She Was a Girl from Birmingham, She Just Had an Abortion...

Nick Gillespie | October 13, 2004

Abortion keeps rearing its head (?) in the debate and it's got to be said that both of these guys are full of shit on the topic.

Kerry mumbles that abortion is between "God, a woman, and her doctor," and that personally he's against it--thereby turning away from the question raised by abortion opponents that it's murder most foul. This is a pro-choice candidate?

Bush (whose spokesman earlier tonight on Hardball basically said Bush doesn't want to do anything to restrict abortion) keeps saying that it won't be a factor in picking Supreme Court justices (a total lie) and that he doesn't want to outlaw it or overturn Roe v. Wade, though it's bad and needs to be minimized. This is a pro-life candidate?

RE: blog post title: Sex Pistols lyrics page, "Bodies." Which seems pretty anti-abortion.

Comments

|10.13.04 @ 10:20PM|#

I'll be voting for Bush, but he did do a Kerryesque ducking of the abortion issue.

A simple, I am against it, but I think it should be a state issue would have done fine.

I personally really don't care about the abortion issue, but I thing it should probably be a state issue, just as gay marriage should be.

|10.13.04 @ 10:22PM|#

Nick:

"Kerry mumbles that abortion is between "God, a woman, and her doctor," and that personally he's against it--thereby turning away from the question raised by abortion opponents that it's murder most foul. This is a pro-choice candidate?"

Huh? I don't understand how this is full of shit. A little pussyish, perhaps, but thinking abortion is wrong but a decision to be left to a woman and her doctor is certainly pro-choice.

Am I missing something? How would you expect a non-full of shit pro-choicer to respond?

Nick Gillespie|10.13.04 @ 10:30PM|#

Titus,

If abortion is in fact murder, then the private nature of it doesn't preclude intervening to stop it. In fact, if abortion is murder, then there's a moral obligation to stop it, wherever it occurs. Kerry--and many pro-choice pols--really need to articulate a belief that abortion (at least up to the point of viability, or to some point prior to birth) is not murder, or in any way wrong. Otherwise, they're trying to get by on something far less than a moral footing.

|10.13.04 @ 10:32PM|#

Makes you wonder who they'll drag into this choice next. Under current law, if a woman wants an abortion, it doesn't matter what her doctor (or God) think.

|10.13.04 @ 10:43PM|#

crimethink,

Actually you are wrong there. Post-viability abortions are controllable by the state, as are abortions that minors might have, the state need not fund abortions, etc. Saying that there are no limits to abortion under the current law is just flat out ignorant.

|10.13.04 @ 10:51PM|#

Nick, Please explain how you know that when Bush says "that it won't be a factor in picking Supreme Court justices" you know that it is "(a total lie)"?

|10.13.04 @ 10:57PM|#

Jason Bourne,

Re: post-viability abortions, see Stenberg v Carhart and Doe v Bolton. To think that the human law encyclopedia Gary Gunnels could overlook those SCOTUS decisions!

OK, add "adult" before "woman" in my previous post, big flippin' difference. Where did I mention anything about federal funding?

In any case, do you dispute that (legally at least) God and a woman's doctor have zero say as to whether she gets an abortion?

|10.13.04 @ 11:00PM|#

"How would you expect a non-full of shit pro-choicer to respond?"

Here's how this pro-choicer would respond:

"I completely and unquestioningly support the right of a woman to have an abortion at any point during a pregnancy for any reason. No adult human being should have to be forced to sacrifice their lives, liberty or property to provide for another, even if it is only a potential human being."

"I don't believe that a fetus is should be accorded the same rights as fully developed humans since they have not developed sentience. Until that creature is capable of reasoning and is can be socialized, it is no better than an animal and is no small loss if it fails to come to adulthood. Human beings are made through teaching and upbringing, they are not simply 'born.'"

"I oppose any and all laws that would curtail a woman's right to have an abortion. I don't care how many pictures of allegedly aborted fetuses some activist waves in front of me. I don't care what you claim the mythological being you mindlessly worship says about where you think 'life' begins. This government, as demanded by the 1st Amendment, does not base it's laws on the dogmas of any particular religion, but upon secular reasoning that protects us all. If you are opposed to abortion, then don't have one. It's your choice!"

"However, in the interest of consistency; as much as I disagree with the notions of the anti-choice zealots, I don't think that they should be forced to pay for a procedure they find morally repellent any more than I think a woman should be forced to bring an unwanted fetus to term. Therefore, I propose that we end all federal funding of abortion WITH the stipulation that abortion remain completely legal in all 50 states."

|10.13.04 @ 11:01PM|#

Wow, Gillespie chucks privacy, the basis of Roe, out as a red herring in the abortion debate? He therefore makes the debate about whether or not an unborn child has any rights society is bound to respect and protect the only question really worth considering about whether abortion should legal? Incredible.

|10.13.04 @ 11:10PM|#

Mark S.,

At the risk of turning this into an abortion debate, do you believe it should be legal for parents to kill their day-old child, who has not yet developed sentience?

|10.13.04 @ 11:12PM|#

Mark S,

At the risk of turning this thread into an abortion debate, do you favor allowing parents to kill their day-old infant, who likewise has not yet developed sentience?

|10.13.04 @ 11:32PM|#

crimethink,

Nope. A day old child can be given up to an adoption agency, etc.

|10.13.04 @ 11:41PM|#

"At the risk of turning this thread into an abortion debate, do you favor allowing parents to kill their day-old infant, who likewise has not yet developed sentience?"

Yes.

|10.13.04 @ 11:46PM|#

Jason Bourne,

Answering personal questions directed at other people is flat out ignorant. :)

|10.13.04 @ 11:48PM|#

crimethink,

Not really. This is an open forum after all.

|10.13.04 @ 11:54PM|#

Mark S.,

:sigh: At least you're consistent.


Jason,

If you ask, "crimethink, do you wear boxers or briefs," and then someone else posts, "briefs", does that make any sense? And you still haven't answered the questions I actually directed to you.

|10.13.04 @ 11:57PM|#

crimethink,

Also, read Carhart; you'll see that it concerns a particular procedure, not post-viability abortions. I suggest you read the current court's ideas on the issue to be found in Casey, where viability is the watchword; it implicitly limits Doe v. Bolton.

|10.13.04 @ 11:59PM|#

Yeah right, Kerry is going to say all that.

Better yet, "go ahead and kill your day old infant if you will"

Bush waffled on the abortion question. Kerry was about as straightforward as he comes.

|10.14.04 @ 12:01AM|#

crimethink,

God doesn't exist.

Doctors need not perform abortions for patients; so yes, the doctor does have a say; they can simply refuse to do the procedure.

Again, there is nothing stopping any state from merely declaring that post-viability abortions are illegal; this is the neccessary implication of Casey.

|10.14.04 @ 12:16AM|#

jason are your really all three posters that crimethings says you are?

wasn't one of them a frenchman?

|10.14.04 @ 12:20AM|#

Jason,

One of these days I'm going to give up arguing with you. Running in circles is starting to make me dizzy.

I'm not the one who said God is involved in the abortion decision, that was Kerry. My point is that, existent or not, God does not have a legal say in the matter.

Also, "her doctor" implies the doctor that she regularly sees, not the abortionist himself.


I admit I'm no legal expert, but I find it odd that a particular procedure at the very end of pregnancy is constitutionally protected (as per Stenberg), but late-term abortions in general are not. So a state can ban all post-viability abortions except partial-birth abortions? Whacky, but then again so is RvW.

|10.14.04 @ 12:30AM|#

She don't wanna baby that looks like that!
I don't wanna baby that looks like that!

|10.14.04 @ 12:36AM|#

crimethink,

One of these days I'm going to give up arguing with you. Running in circles is starting to make me dizzy.

One of these days you'll be alleviated of your ignorance perhaps.

Also, "her doctor" implies the doctor that she regularly sees, not the abortionist himself.

And he or she has every right to refuse service. You act like a woman has a right to demand an abortion from an OB/GYN; she doesn't.


I admit I'm no legal expert...

That is readily apparent from your posts.

...but I find it odd that a particular procedure at the very end of pregnancy is constitutionally protected (as per Stenberg)...

The Justices clearly stated that the procedure as defined in the state law in question was overbroad (it would take in procedures other than the "partial birth" procedure in other words) and did not take account of the need for its potential use to protect the life of the mother. Again, read the decision; the justices make their position very clear on the matter.

So a state can ban all post-viability abortions except partial-birth abortions?

They can ban all post-viability abortions ("partial birth" or not), possibly with the exception of those which are performed to save the life of the mother (justices like Rhenquist, who generally oppose abortion rights, admit that a woman likely has a right to an abortion when her life is in danger - the thorny question being when that is the case). However, they cannot ban the "partial birth" procedure itself for the reasons stated above. Again, you confuse a particular procedure with a temporal period of fetal development.

|10.14.04 @ 12:42AM|#

Jason Bourne,

One of these days you'll be alleviated of your ignorance perhaps.

One can only hope. ;)

|10.14.04 @ 1:07AM|#

RE: Sex Pistols lyrics page, "Bodies." Which seems pretty anti-abortion.

"raped on a table in a factory/an intimate place to be"

Never thought 'Bodies' was anti-abortion given the above line. Always seemed more of a good social commentary with the brilliant conceit of giving voice to the aborted fetus - shows the callousness of abortion as a response to a brutal act.

|10.14.04 @ 1:12AM|#

Mark S.,

I agree with your last paragraph completely (keep abortion legal, but no federal funding), but:

"Until that creature is capable of reasoning and is can be socialized, it is no better than an animal and is no small loss if it fails to come to adulthood. Human beings are made through teaching and upbringing, they are not simply 'born.'"

Who makes that determination? By my reckoning there are adults who don't pass that standard. May I murder them at my leisure?

Who am I to judge who is sentient or at what age that occurs. By most standards, a one year old child is not fully sentient. For your argument to be consistent you would advocate a parent's right to kill that one year old child merely because he or she is an inconvenience.

Its a dangerous argument. While we are at it, we can create a minimum IQ threshold that defines what is "human". Why not allow the murder of any human? What the heck, we are just a bunch of carbon and junk and there are billions more where we came from.

I am an avowed atheist (of the weak agnostic variety) and struggle with existential questions every day. But at the end of the day, I have to make myself believe that all life is precious, special and potentially rare in the Universe. Either that or slip into Nihilism. A one year old child may not be fully sentient, but he/she is human in every sense of the word.

And I can think that abortion is morally wrong after a certain point (say brain development- yes I know that it becomes a slippery argument) and still be pro-choice. I can't prove with 100% philosophical completeness that I'm right, so I have to allow individuals to make a personal choice. I can be pro-choice in that respect while simultaneously advocating or campaigning for people not to make that choice after a certain point in the pregnancy. (I don't do that, but hypothetically I don't such actions as inconsistent.)

|10.14.04 @ 3:14AM|#

I once wrote the lyrics on a notebook of a girl who sweet on me.

She never spoke to me again.

Talk about birth control...

|10.14.04 @ 7:35AM|#

Abortion -- "rearing its head"? Would it be accurate to say "gay marriage,heading its rear"?

|10.14.04 @ 9:40AM|#

Actually, in many states underage females can get abortions without parental or court permission. Can't get a nose job or an appendectomy though.

MJ: "Wow, Gillespie chucks privacy, the basis of Roe, out as a red herring in the abortion debate?"

He's absolutely right, it is a red herring. But I detected an admiring tone in your voice (I think).

The whole pro abortion argument is about selling the goods. If Mark S' argument was a winning strategy they'd be using that. It ain't working very well so they don't, opting for framing it as a privacy issue instead. Well, smoking dope is a privacy issue too. Tell THAT to the judge.

|10.14.04 @ 9:48AM|#

"Kerry mumbles that abortion is between "God, a woman, and her doctor," and that personally he's against it--thereby turning away from the question raised by abortion opponents that it's murder most foul. This is a pro-choice candidate?"

Gillespie doesn't get the argument "I think an act is immoral, but it's not the government's place to enforce my moral beliefs?" This is a libertarian?

Amy Phillips|10.14.04 @ 10:28AM|#

Kwais: Actually, if you want "as straightforward as they come," you should listen to Wesley Clark on abortion. Back in January, he had the following exchange:

McQuaid: Let's take an issue. Abortion. Are there any limits on it in your mind?
Clark: I don't think you should get the law involved in abortion--
McQuaid: At all?
Clark: Nope.
McQuaid: At all?
Clark: It's between a woman, her doctor, her friends and her family.
McQuaid: Late term abortion? No limits?
Clark: Nope.
McQuaid: Anything up to delivery?
Clark: Nope, nope.
McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb?
Clark: I say that it's up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience, and law -- not the law. You don't put the law in there.

The article I got it from is expired, but I documented it at the time.

|10.14.04 @ 10:41AM|#

For abortion to be murder, the unborn must be given the rights of life and the protection our laws give to life. ALL OF OUR LAWS! Every time a pregnant woman miscarries, it would justify looking into as a wrongful death...weather she knew she was pregnant or not. For instance, a pregnant woman in a car accident that miscarries needs to be suspected of vehicular manslaughter just as if she ran over a child by accident. You cannot protect the rights of life for just certain circumstances� negligence that leads to a loss of life�.if the unborn is given the legal protection to live �means we have the obligation to pursue ALL pregnant women who miscarry as likely manslaughter or possible murder cases. Most right to life people do not even realize they can make it mandatory for doctors to call police for all miscarries and the first thing a women will face is a criminal investigation. One more example�a woman unknowingly 2 months pregnant goes skiing, falls down, and miscarries. If that unborn has protection under the law for a right to life, this is not just an accidental loss of life, but involuntary manslaughter. This women needs to spend 5 plus years in jail. This is what pro life people are fighting for.

|10.14.04 @ 11:25AM|#

Mark S. thinks it's okay to kill someone unless he can file a lawsuit to stop it.

- Josh

|10.14.04 @ 1:44PM|#

Mark S.

You are an appalling excuse for a human being.
Please, fuck off and die.

Jason,

"God doesn't exist."

How can you be so sure of that? Or is it just so "obvious"?

|10.14.04 @ 3:15PM|#

"You are an appalling excuse for a human being.
Please, fuck off and die."

My, that was reasonable response.

|10.14.04 @ 3:18PM|#

"You are an appalling excuse for a human being.
Please, fuck off and die."

My that was a reasonable response.

|10.14.04 @ 3:50PM|#

The demise of a fetus, or even a child, is a small lose to a civilization, they have nothing to offer. I'm more concerned about the death of adults and the lose of experience, knowledge, and talent that death entails. It takes a lifetime of education and cultivation to create an Einstien, Sauk, Watson, Crick, or Gates and once they die they're gone! You CAN always make more tabla rasa into the world. If the parents choose to raise them and if they can survive the meat grinder that is life, then we'll talk about their "right to life."

Natural selection isn't just a good idea, it's the LAW and we deny it to the peril of our species.

|10.14.04 @ 4:46PM|#

TWC,

The Supreme Court has specifically stated that the states may require parental consent (or the consent of a judge - when the minor is fear of a parent who may have abused/impregnated her) before a minor gets an abortion. This is one of the more fundamental holdings of Casey (again, I ask the ignorant to actually understand the law before they comment on it). The fact that some states have not chosen to exercise this ability does not diminish the fact that minors may be required to get prior consent from a parent (or a judge) before they get an abortion. In other words, your comments are beside the point.

And privacy is not a red herring.

andy,

Its my opinion on the matter. Deal.

|10.14.04 @ 5:57PM|#

Mark S,

My my my. So unless you're valuable to civilization (as determined by whom?), you don't have no stinkin' rights.

I'm thinking andy's FOAD response is as reasonable as you're going to find here.

|10.14.04 @ 6:58PM|#

"My my my. So unless you're valuable to civilization (as determined by whom?), you don't have no stinkin' rights."

You know, I don't really fucking care anymore. Maybe I don't really care about the "rights of women" or "the right to choice?" Maybe I'm endorsing abortion and infanticide because I get my kicks out of pissing off the stinking Jesus-freaks? Maybe I've just given up on humanity? Who knows?

We feed, clothe, shelter the stupid and the lazy at the expense of those who can feed, clothe, and shelter themselves in the name of "rights." We might as well indenture ourselves by caring for more human beings who will become nothing more than dregs of society in the name of myths like "soul," "love," "life," and the biggest lie of them all: "God."

"I'm thinking andy's FOAD response is as reasonable as you're going to find here."

Fuck off and die, huh? Well, right back at you humanity, fuck off and die. You deserve it.

|10.14.04 @ 8:15PM|#

Chuckle. They just don't get it, Mark.

Folks, you've been had. Mark S. is obviously a pro-lifer who is employing a variation of the Socratic method to attack the pro-choice side. He is not just attacking abortion, but the oh-so-logical, collectivist "the individual matters for nothing except for what he can contribute to 'Society'" type of intellectual. He took this viewpoint, stretched throught the ringer of logical consistency to show it was plainly absurd, and still you fell for it and took him at face value.

Sorry to blow your cover, Mark, but it was starting to get ugly. Besides, your "We feed, clothe, shelter the stupid..." paragraph was actually starting to sound more hyper-Randian, which jarred a bit against your "ability to contribute to society are all that matter" pose that you were originally lampooning. Otherwise, I think you made your point brilliantly.

|10.14.04 @ 8:19PM|#

... and by the way, linking the "pro-choice" opinion to an underlying "I hate all humanity and really am 'anti-life'" viewpoint at the end there was also wickedly clever, if a bit overdone and unfair to the pro-choice side.

|10.14.04 @ 9:07PM|#

Stevo,

Well, now that you've ruined our fun, I'll admit that I was also not sincere in the preceding discussion. I was pretending to be a gullible H&R poster, to show how silly it is to take other posters too seriously.

Fooled you, didn't I? ;)

|10.15.04 @ 3:46PM|#

I knew all along you were just playing along, Crimethink.

In fact, no one should take anything I post at face value, either.

And in fact, right now, I'm lying.

That last sentence was a lie, too.