Back with more later today
.
…..but in the meantime The New York Times has a very interesting news analysis of Wednesday’s SCOTUS decision upholding a federal ban on partial birth abortions. Here’s how it starts.
— That abortion is bad for fetuses is a statement of the obvious. That it is bad for women, too, is a contested premise that nonetheless got five votes at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
It was a development that stunned abortion rights advocates and that represents a major departure from how the court has framed the abortion issue for the past 34 years.
***UPDATE***
As commenter “Listener_on_the_sidelines” pointed out this morning, abortion and gun control are “…two areas [that] seem impervious to rational discourse.”
I’d add to that list, capital punishment, and wolf policy in the northwest. (Most of you may consider the latter a bit of an outlier as a subject, but since my other home state is Montana….I can tell you, bring up that topic, and the crowd gets ugly really fast.)
However, what I thought was interesting about this ruling (removing my own emotionality from it, which—as with nearly everyone else on both sides of the question—is considerable), is that in his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy natters on and on about the decision being protective of women’s emotions. Abortion is an emotionally and spiritually complicated matter, but women’s personal ambivalence is hardly the court’s business. Yet the fact that this weirdly paternalistic take on the matter was part of the court’s legal argument, is very different in approach, as the NY Times piece suggests, than anything we’ve seen in on the subject in the last 30 plus years. Not sure what it will mean in terms of future rulings yet. (The experts are all over the place on this.)
Today’s LA Times there’s an equally interesting opinion piece that suggests that Ruth Ginzberg’s dissent, which attempts to frame the argument about about abortion in terms of women’s equality—rather than the traditional “privacy” argument that is, to a great degree the basis of Roe—may form the basis for future arguments.
[NOTE: MY COMPUTER’S SUDDENLY ON THE BLINK, SO I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE COMMENTERS ARE HOLDING UP THE CONVERSATIONAL BANNER QUITE NICELY UNTIL I CAN GET THINGS RIGHTED.]
Your link wasn’t working or The NY Times closed, for which the latter is too hopefule to wish.
Do you realize how barbaric abortion rights activists appear on this issue? Don’t you realize the extreme immorality of this method and the pain that it causes an innocent human? In the abortion procedure, the doctor(?) delivers the head of the baby, jabs a suction pipe into the base of the skull and into the brain, and sucks the brains out. Yeah, that’s really worth defending.
Can’t people be happy enough killing the child without defending ways to make the butchery worse?
I propose a new method that should really reach the hearts of abortion activists–deliver the baby’s head, pull out a .44cal gun, and blow its head off. At least its faster and less painful–and, surely, more humane.
You guys worry more about how mass murderers are executed than how innocent children are wiped out who never had a choice or a chance.
Anyone who defends this is sick.
Chad Orzel at Uncertain Principles (ScienceBlogs) wrote recently of what he characterized as the “two great brain-sucking quagmire arguments of American politics”: abortion and gun control. Comments were mostly in jest. Chad made it clear he wouldn’t host either argument, and most folks were on angst overload from Virginia Tech anyway. But, his point is worth considering. These two areas seem impervious to rational discourse. It’s only (and always) either-or. The epithets fly both ways. The arguments are tired, worn, and entrenched; fossilized, or like petrified wood. I think it’s worth wondering why that is so. Americans, who tend to be tend to be pragmatic in most things, cannot seem to find a way to even talk about these two issues without resorting to hyperbole in its extreme.
Quoting from Ms. Pokey:
The decision to legalize abortion in the landmark case of Roe vs. Wade was due to the fact that judges could not answer the question of whether the baby was life or not – the answer was: “we don’t know.â€Â
It is the way of man to have a fast-food mentality – seeking benefit and comfort in the world without hard-work or tears, nor an eternal outlook. It is the way of man to resist gratification delay, seeking his reward immediately. It is the way of man to try to escape the consequences of his own actions. It is man’s way to be self-centered and selfish at the expense of others. Man wants to be served, rather than to serve. And it is the way of man to say: “I think…†rather than inquire.
Abortion recognizes no responsibility to related and affected parties: father, relatives, baby. Abortion shows no mercy to the helpless and innocent child. Abortion is a short-term ‘convenient’ solution for a temporary problem and for temporary, worldly gain and convenience. Abortion is a short-cut from bearing the consequences of our actions. Abortion serves the stronger, not the weaker. Abortion regards ‘self’ above others.
Life involves pain, disappointment, and hard work – no way around it. Terminating a pregnancy may eliminate certain unwanted temporary distress for a woman, but for what gain? At who’s expense?
A life that is dependent upon another for its well-being is deserving of MORE consideration, not less. A mother’s obligation to the child is greater while the baby is in the womb because of its dependency. Once the baby is born and others can reasonably care for it, a mother’s personal obligation actually diminishes.
Even elderly and disabled are dependent upon others, yet we do not consider eliminating them for our convenience to be acceptable. Moral truth is eternal and unchanging, and applies in all circumstances.
Partial birth abortion is no more justifiable morally than early term abortion. Life is life. Actually, because partial birth abortion kills a life that is viable independently of the womb, moments before it is allowed to take a breath, it even violates the original standards for abortion law itself.
Partial birth abortion is never medically necessary for the safety of the mother’s health should the pregnancy pose a threat to her life, because she has already carried the baby to term and live birth is 100% viable if not artificially terminated.
Since no women are witing in but only a bunch of “Concerned” men let me state this. The procedure, cleaverly named “Partial Birth Abortion (you won’t find that in OB/GYN Textbooks) is a very rare procedure and usually performed as a result of a “Tragic Choice” either the baby or the mother’s life. But what we hear from our “moralists” hnere is that a woman will carry a baby, nearly to term and then – on a whim! – say “Nope, Changed my mind! Get rid of the little bugger!” So that’s what you think of the other sex, huh!
And by the way, Roe permits restrictions in the Third Trimester anyway. Reasonable Ones. This is a bogus end run by a bunch of mysoginst bozos that really fear and hate the female principle.
Great life you guys. Now go back to defending guns for nuts!
All above is from Mrs. Pokey’s much loger writing on this subject
Er, Richard… maybe, it’s time (past time?) to ‘out’ myself as female. It’s interesting that mine is assumed to be a male voice. I originally chose the screen name that I have, because in Marc Cooper’s blog I was/am mostly a listener, and kept to the sidelines; deferential to the predominantly male principals posting there. I carried that same screen name here for the sake of continuity because some of you from there, also post here.
Bitch Ph.D did a decent breakdown of when/how IDX (“partial birth abortion”) is actually employed. She says it better than I can. It’s her post from April 18th. http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/
And, having worked in a state psychiatric facility for a number of years, I really don’t, and wouldn’t, defend “guns for nuts.” I am, however, groping (blindly, some might say) to find a way to talk about guns and abortion without either having a stroke myself, or invoking someone else’s stroke, in the process. I’m old enough to recall the period before Roe. I would choose not to go back there. I fear the only way not to go back there, is for both sides to try to find some way to talk about it without blowing a gasket.
Similarly, with gun control. There ought to be a way to regulate firearms without an all-or-none, one-size-fits-all law that serves no one particularly well.
My apologies if you feel I’ve been deceptive.
Thanks for the heads-up for the LA Times’ piece on Ruth Ginsburg’s dissent, Celeste.
Sorry listener, got carried away. But when the lead voice in the GONZALES decision, Anthony Kennedy, amkes the argument that restricting abortions is for the woman’s own good as she is either mentally unbalanced before the procedure or will become unstable as the result of the procedure then it seems to me we’re entering therealm of woman as infant or woman as unable to take care of herself. On this fron please see Digby’s comments today on the movement – made clear in Kennedy’s opinion – to place so many restrictions (like notification laws, not just for parentl notification but also notifying the putative father so that he can raise his “interest”; and, of course, lengthing the cooling off period to several days and require a gruesome session on the effects and dangers of abortion) that the “Right” becomes meaningless. Hence the warnings from Ginsberg.
Sorry, I’m not demeaning the mentally ill. But in all the discussion of Cho’s mental state and whether we should make it easier to commit someone I’m struck by the fact that in Virginia someone with the serious emotional and mental history of Cho could waltz into a gun store and waltz out with a gun.
I guess human life is precious as long as it stays in the womb. Once its out – well its open season! And don’t get me started on stem cells!
Still, there is progress. The internation Conference on Theology at Vatican City has eliminated the concept of Limbo from Doctrine. Now unbaptised infants can achieve salvation. No more waiting room!
rlc wrote: I guess human life is precious as long as it stays in the womb. Once its out – well its open season!
Here’s proof….
One baby in 30 left alive after medical termination
You’re welcome, Listener. And thanks for the Bitch Ph.D link. Interesting.
The justice argues that equality, not privacy, is crucial in the abortion right
—- The decision to legalize abortion in the landmark case of Roe vs. Wade was due to the fact that judges could not answer the question of whether the baby was life or not – the answer was: “we don’t know.†—–
As the knowledge and survivability of a baby in the womb grows, the legal justification for abortion diminishes. High resolution movies and ultrasound of a young fetus, brings the observer to the obvious conclusion that this is LIFE.
Ginsburg realized that the “medically approved autonomy ideaâ€Â, would eventually lead to the downfall of ROE, since it was based on changing ground as science learned more.
As a result a NEW justification for abortion must be created and justified —- Equality, yes we all must be “EQUALâ€Â.
However, what Ginsburg forgets is the reason there is a debate at all it that many people think that the un-born have some “EQUAL†rights as well. Equality has nothing to do with it. All it illustrates is “the moral depths and quagmires of irrationality to which the political and cultural left in this country have descendedâ€Â.
Ginsburg says, “The notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational.” —- So now she feels that t is irrational for the government to have a legitimate interest in protecting an unborn human being?
Majority Opinion included quotes regarding the abortion of a 26 week old fetus:
“The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch.
“The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out.”
If we straight line the rights of a fetus (that can survive if born), what do we have at 6 months – two-thirds of the full rights of a new born baby at 9 months? How do we work equality into the equation?
But if equality is required then make men live by the same laws when they are pregnant!
Anthony Kennedy was a disappointment. I had hoped for something better from him. Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer are (what I consider to be) the genuine scholars on the court. (Please don’t anyone mention Clarence Thomas.) IMHO, Infantilizing half of the population based on sex is as egregious an error as a Supreme Court Justice can make. I really don’t need to be saved from myself, my emotions, or my psyche. There’s probably ‘buyer’s regret’ in some cosmetic/eclectic surgeries, too. Justice Ginsburg gives me some hope. Notions of ‘life’ are like statistics. The results depend on when you start/stop the clock, and how you crop the data. I have a feeling that resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict will be easier than finding resolution on gun control or abortion.
Woody, your analogy answer to rlc’s quip isn’t quite parallel.
Pokey, when men can become pregnant, lots of heretofore unanswered, and unaddressed, medical issues will be dealt with in a much better way than they are now. I’ve no doubt women’s lives will become easier as well. I’ll donate mega-dollars to the first genuine research institute that undertakes the effort to equalize the sexes in this way.
I’d also love to see the source for that “fact”. Woody, if a baby is born alive and then killed its called “Murder” or, at the very least “Negligent Homicide”. So I’d sure like to see some prosecutions for same. I’m waiting.
Ginsburg is rationalizing, pure and simple, to get the outcome that she wants rather than what the law requires. What a surprise.
Based on what I’ve read – and, I make no claim to having read all that is available – it would seem that Kennedy left quite a bit of ‘wiggle room.’
Rationalizing something is not an insult to those who study economics. [Although there is a wonderful story about a dinner party drink throwing episode between two economists over the nascent theory of rational expectations.]
I think Ginsburg has cracked open a window of opportunity. History has demonstrated that all smart women really need is a window of opportunity. And if Roe can be defended on equality grounds, there will be little left to fight over.
It is worth remembering that women of ‘means’ have *always* had access to whatever reproductive care they want. I would argue that the ‘problem’ with Roe has been it made access available to all women. What those opposed didn’t ostensibly know, didn’t seem to bother them very much.
Are the unborn females granted equality?