dagblog - Comments for "Abortion: Unifying Issue"

Pence doing a victory lap

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 04 May 2017 07:27:27 +0000

Pence doing a victory lap already - screw that bastard.

I like the phrase ¨good

Flavius — Thu, 04 May 2017 03:21:09 +0000

In reply to That's a matter of opinion.

I like the phrase ¨good enough¨. As I´ve written here occasionally , in the late 50s the prevailing (Freudian) medical position- that autistic children were the fault of their ¨refrigerator mothers¨- was rejected by a couple of psychologists who recognized that most mothers are ¨good enough¨ and if a child became autistic there had to be some other reason for it.

Bernie was a good enough defeated candidate.

Nice and thorough thought

Obey — Wed, 03 May 2017 12:18:03 +0000

In reply to There needs to be a

Nice and thorough thought experiment Peter! Sounds about right to me

There needs to be a

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 03 May 2017 12:16:22 +0000

In reply to I don't know that far left is

There needs to be a distinction between the positions we take on issues on the merits...and how those issues play out in a primary and, especially, in a general election. I'll use abortion as an example, because we're here.

When we're by ourselves, as it were, it makes sense to clarify our positions to a high degree. Hash out everything and come to the "right answer."

So, abortion should be legal, safe, and carry no social stigma whatsoever. We don't stigmatize people who go in for other necessary, or elective, procedures. No one says face lifts should be legal, safe, and rare, as if there were something wrong with getting a face lift. Same thing for abortion.

But as soon as we propose to take our support of abortion (or any issue) into an election, we have to look at it, at least potentially, in a different light. Why? Because we know, going in, we will NEED the votes of people who don't see our issue in the same way, not to mention others who reject anything close to our position entirely.

So we could say that "legal, safe, and rare" is a compromise with those people who have certain qualms about abortion. They want it to be legal and safe, but they'd rather there be fewer of them than more of them. And we specify how we plan to reduce the number of abortions.

This is a compromise with people who do NOT share our views on abortion. Not a compromise with folks who are strictly anti-abortion, but with people who don't like abortions per se, but don't want to make it illegal.

So we have to treat our issues in two different ways and for two different purposes. The first way is to come to the right conclusion; the second way is to use the issue in an election and attempt to move things in the world.

Now, some people will say, with some reason, that we can't give up any ground or they're roll all over us. But I don't think the legislative record will show that. Brown paved the way for the Civil and Voting Rights Acts. DADT paved the way for gays serving openly in the military and for gay marriage. SS that excluded black people and menial laborers led to everyone being covered. This is the arc of justice, and it's a long haul.

And we have to be clear where the front line is. AA's article on medical abortions via a pill was very illuminating. Embedded in it is real danger and real opportunity. Real danger because once you take the doctor out of it, women become the perps and they can be jailed, and not for piddling times. In fact, they are already being jailed, I think in small numbers. And all those laws giving foetuses personhood become very scary.

However, there is also real opportunity. The more mainstream anti-abortion forces have made a living out of depicting the woman as "victim." It's the doctors who are committing murder. Very few people want women going to jail for having an abortion. So the doctors become the scapegoats, and since there are fewer and fewer willing to risk their lives to do abortion, it's really easy to scapegoat them as the Devil's assistants.

But what happens when the scapegoat goes bye-bye? That leaves only one murderer in the picture, the woman. There are no longer abortion clinics to protest or doctors to kill. Abortions are happening in the privacy of peoples' homes. Now, how do people feel about the police getting a warrant to search someone's home? How do they feel about the authorities opening anyone's mail (and discovering all them sex toys sent under brown paper cover)? Or digging up someone's yard looking for foetal remains?

And how does the public feel about ponying up for the massive resources that would be required to launch and maintain this kind of law enforcement effort? Suddenly, every home and apartment is a potential abortion clinic. Suddenly, every box in brown paper wrapping is an abortion "doctor."

Think of the elaborate ruse WhatsHisName had to pull off to make those Planned Parenthood videos. Compare that to the ease with which a woman's husband or partner could take video of the police entering (perhaps forcibly) their home and searching it? Or questioning the woman about the most intimate matters? Or digging up their beautiful, award-winning garden in search of telltale goop.

Then multiply the number of those videos going viral around the world in seconds with faces and names there for all to see. Advantage: us.

Abortion clinics don't go away, but the need for them goes waaaay down. And if you're not going to jail a woman for murdering her own foetus, it will be harder to jail a doctor who is only brought in when there's an emergency. Suddenly, anti-abortion protesters look foolish for hanging out at abortion clinics when everyone knows that most abortions take place at home.

The drugs could be banned, but how is the war on drugs working out for ya? You're already busting a nut trying to stamp out cocaine and heroin use and importation. Now, suddenly, everyone between the ages of 13 and 48 becomes a perp in potentia scouring the landscape for any possible route by which she can buy her "fix"? And it isn't just the women, but also their male partners, friends, and family members, who will be in on the transactions. In fact, maybe we get smart and half the drugs are mailed to men. Now you have almost the entire population of people between 13 and 99 to surveil. How easy is that going to be? It will be impossible.

At that point, if it's not too late, the country can engage in a discussion about abortion without the threat of force (jail time or death) or shame hanging over peoples' heads. Most likely, the issue just goes away for all intents and purposes. It becomes solely a private decision which I predict won't make it any easier for the people involved.

That's a matter of opinion.

ocean-kat — Wed, 03 May 2017 04:28:22 +0000

In reply to In 1933, according to Harold

That's a matter of opinion. Many of us feel that Bernie didn't acknowledge his defeat like a gentleman nor did he work to unify the party until late in the general election and even then rather weakly. While his hard core supporters cheered him for his fighting spirit others saw him as a sore loser.

In 1933, according to Harold

Flavius — Wed, 03 May 2017 03:54:19 +0000

In reply to Not to be a downer--oh, okay,

In 1933, according to Harold Ickes, Dean Acheson was confirmed Deputy Secretary of Treasury despite happily acknowledging during his hearing his lack of qualification.

.It ´s a baseball cliche ¨the ball will always find the player out of his position.¨

And sure enough the Secretary wasn´t able to function because a family problem, FDR attempted to stimulate the economy by devaluing the dollar, Acheson feeling that was dishonorable treatment of dollar holders, objected , FDR was infuriated and one morning Acheson opened the paper to read that he had resigned and the newly selected Deputy would temporarily take office immediately.

The following day FDR opened his paper to see a photo of the swearing in of the new Deputy, behind whom could be seen the unmistakable bowler hat and vsage of the just unappointed Deputy.

A couple of years later FDR fired another appointee .He responded by fierce complaints to the media.

FDR was heard saying ¨Someone should get a hold of X and tell him to learn from Dean Acheson how a gentleman properly leaves an Administration.¨

Hillary , in 2008, and Bernie last year each fiercely fought their corner and when they lost demonstrated how a gentleman leaves a primary.

I do suspect with medical

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 03 May 2017 03:10:52 +0000

In reply to You mean the "far left" or

I do suspect with medical abortion easier and easier, that in 100 years or earlier, a significant amount of ages-old horror will go away, as memories of coat hangers fade and societal religion changes, even though some questions of where life begins will remain.

I don't know that far left is

ocean-kat — Wed, 03 May 2017 03:06:29 +0000

In reply to You mean the "far left" or

I don't know that far left is the best term. I'm struggling to find some word to describe the extreme pro-choice wing. Suffice it to say that there are some number of people who claim that using "rare" is stigmatizing and implies there is something wrong with getting an abortion. We even had a long discussion here on that point some months ago and one of the dagbloggers was adamant that progressives shouldn't say abortions should be rare or in any way imply an abortion was of any more consequence than say, a tonsillectomy. Mystifying to me as well.

You mean the "far left" or

Peter Schwartz — Wed, 03 May 2017 02:23:47 +0000

In reply to I liked Hillary's formulation

You mean the "far left" or progressive pro choicers WANTED people to have abortions as some sort of good in itself? I think Camille Paglia takes that position, but...it's hard for me to see why anyone would want someone to be in a position where they decided or had to have an abortion. It's not fun for anyone.

As I understand it, making it rare has nothing to do with limiting access to abortion in any way. It has to do with education, the dissemination of contraception to help people avoid being in that position to begin with. I guess you could say that if you're helping people avoid X, you're stigmatizing it to some degree. Mystifying...to me.

I liked Hillary's formulation

ocean-kat — Wed, 03 May 2017 01:41:03 +0000

In reply to Agree 100%. An example of

I liked Hillary's formulation of safe, legal, and rare but it wasn't a compromise with the anti-abortion groups. At most it was a compromise between the far left pro-choice and moderate pro-choice groups. It wasn't any sort of compromise that the so called progressive feminist anti-abortion groups would find acceptable. If democrats win it wouldn't be too hard to come to compromises within the moderate democrat and liberal wing. We're about to see if the republican party can compromise between it's hard right and moderate wing. Atm the moment they're not doing too well with that which is why they aren't getting much done.