Abortion is a highly charged emotional issue. Many people oppose abortion, under any circumstances. Others think it is just fine in all circumstances. Still others think it is OK in some, but not all circumstances. These, I submit, are "givens." What I don't understand is why abortion is a major issue in the Presidential race, since there is very little the President can do to grant the wish of any group vis a vis abortion.
Much attention has been paid to the answers of Senators McCain and Obama at the Saddleback event, to the question
at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?To me, the question was not a very good one, since "human rights" has many different meanings in many different contexts, possibly including the right to citizenship.* Nevertheless, both candidates seemed to respond to it as though it had been "At what point does abortion cease to be a viable option, if it ever is a viable option?" Senator Obama expressed his agreement with Roe v. Wade . Senator McCain seems — almost but not quite — to have said that abortion should be unlawful, period.OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade. . . . But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.
But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members. And so, for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.
MCCAIN: At the moment of conception. (APPLAUSE).
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Shane
The answer is simple, and you answer it. Because of the power to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court. Although they are sometimes predictable (and sometimes not), time and time again the Judges do tend to lean the way of the President that appointed them. I like Obama, and voted for him in the primaries, but the only reason I am considering voting for McCain is because of the Supreme Court issue. I prefer Judges that at least attempt to stick to the original intent of the Constitution. Yes, we must adapt for our changing times, but that does not mean we should give way to the whims of judges, which we are now doing all over. We need, as you allude to, leave the law making up to the various states, especially in areas that were Constitutionally meant to remain with the States.
2 - Baritone
Dan,
While the difference may be nominal, if memory serves, Warren asked the candidates two different questions on this topic. Obama got the question you quoted above, while McCain got a more direct question: "When does life begin?" While this difference doesn't impact your discussion, it did make for a bit of a difference in how the two candidates could answer the question. McCain got away with one line, whereas as the question was put to Obama, it required, especially given his pro-choice position, a much more prolonged and painstaking answer.
Also, I take small issue with your characterization that some people think that abortion is "just fine" under any circumstances. Perhaps some do, but using that particular phrase IMO misses the mark as regards attitudes about abortion.
Ann Coulter, the harridan bitch slut from hell, has repeatedly stated that "liberals love to kill babies."
Even the most ardent pro-choicers hardly "love to kill babies," or would IMO say that abortions are "just fine." Most abortion rights supporters understand how difficult such a decision is for many women. They know that for most there will be emotional (and perhaps physical) scars left by termination procedures. They know it is not a happy decision. But they DO feel strongly about the rights of women to make such decisions for themselves, and that it should be none of the government's business.
Personally, I don't believe that any man should have anything to say about it. Men railing against abortion rights are in many respects hypocrites of the first order. Should women have a legal say as to whether a man gets a vasectomy? I know that is not quite the same thing, but nevertheless, it would put women in a position of setting up legal standards regarding a man's decision whether to remain fertile.
To me, the issue is not so much a definition of life, or when does life begin, but rather one of a more practical matter. Is it always preferable to bring a life into the world regardless of circumstances? Many women become pregnant without intending to. Of course, there are measures available to prevent or at least to reduce the probability of conception, but they are not always used, and in at least a few instances, they do not work as expected.
Adding to the mess is the notion of many religious folk that using some type of contraception is a sin or some such rot.
Should an unwanted or unintended child be brought into the world under such circumstances? Are we so punitive that we think it just that a woman must carry a child to term, give it birth and raise it as just punishment for her lack of discretion one night in the back seat of a car? The puritan ethic that still abounds in this country is in fact hypicritical and ludicrous.
What I am discussing above of course are emotional and perhaps spiritual issues. You focused upon the legal aspects. Does the state (either at the state or federal level) have a legal interest in the welfare of the unborn? I suppose some type of standard or oversite should be constituted, but such standards or oversite should be very limited in scope. To limit or otherwise control a woman's right to make a most personal decision should be beyond the purvue of government.
As you note, it is typically conservatives who hate government intrusion into peoples' lives - especially into one's business. Conservatives tend to sing in harmony as one against government regulations, taxing, etc. Yet, many of those same people have no problem with government taking up residence in our bedroom or in a woman's womb.
B
3 - Clavos
Should women have a legal say as to whether a man gets a vasectomy?
If they have a legal "stake" in the man (i.e. wives), yes; not a deciding say, but a say? Yes.
4 - Clavos
Should an unwanted or unintended child be brought into the world under such circumstances? Are we so punitive that we think it just that a woman must carry a child to term, give it birth and raise it as just punishment for her lack of discretion one night in the back seat of a car? The puritan ethic that still abounds in this country is in fact hypicritical and ludicrous.
Little of the current debate centers around such extremes. Even ardent Pro-Lifers recognize exigent circumstances in the case of rape and incest.
The extreme that IS still a problem, however, is the decision as to whether or not to kill (there is no other appropriate word) a human infant (not a "fetus"), which having survived attempts at abortion, has emerged.
5 - Baritone
Or, er, purview.
I don't particularly agree with Shane regarding the courts and the supposed "original intent of the Constitution." Were that the case, we would have NO ammendments. But changes have been found to be necessary. Also, much of the "intent" of the Constitution is open for interpretation. How else can anyone justify the recent SC decision regarding guns? To "interpret" the Constitution is essentially the job description for a judge - especially on the appellate level and above. We live in a far different, and in many ways far more complex world than that of 1789. There are regularly issues brought before the courts that our founding fathers never could have imagined. To assume that a document written over two hundred years ago could stand up without change in that time, and/or that it could adequately address all issues is ludicrous. Our Constitution is truly a great document, but it is not without its flaws and it cannot adequately relate to all circumstances. It must be reviewed, interpreted and reinterpreted, and changed periodically to be relevant in a vastly different, modern world.
B
6 - Arch Conservative
"Even the most ardent pro-choicers hardly "love to kill babies," or would IMO say that abortions are "just fine."
Hmmm...then what do you make of the fcat that a few years back Planned Parenthood was selling t-shirts that said "I had an abortion?"
7 - Arch Conservative
I guess Planned Parenthood couldn't find any taxidermists that would stuff the fetus so that the mother could take it home as a memento of her shoing the world that she made a "choice"
It's fucking disgusting that the Dems are going to have Cecile Richards, the evil baby killing cunt bride of Satan, speak at the DNC. There is a woman with more blood on her hands than George Bush could ever have on his.
8 - Baritone
Clav,
I wasn't refering to rape or incest, but rather perhaps a moment of passion or lust at the drive-in or in an empty bedroom at a party, or whatever. Regardless, any pregnancy if unintended and unwanted arises out of "five short minutes of love," or from whatever circumstances, should the price paid be as I noted above? And more often than not, the "penalty" is placed solely upon the woman. Usually, the man goes on blissfully either unaware, or unconcerned about the consequences of his lust. I would bet that if by some means, men could carry a child, all of this talk would disappear in a heartbeat.
Certainly, some of the late term procedures raise more complex issues. But I do NOT consider the termination of an early term embryo an infant, nor do I consider it murder. As I've noted elsewhere, in the absence of any deity, we are the nearest thing we know of to being god. We have the ability and responsibility to make life and death decisions pretty much at all levels of existence.
As to the vasectomy scenario, there may have been some civil cases involving this decision, but I know of no legislation pertaining to it. As far as I know, from a legal perspective, any man in this country can opt for a vasectomy with no fear or possibility of the law breaking down his door and carting him off to jail for having his tube (or is it tubes?) clipped. The "say" of which you speak that a woman may have in this regard should, in the majority of cases, be handled within the confines of the relationship, or perhaps the extended family, a counselor or doctor. It should IMO not be placed under the perview of any legislative body.
By extension, either a vasectomy or a woman having her tubes tied could be considered tantamount to killing one or more humans. How many sperm cells does a man produce throughout his lifetime? Aren't they all "alive?" How many potential humans have died from a one handed love affair?
Each woman has a finite number of eggs in her ovaries. Would having her tubes tied, or, say having one or both ovaries removed for whatever cause be considered infanticide? There are those on the nutball fringe who would have it so.
As to the latter issue, yes, as with the aforementioned late term procedures, this all gets quite messy. But a good deal of that should be handled, not by legislatures, but by the medical community. It should be the responsibility of doctors to standardize procedures and clarify just how certain situations should be handled. Of course, I understand that with human beings, no one can anticipate every possibility. There will always have to be on the fly judgment calls made. But even then, that should most often be the stuff of medical review. If, upon, investigation, it is found that one or more individuals were guilty of either gross negligence or intent to do harm, then perhaps the constabulary should be notified. Otherwise, probably not.
I find this issue even more confounding than the bruhaha surrounding gay rights and same sex marriage.
B
9 - Jet
I bet if Arch got himself invited to the GOP convention, he'd get kicked out for being too liberal.
10 - Dr Dreadful
Abortion in the context of the presidential election is a political, not a legal, issue, and both McCain and Obama know this very well.
The comment thread (particularly B-tone and Archie's contributions) has already demonstrated this very well. Within half a dozen comments we're talking about whether or not abortion is a Bad Thing, and not about Dan's legal analysis, which as usual is beyond reproach.
McCain was tossed a soft ball (could somebody with at least a modicum of baseball knowledge please correct me here by providing the proper idiom) by Warren, but gave a very smart answer. He pleased his audience, and if challenged on it later in the campaign or if he gets to the White House, he can respond, 'I said when I believed life began. I didn't say anything about what my views were on terminating it.'
In contrast, Obama's long and meandering answer, while in my view perfectly good, gives his opponents far too much ammo for future use.
11 - Dan Miller
Baritone,
According to the cited transcript, the only source I have to go by, the question asked of Senator McCain was "What point is a baby entitled to human rights." The question asked of Senator Obama was "at what point does a baby get human rights?" (emphasis added in both quotations). I have only the transcript to go by. There is probably a very slight difference in the questions, but both referred to human rights and neither to when life begins.
As to whether there are many people who think that abortion is "just fine," I guess I used more poetic license than I should have. it is a surgical procedure, with dramatically more emotional impact than many other medically simple procedures. I know no one who thinks going to the dentist to have a cavity dealt with is "just fine." We do it to avoid other less desirable consequences, and I suspect that abortion, for many people, is about the same. If a pregnant woman does not want to continue her pregnancy or have a baby, then I think it's her choice, not mine or that of society in general to make the decision.
The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade set some guidelines, based primarily on medical technology back in 1973. Should the case be revisited, I don't know or feel competent to speculate what the result might be.
The thrust of the article was intended to be that subject to the Constitution as I read it, and the interpretation placed upon it in Roe v. Wade, abortion is not a Federal question which a President has the authority to decide and upon which he has extremely little ability to have a substantive impact. In the final analysis, the issues of abortion and birth control are theological in nature, and those who adhere to religions which condemn either or both should conform to those proscriptions. The rest of us should make up our own minds
Dan
12 - Matthew T. Sussman
"McCain was tossed a soft ball (could somebody with at least a modicum of baseball knowledge please correct me here by providing the proper idiom)"
Yes. Or, "Kyle Farnsworth was pitching to John McCain."
13 - Dr Dreadful
And while we're about it, let's look at those T-shirts, shall we, Archie?
Planned Parenthood's purpose in selling them was not to encourage women to brag about having an abortion but to raise awareness of the issue. Your eagerness to characterize PP as an army of baby-killing demons cuts no ice with me.
If you can achieve some level of emotional detachment for a moment, consider this analogy. In Thatcher's Britain in the 1980s, one used to see young folk walking around with the legend '3 million unemployed' on their T-shirts. They weren't proud of the fact. It's just that sometimes the simplest statement is the most effective. Ask any advertising executive.
14 - Dr Dreadful
Thanks, Matt.
However, in future I would appreciate jokes that I don't have to look up Wikipedia in order to get.
Once again, I am,
Sincerely,
Yours truly
15 - Baronius
With the Supreme Court having taken on this issue, you could argue that no elected official has much say about abortion. The reason that both sides are looking at the presidency is that he's the one who can most directly affect the composition of the Court.
But curiously, the President has a lot of say about the number of abortions outside the US. His executive orders set the policies for international aid, and allow or forbid abortions at military facilities. With maybe 10% of female soldiers pregnant at any given time, that's a pretty high tally.
He also appoints everyone from the Presidential Bioethics Commission and the Surgeon General to the Secretaries of Education and HHS. There are a hundred indirect ways that the President can affect abortion policy.
16 - Arch Conservative
Planned Parenthood's purpose in selling them was not to encourage women to brag about having an abortion but to raise awareness of the issue.
Shall I take that to mean that if the pro-life side was all up in your grill with pictures of aborted fetuses you would have the same cavalier attitude toward them?
You can believe what you want about Planned Parenthood but the truth is they're in the abortion business above all else. It is their main source of revenue and they geenrate millions in pofit from abortion every year. They oppose every piece fo legislation that would actually reduce the number of abortions and they are very anti family despite their name.
Maybe you'd like to trot out the old "how can they want more abortions when they provide birth control," argument. Easy sales of abortions is still sales and we all know that sales is nothing but a numbers game. PP knows that by giving youg people birth control and encouraging them to have lots of sex because they feel safe is actually a good straegy to increase abortions. The more people out there fucking, even with BC, the more unintended pregnancies there are going to be. The more unintended pregnancies there are the more abortions there are going to be. Numerous studies have shown that when a PP clinic comes to an area the number of abortions increases significantly. other studies have also proven that parental consent/notification laws reduce the number of abortions but PP opposes all such measures.
Please don't be like Cecile who would piss on my leg and tell me it's raining Dreadful. Anyone with an ounce of objectity can see that Planned Parenthood's number one priorirty is turning dead babies into cold hard cash.
17 - Franco
#2 " Baritone
"Personally, I don't believe that any man should have anything to say about it. Men railing against abortion rights are in many respects hypocrites of the first order."
Speak for yourself pal.
"To me, the issue is not so much a definition of life, or when does life begin, but rather one of a more practical matter".
Definition of "practical matter" - convenience!
Only those who crouch to avoid the issue of when life begins can look at anything else as being a practical matter
#8 "Baritone
"I do NOT consider the termination of an early term embryo an infant, nor do I consider it murder".
How dose he come to this conclusion and how dose he support his findings?
"We are the nearest thing we know of to being god. We have the ability and responsibility to make life and death decisions pretty much at all levels of existence".
All of that pompous self-righteous discourse by one how has safely made it out of the womb yet freely denying that same right to those who have not yet. AND WHY?, for the practical matter of convenience, BECAUSE?, we have the ability and responsibility to make life and death decisions pretty much at all levels of existence because we are like God.
If I had not seen in it print, I would not have believed it.
18 - Franco
#16 " Arch Conservative
Well said. Spoken for truth.
19 - Jordan Richardson
It should be noted that there were dissenters even within the ranks of PP that opposed the shirts. So it was far from a unified message of empowerment coming from the group. While I support PP for the most part, there's no question that their ideologies towards abortion can be obnoxious from time to time.
20 - Zedd
Great article.
I think that the assumption is that the public is dumb. Politicians entertain questions about subjects that they know full well that they have no jurisdiction over. The Republicans tend to do this more. The entire Newt revolution was built on such "stances". I was a teen at the time and was offended. It bothered me that adults were all in a quiver over matters that were neither here or there. Case in point, "prayer in school" sigh.
21 - Baritone
First of all. There is no god. God is not dead. God never was. God is a myth. God is a crutch for all weak willed feeble minded chumps who can't believe that when they fucking die, they are fucking dead. People who can't accept that we are not special creations made in the image of some grand omnipotent being, rather than the results of millions of years of evolution.
Convenience! You consider the task of carrying to term, birthing and then raising a child for 20 years or so merely an inconvenience? Give me a fucking break. What an asinine notion?
Does anyone in their wildest imaginings think that the world needs more babies that no one wants? The mother doesn't want them. The father doesn't even know they exist. Society doesn't want them. Hey, if you want them, adopt ALL of them! Or would that be "inconvenient" for you?
People fuck. A lot. The notion that fucking is done primarily for the purpose of propagating the species is, to be kind, idiotic. People fuck because it's fun. People fuck because it feels good. People only rarely fuck to have a child. All of you puritanical assholes hate the idea that people are actually having fun fucking while your preacher pontificates about how horribly sinful it is.
Without any evidence that any god actually exists - show me one iota of evidence that there IS a god, go ahead, do it! - we are it. We live in a country that does in fact LOVE to put people to death, especially Texans who seem to revel in it.
The U.S. is the most punitive society in the free world. We put literally millions of people in jail for every damn thing, and go to great lengths to inject, gas, electrocute or hang as many of them as we can.
But, talk about killing a glob of cells and wham! It's a sin against gawd!
"How dose(sic) he come to this conclusion and how dose(sic)he support his findings?"
Answer: Common sense.
Planned Parenthood provides a service that otherwise would be unavailable to many women and couples. That the organization earns a profit simply helps guarantee its continued existence. PP councils literally thousands of people without steering them toward termination.
How many companies exist for the sole purpose of producing implements of death? How many companies exist for the sole purpose of waging and supporting war?
Arch is one of those GUYS pontificating about what women should or should not do with their bodies and their lives.
B
22 - Clavos
While I support PP for the most part, there's no question that their ideologies towards abortion can be obnoxious from time to time.
Good observation, Jordan; just didn't carry it far enough:
...all ideologies are obnoxious most of the time.
23 - Franco
"There is no god. God is not dead. God never was. God is a myth. God is a crutch for all weak willed feeble minded chumps who can't believe that when they fucking die, they are fucking dead. People who can't accept that we are not special creations made in the image of some grand omnipotent being, rather than the results of millions of years of evolution."
The antichrist has spoken!
"Without any evidence that any god actually exists - show me one iota of evidence that there IS a god, go ahead, do it!"
Without any evidence that God does not actually exist - show me one iota of evidence that there IS NOT a God, go ahead, do it!
24 - Dan
"The U.S. is the most punitive society in the free world. We put literally millions of people in jail for every damn thing, and go to great lengths to inject, gas, electrocute or hang as many of them as we can.
But, talk about killing a glob of cells and wham! It's a sin against gawd!"
Silly atheist, embryo's are innocent, defenseless victims. Death row criminals are hideous abominations to humanity. Most of the time anyway.
If men shouldn't have a say in abortion, then they shouldn't be under any sort of obligation to the welfare of non-aborted embryo's.
See how easy this stuff is when you reason logically?
Here's another one: If a medical advancement would allow, through minimal invasiveness, the transfer of a fetus from a stupid womans womb to an artificial environment where time and nurturing would enable it to eventually make the decision of whether it wants to die or not, stupid women still wouldn't go for it. Not most anyway. Their goal is total escape from their idiocy. That means no chance of pathetic orphans running around questioning their virtue.
25 - Dr Dreadful
Without any evidence that God does not actually exist - show me one iota of evidence that there IS NOT a God, go ahead, do it!
Can't prove a negative, Franco...
If a medical advancement would allow, through minimal invasiveness, the transfer of a fetus from a stupid womans womb to an artificial environment where time and nurturing would enable it to eventually make the decision of whether it wants to die or not, stupid women still wouldn't go for it. Not most anyway. Their goal is total escape from their idiocy.
Not all women who get accidentally pregnant are stupid, Dan. Nice misogynism there.