
(2) Partial birth abortion is distasteful. But, the life of a woman is more important than taste.
(3) States may protect (and represent the interests of) a fetus. And, to do so, States may place some burdens on a woman’s right to choose. A trans-vaginal ultrasound is many steps too far and unacceptable. Although a simple ultrasound (or similar non-invasive procedures) might be okay, chiefly the State should provide all available information on abortion.
(4) No one thinks abortion is an easy decision. And, States should not make a hard decision into an impossible decision.
Finally, forced pregnancy is a war crime. Force pregnancy is when a person rapes you, thereby impregnating you, and confines you until you cannot safely abort the pregnancy. That’s different than what you consider forced pregnancy.
Davy: Sorry. Didn’t realize you were trying to work out your position on abortion in real time for our entertainment.
I’m with Geezer. Davy keeps saying he’s pro-choice – I do not think it means what he think it means.
“So far, Romney’s VP bounce appears to be 1-2 points. That’s below average historically but better than nothing.” – Nate Silver
WORST. PICK. SINCE. PALIN.
I agree with Pandora and Geezer — plus it is interesting to me that he can be here demanding respect for the anti-choice position while simultaneously having no respect for the pro-choice positions of the people engaging him here.
Cass and Pandora: I don’t think he’s misrepresenting anything. I just didn’t realize that he’s still formulating his position, and I have no interest in discussing the matter with someone looking for guidance on the morality of abortion.
I would, however, like to ask why the pro-life movement is more interested in criminalizing abortion than in making it unneeded. His “explanation,” in which he treats as legitimate the pro-life opposition to other people’s birth control, indicates to me that for some reason, he doesn’t know how to tell obnoxious, self-righteous busybodies how to fuck off.
I provided my position, because people attack me (or pro-life advocates), rather than attack my points.
In my first post, I concluded that Republicans would not court pro-choice women, because there was no upside. [This was my answer to the thread.]
Two other observations from my posts:
(1) Reasoning by pejorative (“anti-choice” and “old white guys”) disguises the real division on abortion.
(2) When you assume pro-life advocates are anti-women, rather than promoting a fetus’s negative liberty, you avoid a real discussion on abortion.
I am not challenging people’s positions on the issue. I am challenging people’s positions toward pro-life advocates. You view the pro-life advocates as abusers. You paint pro-life advocates as hatemongers. A little understanding goes a long way.
And, as someone who represents women who are victims of abuse, I find your comparison distasteful, because the comparison draws attention away from real abusers – people who dominate and manipulate women for simple pleasure.
@Geezer:
My position is fully formed (but is subject to change, if new information becomes available).
You appear less interested in discussion than hating opposing parties and calling them names.
“When you assume pro-life advocates are anti-women, rather than promoting a fetus’s negative liberty, you avoid a real discussion on abortion.”
Quite the opposite. When you assume that pro-life advocates can advocate for the fetus without putting its interests above those of the woman bearing it, you are avoiding a real discussion on abortion.
This, of couse, assumes I want a discussion of abortion, which I don’t. Sorry, but I really don’t give a crap about your moral reasoning. Work it out in private, please.
But as long as you want to talk about “freedom,” think of abortion as freeing the fetus from the prison of its womb. Let those four-month-old fetuses get along on their own.
@Geezer:
My thesis is that “Republicans [are] not court[ing] pro-choice women, because there [is] no upside.”
Thank you for confirming my thesis. And, not reading (at least closely) 90% of what I wrote.
I was not interested in discussing abortion. I was interested in discussing:
(1) How competing assumptions concerning fetuses render abortion a non-swing issue
(2) How negative views of the opposition prevents real discussion of abortion (real discussion would make abortion into a swing issue, again)
[Note: The “At what cost?” question is the only question possibly in play. Even then, because pro-life advocates view abortion as murder, they are unwilling to compromise and consider almost no cost to be too great.]
I find abortion, the issue, uninteresting. I find the issue’s baggage interesting.
Anti-choice and old white guys are not pejorative. Both are really accurate descriptors of both groups and I used both with some precision. You can make the case that neither is a precise descriptor, but you haven’t. You just want to claim that you are right and that just won’t fly.
Anti-choice advocates ARE abusers. And the folks here making this case have been really clear on how they not only abusers, but also hypocrites. The only person not reading other people’s positions is you, Davy.
Gotcha. So you were just trying to explain how pro-lifers think. Thanks, but I already know how they rationalize their positions, and I agree that pro-choice women are not a target audience fort he Republicans.
You have failed to factor in the reason for Democrats to play up Ryan’s “anti-woman” positions — the higher the liberal outrage, the more likely they’ll go to the polls to vote againt it. This is politics 101.
Davy is not only trying to explain how pro-lifers think, he has also told us where he is:
Now, I don’t know if a fetus is a person. In fact, I am skeptical of anyone who claims to know whether a fetus is a person. And, because there is no rigorous answer, I prefer to approach abortion cautiously. Here is where I am at:
(1) When a pregnancy endangers the life of a woman, the woman should have the choice to abort.
(2) Partial birth abortion is distasteful. But, the life of a woman is more important than taste.
(3) States may protect (and represent the interests of) a fetus. And, to do so, States may place some burdens on a woman’s right to choose. A trans-vaginal ultrasound is many steps too far and unacceptable. Although a simple ultrasound (or similar non-invasive procedures) might be okay, chiefly the State should provide all available information on abortion.
(4) No one thinks abortion is an easy decision. And, States should not make a hard decision into an impossible decision.
Now see… these points don’t strike me as pro-choice.
@cassandra_m:
In May 2011:
50% of American women self-identified as “pro-choice.”
44% of American women self-identified as “pro-life.”
Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/americans-split-along-pro-choice-pro-life-lines.aspx
I’m sure that the 44% of the American women polled that self-identified as “pro-life” like the description “old white guys.”
As for “anti-choice,” it’s largely a matter of motive, on which I provided already a competing rationale.
@Geezer:
Not all women view pro-life advocates as anti-women. But, I understand the strategy: Pander to (and thus invigorate) the base. The Republicans do the same thing against the President – “Look! Obama did [insert any action here]!”
And, I don’t think the Republicans care about optics of Ryan and his pro-life position. Women that view Republicans as anti-women will not consider voting Republican, regardless of the Vice-Presidential candidate and his abortion position. Women skeptical of Republicans and pro-life advocates are not “in play.”
@pandora:
I support allowing abortion under all circumstances.
I dislike partial birth abortion, but I understand its necessity.
But, I would allow the State to represent the interests of fetuses, by providing information to pregnant women seeking abortions.
It seems like I balanced the rights of women against the interests of fetuses. And, it seems like women always have the right to choose.
So just because Gallup has decided to poll on the deceptive “pro-life” label that means what, exactly? I explained MYSELF in some detail why anti-choice was a better descriptor of their positioning and you still can’t manage to make the case for so-called Pro-Life being a more precise label. Other than that is what they call themselves. And nor can you (or have you) provide “motive” from the dictionary meaning of “anti-choice”.
Seriously, Davy, you are not helping yourself here. You are speaking to people who simply won’t accept the talking points and poll-tested deceptive language here. Just claiming your positioning is not an explanation. So if you can’t hang, there are plenty of other places who are delighted to not question your premises.
Being neither a woman, nor a fetus, Davy, why are you “speaking for” either of them?
If someone forces me to have a baby because I live in Montana, or Passaic, and have no access to safe and legal abortion, how is that different from preventing me from having an abortion in Saudi Arabia or Bosnia?
Forced is forced, dude.
Or do you want to tell me to hold an aspirin between my knees?
@cassandra_m:
You refer to people who oppose abortion as “anti-choice.” Here’s some questions:
(1) Are these people “anti-choice,” because they want to control women and, to serve that goal, restrict the choice of women?
(2) Are they “anti-choice,” because they restrict the choice of women, regardless of intent/end/motive?
(3) Are they “anti-choice,” if they restrict the choice of women only incident to serving another social interest?
(4) Are they “pro-life,” if they restrict the choice of women incident to protecting fetuses’ lives?
“Anti-choice” describes a consequence of the pro-life agenda, but it does not describe the agenda’s motive, unless pro-life advocates are lying about their motive.
“Pro-life” describes a consequence of the pro-life agenda, and it describes the agenda’s motive, if pro-life advocates are truthfully representing their motive.
You either believe that pro-life advocates lie about their motive or don’t care why they restrict the choice of women. At least, in my view, why you use the term “anti-choice.”
As for the Gallup poll, I used it to illustrate that not 44% people that self-identify as “pro-life” are women. Not all pro-life adherents are “old white guys.” Of course, the women might respond differently, if the label was “anti-choice.”
But let’s look at other results:
29% of women think abortion should be legal under all circumstances.
8% of women think abortion should be legal under most circumstances.
36% of women think abortion should be legal under a few circumstances.
24% of women think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances.
Not all people that oppose unfettered choice are “old white guys.”
@heregain:
I wrote what the legal definition of “forced pregnancy” is. I did not write what the legal definition of “forced pregnancy” should be.
Reasonable minds cannot differ on the former. It’s a fact. I’m sorry, but denying an abortion to a woman, without more, is not a “forced pregnancy” or a war crime. Maybe it should be.
Save your righteous indignation for someone who expressed an opinion on what should or should not be “forced pregnancy.”
Really, Davy, get yourself a dictionary and lookup the words “anti” and “choice”. So-called pro-life people are specifically against the ability of women to choose their reproductive futures. Even you can’t gainsay that. That makes them decidedly anti-choice. I’ll leave you to work out whatever motives blow your skirt up, but these folks do not want women to make their own reproductive choices.
And the “old white guys” thing? Was in reference to the demograpghic that the GOP typically represents these days. The only one talking about those folks in terms of abortion or fetuses or whatever you think you are talking about is you. You can’t just have the arguments you want. And let’s save the scolding of others for not reading what you write until you can demonstrate that skill yourself.
You want to be “pro-life” then don’t have an abortion. Presto! You’re “pro-life.” You want to stop me from having an abortion (in the name of “life”) than you’re anti-choice.
Now, Davy, pay attention. Once a “pro-lifer” turns their “pro-life” personal views into laws (or attempted laws) they are then anti-choice “pro-lifers.” They are FORCING (read: Controlling) women to live by their “pro-life” beliefs.
Know what? Don’t tell me how you feel/believe about abortion, or what you find distasteful. I. Don’t. Care.
Know what else? You don’t have to care about my beliefs. That said, “pro-lifers” don’t get to limit my choices based on THEIR beliefs.
This really isn’t complicated, though, lord knows, you’ve made word salad of the topic.
*Use of scary quotes in my comment was deliberate, since we’ve already established that most “pro-life” people only focus on life inside the womb. Once the baby is born? Not so much.
@cassandra_m:
Assume you ban common-law battery. A battery can convey a message. For example, a Klansman batters a Black-American male, because the Black-American male is married to a White-American female. This battery conveys a message – miscegenation is wrong. The ban of battery impairs the Klansman’s speech.
Are you anti-speech?
The ban is content neutral. That is, on the ban’s face, there is no proof that you targeted the content or viewpoint of symbolic battery. There is no motive or intent to impair speech. You simply targeted conduct – battery.
Motive/Intent is important in every context.
“The women who are part of the R base are the ones who think like their old white men do, which means that they don’t have many.”
“The current GOP skews pretty heavily to older, white males — more clinical language doesn’t hide that fact.”
In 2008, 43% of women voted for McCain. The Republican message appeals to more than “old white guys.”
@pandora:
I imagine the response from a pro-choice advocate would be this:
“Now, pandora, pay attention. Once pro-choice advocates turn their pro-choice views into laws, they are forcing (or controlling) fetuses to die by the advocates’ pro-choice beliefs.
Know what? Don’t tell me how you feel/believe about abortion, or what you find distasteful. I. Don’t. Care.
Know what else? You don’t have to care about my beliefs. That said, pro-choice advocates don’t get to kill fetuses based on their beliefs.”
This really is complicated. If you don’t see that, then you’re small minded.
And, I can’t teach you the difference between negative and positive liberty. But, rest assured, the pro-life/Republican positions are logically consistent under a negative liberty worldview.
[Note: Who were the prominent champions of negative liberty: Tocqueville, Montesquieu, Locke, Hume, and John Stuart Mill. Also note, Mill was among the earliest feminists and wrote (possibly with his wife) The Subjection of Women. I understand that the negative liberty worldview conflicts with your worldview.]
@Davy — you are still dancing everyplace around my question because you *can’t* answer it. If you want to object to my characterization of your folks as anti-choice, you need to deal with that directly. Once again, the anti-choice crown want to make sure that I cannot make my own reproductive choices. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your head around? Their motivations don’t mean a thing when they are working to manage my life.
And women who voted for McCain could be from any party including undeclared voters, so that doesn’t counter the fact that the GOP skews old, white and male.
@cassandra_m:
I am not dancing around your question. I’ve answered it over and over again.
Pro-life advocates want to restrict women’s rights IN ORDER TO protect fetal life (or so they say). I’ve said this before:
“No pro-life advocate would deny that (s)he will limit women’s choices. But, pro-life advocates assert that they will limit women’s choices only incident to preventing abortions.”
They want to limit your reproductive choices. But, do you honestly think it’s ONLY about control? Are you that cynical? Or, do you not care about the end?
Well, in real life, society always weighs the means against the end. Are the means sufficiently tailored or related to the end? Is the end sufficiently important/substantial/compelling? And, (surprise) the end and intent/motive are inherently related.
You can define pro-life advocates by their means. But, it’s at least equally acceptable to define them by their end.
What’s more important? People voting for the message or being a member of the party? Also, the gender gap shrunk dramatically in 2010.
First off you are hugely confused over means and ends, which may account for why you cannot directly address why anti-choice isn’t a precise descriptor of these folks.
But I don’t much *care* about their means or ends (and not should I have to) — they intend to substitute their judgement for mine when it comes to reproductive choices. That makes them SPECIFICALLY ANTI MY CHOICE.
If we were talking about restrictions on guns you would get this pretty damn immediately.
What’s more important? People voting for the message or being a member of the party? Also, the gender gap shrunk dramatically in 2010.
And given the lameness of this answer, I think you know that you’ve told us that I’m right on the old white guy concentration in the GOP.
“Pro-life advocates want to restrict women’s rights IN ORDER TO protect fetal life (or so they say)……”
Uhm, no. Pro life advocates crossed over the bridge into crazy town when they came out against birth control. Thats pre-fetal life.
Cassandra is correct, you don’t get it.
Davy doesn’t want to get it. I think he thinks he’s being an intellectual, but he’s just being deliberately dense – Maybe not deliberately. 🙂
No kidding. I think he’s got himself into a corner he can’t get out of.
Gun rights? The Supreme Court applies a means-ends balancing test for gun rights. If a State wants to abridge Second Amendment rights, they can – if they have a sufficient important/substantial/compelling interest. I suggest you read Judge Stark’s long opinion on the subject.
The Supreme Court has long applied a means-ends balancing test for abortion rights too.
Is the limit an undue burden –> Yes –> The law is invalid
Is the limit an undue burden –> No –> Is the law rationally related to a legitimate state/governmental interest.
The undue burden standard weighs the means, circumscribing women’s rights, against the ends.
Even strict scrutiny, which the Court applied in Roe, is a means-end test.
The term “anti-choice” describes the means – restricting a women’s right to choose
The term “pro-choice” describes the ends – protecting fetal life
There are no absolute rights. Even our most precious freedoms can be abridged.
In all, you can call the group whatever you want, I don’t care. But, do not pretend your choice is not political framing, as the terms “pro-life” and “anti-choice” are equally descriptive (and even poor descriptors). They both tell HALF the story.
And, because I prefer constructive dialogue, I refer to people as whatever they like. Here, I refer to your “anti-choice” advocates as “pro-life” advocates.
And you are still in your corner. The Supreme Court recently struck down Chicago’s gun laws even though they had a compelling interest.
Anti-choice means that your friends are butting into my life in a way you wouldn’t tolerate for anything else — especially if it affected men. Your means and ends don’t mean anything — it is your mental wank to try to justify the unjustifiable. And that is your effort to make decisions for me when I don’t want or need your interference.
Generally, abortion is a consequence of unwanted pregnancy. Reducing unwanted pregnancy would seem to largely remove the need/desire for abortion. Increasing the use of contraception would seem to be a logical means to reducing unwanted pregnancy. Those who support abortion should be able to get on board the contraception train without too much of a problem (and I believe they are). And it seems like it makes sense for those who are against abortion to support increased use of contraceptives because it would decrease abortion.
Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice shouldn’t the common ground be to reduce unwanted pregnancies?
“Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice shouldn’t the common ground be to reduce unwanted pregnancies?”
You would think so, Dave, but… reducing unwanted pregnancies doesn’t seem to be the conservative/Republican/pro-life goal.
Their new anti-birth control platform (WTF?) is quite revealing – and their agenda is more about controlling women than stopping abortions.
attempting to explain/understand (not accept, or affirm…. just understand) an opposing view-point in a way that doesn’t paint the opponent as an evil troll is being deliberately dense?
@cassandra_m:
It has to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Two parts. Means and ends.
@Dave:
I think contraception is great. It’s a practical response to a problem. And, I don’t think contraception is morally repugnant.
But, other people find contraception to be morally repugnant. In essence, you’re asking people to choose between moral convictions. They’d rather abridge women’s rights than promote contraception. This is their response to the choice of evils.
@pandora: This is what I’ve saying. You don’t trust pro-life advocates – you think it’s about control, not life.
But, the fact that they want to protect the right to life, does not mean they need to subsidize the right to life or life itself. Imagine if the government had to buy guns for everyone so everyone could exercise their Second Amendment rights.
There are alot of people who morally object to war and yet their taxes subsidize every bit of it. There is no reason why the anti-choicers should have the world work in perfect accordance to their beliefs. What they should be able to expect is to run their own lives and their families lives in accordance with their beliefs. One more time — their morality shouldn’t have anything to do with the choices I make to run my life. I won’t force them to have abortions or use birth control and they can impose their beliefs on the only people they are entitled to impose them on — themselves.
@ Davy–
It’s not about what pandora thinks. It’s about what the RWNJs have demonstrated.
These idiots are both anti-abortion AND anti-birth control. In short, they are religious zealots who desire to force their view of the world on every woman in the country.
The Christian (and Muslim, for that matter) fundamentalists see women as inferior to men. They truly believe that all women should live under the rule of a man, be it her father or her husband. This attitude is prescribed by their respective faiths, and they live by it. That’s fine for them & their submissive wives. It is NOT fine for the rest of the country.
It amuses me that the same idiots who complain about welfare mothers and their offspring are too fucking cheap to spring for a $0.50 condom, birth control pills, or other forms of contraception.
A LIFETIME SUPPLY of birth control for one woman is far cheaper to taxpayers than 18yrs worth of welfare, foodstamps, subsidized housing, and 13 yrs worth of public education. One would think the chiselers in the GOP would be all for preventing unwanted children for no other reason than “fiscal responsibility”. Somehow they’re against it. I blame the Jeebus/Muhammad character for the idiocy of their adherents.
@cassandra_m:
When people object to their tax dollars subsidizing war, those people have recourse – the political process (although they cannot sue in federal court, because they lack standing). Pro-life advocates have the same recourse.
And, other people’s morality will always govern our lives. For example, President Obama wants the rich to pay their fair share. That’s certainly a moral issue. And, some want to circumscribe the freedom of speech to protect people’s feelings. That’s also a moral issue.
Other people’s morality will always govern our lives. Sometimes it will be liberal morality, and other times it will be conservative morality. But, you should never fault people for striving for their good. Instead, attack their positions on the merits.
@Roland D. LeBay:
“RWNJs,” “idiots,” “zealots.” You’ve lost some credibility with me.
Why use pejoratives here? Are you angling for votes? This blog is about politics, but you are not courting voters. The words add nothing to your argument and present you as impolite.
And, I’d make the same complaint to a conservative: “I am 99.9% sure that the President is not a ‘communist.’ Please sit down, Mr. McCarthy.” Leave the harsh words to the politicians.
And, the Republican position is simple: The government protects rights. The government does not subsidize the exercise of rights. This is negative liberty. It’s the liberty of Tocqueville, Montesquieu, Locke, Hume, and John Stuart Mill. It’s the liberty of the founding fathers.
It’s not about being cheap. In their world, the government protects the right to life but does not subsidize right’s exercise. It’s harsh, but it’s not about money. [Note: Fiscal conservatism stems from “starving the beast.” The goal is small government that cannot violate rights or overreach, not saving money.]
If you think the pro-life position is about control, not life, then you should call the position “anti-choice.” We should be skeptical of people. But, your level of conviction is unwarranted. Many pro-life advocates believe in traditional family roles. That does not imply that the advocates’ mission is about control. You seem just as much a “zealot” as those “RWNJs,” to me.
And, as explained in my response to cassandra_m, liberals try to impose their values on everyone else too. Liberals want their perfect world. Conservatives want their perfect world.
“I can’t be a missionary! I don’t even believe in Jebus!” -Homer Simpson
Gets me everytime. 🙂
And, can this site have more threads on land use in New Castle County? That seems important in light of the County Executive election.
Oh, boy! We get to read more self-righteous shit about zoning from the whiny DuPont heiress whiny babies worried that they’re going to lose their precious views? Great!! I can’t wait!!!!
Jesus, I’m sorry, folks. I just read (OK, skimmed, I couldn’t stomach most of the crap in it) and realized that Davy has just been pulling a Moseley throughout, and thus deserves zero attention. My bad.
(But truly, if I have to read another thread or story or post about the Stoltz thing or Pam Scott or any of that other bullshit about how a bunch of rich people are up in arms about some commercial development or another, I’m going to lose my lunch. You people up in New Castle County don’t know how to put on a good land-use fight. Down here in Sussex, people on both sides rip off your fucking testicles and run for office afterwards. Y’all just seem to moan endlessly.)
@SussexWatcher: Not my fault that some people cannot be civil. Especially since I agreed with cassandra_m’s original point in my first post. I objected to her (and some others) incivility.
“It seems like I balanced the rights of women against the interests of fetuses.”
Swell. Now how many angels can you get to dance on the head of a pin?
Fetuses don’t have rights, or interests. I aim to keep it that way.
Because they’re not PEOPLE, except in the same way that “Soylent Green is people!”
“liberals try to impose their values on everyone else too.”
Not on the abortion issue. They don’t insist that other people have abortions if they don’t want them.
“Liberals want their perfect world. Conservatives want their perfect world.”
Some do, yes. Others are pragmatic. You acknowledge that pro-lifers cannot compromise on what they consider murder. Since they will not compromise — as you note, the hard-core religious people won’t even allow contraception, which would lessen the need for abortions — why bother to work out the details? Who cares how many angels fit up there?
Now consider this: Why does the “pro-life” movement seek to criminalize abortion? Turning the procedure into a crime will not end abortion, as plenty of abortions were performed back when it was illegal. So you are missing the entire point: The issue isn’t whether it’s moral, it’s entirely about whether it’s legal. The pro-life movement would be more accurately called the criminalize-abortion movement.
In short, they are attempting to use the law to accomplish what their appeals to morality have failed to do. Ever try to drive a nail with a wrench? That’s why even if they succeed, they won’t succeed. People will continue to get abortions whether it’s legal or not.
Oh, as to your notion of appointing a person to represent the interests of the fetus: Good luck with that. Where you gonna get the money? There are a helluva lot more pregnant women than women caught up in the court system for failure to take care of their children.
So why are you so hung up on this issue? Seems centrists want their perfect world, too.
I wish the terms of the debate could be changed concerning abortion. One cannot be both anti-abortion and anti-contraception. It is a contradiction since reducing unwanted pregnancy is a direct outcome of contraception.
The reality is, anti-abortionists (as currently defined) are anti-sex (unless performed in the privacy of ones own home with both parties fully clothed and no cuddling or cigarette afterwards).
I question their meme regarding the sanctity of life when that value is the equal of other values (especially the no-sex value).
I have a dilemma of my own in that I am anti-abortion, but do not have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies. I live with that dilemma because I have no real solution, which is why I am ardently pro-contraception. The problem is that the majority of the anti-abortion crowd’s solution is the no-sex rule, which fits in nicely with their paradigm that humans must deny their innate nature (which is corrupt)in order to be saved. Unfortunately, reality for those folks exists only in their collective minds.
Pro-life political support is not necessarily based on a principled pro-life position. A lot of pro-life political support comes from completely unprincipled men who don’t give a damn about fetuses, but simply seek to make a pandering political alliance with social conservatives in order to maintain an electoral majority to continue their unchecked looting of the economy. Without this type of support, the pro-life position would be a clear minority.
In other words, principled social conservatives are being used and pandered to by wealthy Republicans like Mitt Romney. Which they already knew, but prefer denial instead.
I objected to her (and some others) incivility.
There’s no incivility in plain speaking.