We live in an era where there is no one single truth - there are only partisan truths. For every democratic truth, their is a republican counter truth. For every sentence in praise of ice-cream, there is a line devoted to its negative health effects. I am reconciled to all that but still there are some partisan "truths" that gall me enough that I need to share them.
I was listening to some conservative radio show yesterday -partly out of boredom and partly out of feeling adventurous and there it was - my moment of high blood pressure (eh?). Anyways, a discussion - more like a reading of crimes at an inquisition - about abortion was going on. Listening to the "pro-lifers", it was hard not to mistake pro choice as being pro abortion. Abortion is one of the most morally divisive issues seperating this country and one of the few that is worthwhile but most discussion on the topic, as with every other important topic, has always been riled with empty demagoguery. It still comes as a shock to me when people go out of their way to be in my face with libelous diatribe.
I honestly doubt if there exists someone who is pro-abortion. Liberals are about leaving the choice of abortion open for women who need it but at the same time enacting measures which will help women choose otherwise. The fact of the matter is that dichotomous views of society don't translate into good public policy. If conservatives are seriously interested in curbing abortion rates in this country, they would think about investing more into child healthcare, providing child care at work, legislating paid holidays for new mothers and fathers and devising ways of making the decision of bringing a child into this world financially viable. Outlawing abortion won't stop abortion - it would just take it into the back alleys or to Mexico where there would be a much graver risk for women's health. Lets take meaningful steps to curb abortion rates, which have already fallen dramatically due to easy access of contraception, rather than spend time ranting and raving about the Satanic liberal conspiracy.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
>> honestly doubt if there exists someone who is pro-abortion. <<
(raises hand)
Dave
2 - Bryan McKay
Explain, Dave.
3 - Steve S
I identify as liberal and for me it is about choice, the woman's right of self-determination for her individual self. And it's about keeping it legal, safe AND rare.
4 - Dave Nalle
What's to explain? I'm pro abortion. I think abortion is a positive good for society and that there ought to be more of it. I'm in favor of encouraging abortion as a form of birth control. I'd prefer that people saved money and moral trauma by using other methods of birth control first, but if abortion will reduce the growth of population and especially of unwanted and excess children then I'm all for it.
I'm not for ALL abortions. I think partial birth abortion is an abomination. And I oppose any abortion after the second trimester when the baby could be viable outside the womb with minimal medical support. But before then abortion seems like a desirable option in a lot of situations.
I ought to also point out that I don't think there should ever be blanket government funding of abortions, but on the other hand I'm also inclined to the belief that if you sign up for WIC then free abortions should be available as part of the service. In fact you should lose your WIC benefits and possibly custody of your children if you have another child while on the program, and shouldn't be allowed to take WIC support without contractually agreeing to this.
Dave
5 - Steve S
I love your WIC solution.
6 - Dave Nalle
Was that sarcasm, Steve? On a moral level I absolutely hate my WIC solution. But from a pragmatic standpoint it seems justified.
Dave
7 - Victor Plenty
Wouldn't it be cheaper and less controversial if the government simply required all WIC recipients to take contraceptives?
Don't just hand out pills. Actually make sure WIC benefit payments are on the same schedule as contraceptive injections, or have social workers verify the presence of contraceptive implants before disbursing any benefit coupons, issuing any checks, or reactivating any WIC debit cards.
That might really reduce the number of abortions.
8 - Bryan McKay
So let me get this straight, you're a libertarian, so I would assume you place personal liberties first and foremost, yet you would support encouraged and/or mandatory abortions? Whatever happened to choice (i.e. freedom)?
9 - JR
Bryan McKay: Whatever happened to choice (i.e. freedom)?
Who's forcing people to sign up for WIC?
10 - Victor Plenty
Dave says people who take government money (WIC) ought to freely enter into a contractual obligation stating they will get abortions if they become pregnant again while still drawing benefits from that government program.
They are always free to not take the money if they prefer not to enter that contract.
I'm not a libertarian myself, and I don't agree with Dave's idea, but it seems quite compatible with what I know about libertarian ethics.
11 - Bryan McKay
Some people need it. It's government aid that's available for those who may have no other viable options. Sure, there is a choice, but if the only alternative is a dead baby, that's pretty damn close to being forced to sign up.
But that really just brings me back to my whole issue with Dave's WIC argument. Government aid is very different from government regulation. Recieving government aid shouldn't be dependent on agreeing to compulsory abortions.
12 - Bryan McKay
I'm not a libertarian myself, and I don't agree with Dave's idea, but it seems quite compatible with what I know about libertarian ethics.
If that's true, then I wouldn't rate libertarian "ethics" very high on the moral scale.
13 - Victor Plenty
Libertarians believe it's not the government's job to make sure nobody dies of starvation. In fact they believe the government's main job is hiring enough police to make sure starving people don't take away anyone else's money, unless of course the money is voluntarily donated.
In their ideal world, most libertarians would probably prefer to do away with WIC entirely, along with all other forms of government assistance to the poor.
Ideas like mandatory abortions for WIC recipients are the sort of things libertarians think up when they are trying to make the best of a bad situation.
14 - Dave Nalle
>>So let me get this straight, you're a libertarian, so I would assume you place personal liberties first and foremost, yet you would support encouraged and/or mandatory abortions? Whatever happened to choice (i.e. freedom)?<<
That's why I'm troubled by my own idea, Bryan. It's not compatible with libertarian ethics.
But as a Libertarian I really ought to oppose all forms of public welfare from the get-go. Having compromised my libertarianism to accept WIC, how much of a further step down the road to moral ambiguity is it to accept birth control connected to it? If it's all done contractually with consent then it's at least acceptable.
And yes, I agree with whoever said that mandatory birth control would be better than abortions, though if the BC didn't work then abortions would have to be stipulated as a backup.
Dave
15 - Bryan McKay
Birth control seems more reasonable to me than compulsory abortions, and it does more to solve the problems. Abortion shouldn't just be used as a form of contraceptive when other methods are available. Education needs to come first.
As far as libertarian ethics, I seem to be hearing two different sides: Victor it's compatible with libertarian ethics, yet you say it's not. I suppose I'll go with you on this one, as you're probably more knowledgable in that territory.
I still don't entirely agree with you, but I understand your point a bit more thoroughly now, thank you.
16 - Lisa McKay
Somehow I find government non-interference in the reproductive lives of women to be preferable to either compulsory contraception or compulsory abortion. Or compulsory childbirth, for that matter. But I'm glad you guys all seem to have a handle on the problem.
17 - El Bicho
Just for clarification, Victor, do you also prefer to do away with government assistance to the rich?
18 - Nancy
To my surprise, I'm agreeing w/Dave.
I find that when I listen to "pro-lifers", the message I also get, however, is that, most of them seem to be men, & they are additionally preponderantly opposed to women's rights, equality for women, etc. An awful lot of them seem to subscribe to the idea, subliminally if not openly, that we should return to the old 'woman as chattel' status. Am I wrong?
19 - Lisa McKay
I'm sure that the same pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for oral contraceptives are also rabidly anti-abortion, so it would certainly seem that there is a certain segment of the population that thinks that women's reproductive lives ought to be determined and controlled by someone other than the women themselves.
20 - Victor Plenty
Just for clarification, El Bicho, I haven't been talking about my own preferences at all in this thread. I've discussed libertarian preferences, and tried to help steer our libertarian fellow citizens toward more moderate expressions of their own ideas (contraception being more moderate than abortion).
In comment 10, I clearly stated I'm not a libertarian myself. I've never called for ending all government assistance to the poor. I merely observed that was a central goal for libertarians.
I don't support forcing anyone to get an abortion. Nor do I support forcing anyone to take contraceptives. I suggested that only as an attempt at harm reduction. Forced contraception, although odious in the extreme, would be less harmful than forced abortion.
21 - Steve S
no Dave, not sarcasm. I support helping people get on their feet, which is why I'm always supporting liberal issues which further helping the down and out. However, the system isn't perfect and there are a lot of people who have children solely because of the monetary value they get out of WIC/welfare and the like. The more children you have, the more welfare you get, so it encourages the chronic poor to have more children than they can afford.
22 - Nancy
Wasn't - or isn't - there a program somewhere that did just this? As I recall reading, recipients of welfare or whatever it was were thrown off the roles if they had any more kids while on it? Wisconsin...? I can't remember.
23 - gaurav
Yup, you are right nancy - some pro lifer jihadists (ok I am being inflammatory) are often against contraception too besides being against women empowerment as such. You know, people having problems with contraception is something I simply refuse to understand.
Why abortion issue evokes so much reaction is also because it touches on some existential issues - had I been aborted, I wouldn't have been here kind of thing. I think this is definitely true for a significant segment of these pro-life evangelists who "escaped murder"...
Let me also briefly address liberatarianism - I think when we talk about using "good for society" as a rationale for shoving choices down people's throats - we have already moved away from the key tenet of liberatarianim - that is the best of society is when everybody is given free choice. It believes in sort of a karmic equilibrium that is reached via decision making by empowered individuals.
24 - gaurav -2
Just wanted to clarify one more thing - it is a liberal argument to say government knows best not a liberatarian one..
25 - bhw
Hello? The monetary value of WIC?
WIC is a nutritional program provided to women and their under-age-5 children who are at nutritional risk.
The following benefits are provided to WIC participants:
* Supplemental nutritious foods
* Nutrition education and counseling at WIC clinics
* Screening and referrals to other health, welfare and social services
Also:
Who is eligible?
Pregnant or postpartum women, infants, and children up to age 5 are eligible. They must meet income guidelines, a State residency requirement, and be individually determined to be at "nutritional risk" by a health professional.
And, from the same FAQ page:
WIC cannot serve all eligible people, so a system of priorities has been established for filling program openings. Once a local WIC agency has reached its maximum caseload, vacancies are generally filled in the order of the following priority levels:
* Pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants determined to be at nutritional risk because of serious medical problems.
* Infants up to 6 months of age whose mothers participated in WIC or could have participated and had serious medical problems.
* Children (up to age 5) at nutritional risk because of serious medical problems.
* Pregnant or breastfeeding women and infants at nutritional risk because of dietary problems (like poor diet).
* Children (up to age 5) at nutritional risk because of dietary problems.
* Non-breastfeeding, postpartum women with any nutritional risk.
* Individuals at nutritional risk only because they are homeless or migrants, and current participants who without WIC foods could continue to have medical and/or dietary problems.
WIC isn't an "entitlement" program, but a program based on minimum income requirements AND demonstrated health needs.