Charter Member of the Sub-Media

June 13, 2005

Roe Vs Wade Could/Should be Overturned « Social Issues »

And here's why.

It's become a lodestone.

If you really think abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, if you really think that abortion should remain legal for the truly desperate situations, then you should be preparing for the end of Roe v. Wade.

And by preparation, I mean laying the groundwork for a Constitutional Amendment that will establish the right you want beyond the reach of a few newly-nominated justices.

You see, Roe v. Wade has always been tenuous. Anything established by judicial fiat can be removed by judicial fiat. And so pro-Choice advocates have to make sure the social context never shifts against abortion. They have to make sure a conservative President never gets the opportunity to appoint judges who stick to what's actually written in the Constitution. And in struggling to do so, the pro-Choice advocates have become extreme in trying to make sure the "right" to abortion doesn't get eroded. They can pressure any Democrat candidate for President must toe the line on abortion. They expend political power making sure that procedures that disgust most people (i.e., partial-birth abortion) remain legal. The way the MSM fought the terminology battle (when every major news outlet referred to it as "so-called partial-birth abortion") for the pro-Choice advocates was another nail in the coffin of the public's trust of MSM, as well. And it didn't help any when a NARAL spokesperson said someone shouldn't be prosecuted for a murder because "it would set a bad precedent for abortion".

The linked article demonstrates the eroding support.

Pro-Choice advocates depend on certain language eliciting a certain emotional reaction to keep abortion "rights" off-limits. But over time, the semantic framing of the issue has worn thin. "Safe, legal, and rare" worked until people realized that abortion advocates only cared about the first two. Pro-"choice" worked until people realized the only choice allowed was to have an abortion (anything else would be castigated).

I tried to avoid the semantic battle, and always tried to argue against abortion using pro-abortion terms. I felt that if I could use their emotionally-charged terms and still make a decent argument against abortion, my point had more strength. In every conversation I had, I challenged pro-Choice advocates to imitate me, i.e., use pro-Life terms to argue for abortion "rights". Not a single one dared to take me up on the challenge. And I think more and more people are tired of "framing" and "semantics", and are starting to pay attention to what, exactly, is happening. And the result is that 50% of the nation wants abortion to be legal only in the case of rape, incest, or a life-threatening situation for the mother.

The battles and the invective are going to get worse before they get better.

Posted by Nathan at 09:57 AM | Comments (10)

I think abortion drugs will eventually make the issue of Roe v. Wade rather moot. We’ve already demonstrated a complete inability to stop illegal drugs from entering the country, and if abortion is banned there will certainly be a market for things like RU486. Are we really going to investigate every woman who has a miscarriage for murder?

One other thing Nathan, I don’t understand this statement:

Pro-"choice" worked until people realized the only choice allowed was to have an abortion (anything else would be castigated).

Explain, please.

Posted by: Cutter at June 13, 2005 01:59 PM

That statement is a conclusion I've drawn from demonstrated actions by pro-Choice organizations like NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood. Specifics:

Accounts detailed at this website.

Advocates push for and applaud forcing all New York City interns to be trained in abortions, whether they want to or not.

Abortion groups oppose 24-hour waiting periods on abortions.

Abortion groups try to block ultrasounds from being shown to women considering an abortion.

(Yes, Planned Parenthood is a pro-Choice group)

It's certainly enough to establish the validity of my argument, if not establish the actual fact. I assure you that's just scratching the surface.

Posted by: Nathan at June 13, 2005 03:06 PM

Actually, despite being generally pro-Life, I advocate for the legalization of RU-486, "emergency contraception", and "morning-after dosages", because you at least have demonstrated the responsibility of taking care of it before the cell implants on the uterine wall (as I understand it).

It's a fairly arbitrary distinction from that point of view, I realize. My thinking is that you can't really stop anyone from getting an abortion. Criminal sentencing does not result in deterrence, so it's useless. So if you have to have a channel for some legal abortions, I'd prefer the abortion happen by the woman's own hand, rather than using money to entice a doctor into performing the procedure.

Posted by: Nathan at June 13, 2005 03:11 PM

Actually, I think implantation is a more reasonable line than fertilization, from what I understand of the physiology of pregnancy.

I think abortion ought to be legal (for a number of reasons I don't really want to hash out here, but the fact that criminalization doesn't accomplish anything is one of them) but I also think Roe is lousy law, and that we'd do a lot better dealing with the whole question if we were forced to actually hash it out...not to mention this nutjob idea I have that the states are supposed to be dealing with these things...

Posted by: Deb at June 13, 2005 07:30 PM

Yes. Thank you. Whether you intended it or not, what you said is pretty much exactly what I think, and what I intended to say...even if I wasn't as clear as you, Deb.

Posted by: Nathan at June 13, 2005 08:39 PM

Ah! I suspected I might have been repeating what you said in other words. I'm not always at my sharpest in the evenings lately. ;) Cool.

Posted by: Deb at June 14, 2005 05:31 AM

Thanks for the clarification, Nathan. While I now understand what you said, I think you should be careful not to paint all pro-choice individuals (or even organizations) with the same brush. Their platforms tend to be driven by the most radical; I suspect very few of the actual “pro-choice” rank and file would castigate a woman for having a baby.

I can also see where they are coming from in opposing 24 waiting periods (being a raging gun nut). The forced training of interns and the ultrasound thing are abominable, though.

Posted by: Cutter at June 14, 2005 02:08 PM

I understand what you are saying, I think. It seems that in reacting to what I see the pro-choice leadership doing, I may inaccurately portray the thinking of the some people who support Roe v. Wade.

I've run into this before. And I have no better answer now than before.

If I vote for Bush, am I responsible for every thing he says or does from here on out? If I criticize "Democrats", am I insisting that every single Democrat everywhere has exactly the same view that I can critize?
At what point is a "rank and file" supporter able to distance themselves from a leader? At what point can I assume that if they aren't pressuring or censuring their leader for statements/actions, that they are now at least partly responsible?
When you lie down with dogs, at what point do you actually obtain the fleas you get up with?

So in this case, exactly how many conservative or moderate pro-Choice groups are there? I see NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, and the Democrat Party taking the lead, and I don't see a whole bunch of pro-choice supporters upset about that or doing much to provide any other options for someone who supports abortion as a right. As such, I think the reader should be able to assume:
I am criticizing the leaders, the spokespeople, the decision-makers, and the ones who set strategy. If you support the concept but don't support the people or actions I cite, then you should probably reconsider your advocacy, or at least the terms upon which you lend your support. At the very least, you should be able to realize that if what I'm saying doesn't apply to you, then you can probably consider yourself excluded from the criticism. If I'm not talking about you, I'm not talking about you, yanno?

That being said, I see nothing wrong with a 24-hour waiting period, waiverable under certain circumstances, for nearly anything, but guns and abortions particularly.
I'm a raging gun nut, too, and it didn't bother me or hurt me at all to wait an extra day to pick up the pistol I waited for 3 days to get delivered. Anyone who needs to shoot today either didn't plan ahead (and having to wait 24 hours is thus a good lesson for planning ahead) or quite possibly could be up to no good. ...on the other hand, when in conversations with gun-control nuts, I point out that if denied a gun, someone intent on murder would just go get a baseball bat, a bow and arrow, a frying pan, a golf club, a hammer, a car...or even just use their fists. It is the intent to murder (or lack of control over rage) that kills people, not the item they choose with which to do it.

Posted by: Nathan at June 14, 2005 06:19 PM

Okay, all clear on the abortion thing (and I more or less agree with you).

As for waiting periods on guns, they mean nothing to me personally. I am well armed enough as it is for most scenarios, and when I decide to buy a gun I generally shop around for several days anyway. But waiting periods do effect non gunnies who develop an unexpected but legitimate need for a firearm RIGHT AWAY. For example, the Korean shopkeepers during the Rodney King riots, or someone who receives a death threat. I can understand why some people choose to not live with guns, and I don’t think teaching them a lesson on planning ahead is a good enough reason to deny them the ability to obtain a means of self-defense in short order. And like you say, people who premeditate murder will likely find a way to do so, waiting period or no.

Does this constitute a comments thread hijacking? If so, sorry… ;)

Posted by: Cutter at June 14, 2005 07:36 PM

Not at all. Sometimes the digressions are better than the original conversation.

I was thinking of those people exactly when I said that there are some exceptions to the people who can wait.
It seems like there should be some mechanism for exceptions, like, if you need a restraining order on someone, you should also get the chance to buy a gun immediately and get an hour of gun safety training before you leave.

That doesn't help a shopowner who suddenly finds himself menaced by a gang or something, so I admit I don't have a good final answer yet. But I'm willing to discuss it! :)

Posted by: Nathan at June 14, 2005 08:59 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?