Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion
Howard Dean was on Meet the Press this past Sunday and made a good point about the Democratic party's stance on abortion. He made a point that has been made several times, but he articulated it pretty well (which is quite frankly somewhat surprising for Howard Dean, who is strangely awkward in my opinion).
Anyway, the idea is that there's no one on Earth who is "pro-abortion". Rather, each woman or family or whomever is making the decision should be allowed to come to the decision that best suits them. Dean told a story about a woman he met in the South (this "people story" thing is one of the lamest political strategies, by the way, but was pretty effective in this case) who said that she was pro-life, but really wasn't. She said that she doesn't believe in abortion and whe would never have one, or encourage anyone to have one, but if her neighbor decided to have one, then she wouldn't begrudge her. That person is pro-choice, despite the fact that she views herself as pro-life.
Howard Dean was talking about how this has come down to a semantic issue for the most part. There are lots of people who are maybe on the opposite side of the issue. The Republicans also do a good job of making Democrats seem as liberal as possible on this issue, as if Democrats go out and recruit people to have abortions.
At this point we should stop fighting this battle from 1974 or whenever and get to ironing out the details. There are some interesting decisions to be made regarding abortion dealing with minors and third term abortions and what not that at this point are just politicized.
Anyway, the idea is that there's no one on Earth who is "pro-abortion". Rather, each woman or family or whomever is making the decision should be allowed to come to the decision that best suits them. Dean told a story about a woman he met in the South (this "people story" thing is one of the lamest political strategies, by the way, but was pretty effective in this case) who said that she was pro-life, but really wasn't. She said that she doesn't believe in abortion and whe would never have one, or encourage anyone to have one, but if her neighbor decided to have one, then she wouldn't begrudge her. That person is pro-choice, despite the fact that she views herself as pro-life.
Howard Dean was talking about how this has come down to a semantic issue for the most part. There are lots of people who are maybe on the opposite side of the issue. The Republicans also do a good job of making Democrats seem as liberal as possible on this issue, as if Democrats go out and recruit people to have abortions.
At this point we should stop fighting this battle from 1974 or whenever and get to ironing out the details. There are some interesting decisions to be made regarding abortion dealing with minors and third term abortions and what not that at this point are just politicized.
# posted by ChuckJerry : 5/25/2005 08:04:00 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Chuckster,
I feel like your last two posts were written directly to me. Like you were reaching across cyberspace and touching my heart.
Regarding abortion, you've articulated something very important which I agree with personally. People confuse "x should be legal" with "everybody should do x" or "there's nothing wrong with x at all". I think alcohol should be legal even though people shouldn't drink from morning to night. You get the point, obviously.
Regarding Oasis, (and this occurred unrelated to your post), for the last two weeks I've had What's the Story Morning Glory in my car playing it over and over. Similarly, I thought it was catchy pop / overrated when it was out (around when I graduated from high school?). Now, I think it's tremendous. There is a huge retro influence esp. Beatles in their music, especially in how the songs are structured but also in some of the guitar riffs, melodies, lyrical structures, etc... I think as you said that they did "branch off" and use the Beatles as an influence to create a unique sound. Their songs are great, and I could (and am currently) listening to it over and over. "Don't Look Back in Anger" is probably my current favorite.
Apparently this was their second album. They did one right before it, I think it's called "Definitely Maybe". Both Definitely Maybe and What's the Story are very critically acclaimed, and I am on line with you to get the first one.
Ah, if only we were gay. If only, Chuck.
I feel like your last two posts were written directly to me. Like you were reaching across cyberspace and touching my heart.
Regarding abortion, you've articulated something very important which I agree with personally. People confuse "x should be legal" with "everybody should do x" or "there's nothing wrong with x at all". I think alcohol should be legal even though people shouldn't drink from morning to night. You get the point, obviously.
Regarding Oasis, (and this occurred unrelated to your post), for the last two weeks I've had What's the Story Morning Glory in my car playing it over and over. Similarly, I thought it was catchy pop / overrated when it was out (around when I graduated from high school?). Now, I think it's tremendous. There is a huge retro influence esp. Beatles in their music, especially in how the songs are structured but also in some of the guitar riffs, melodies, lyrical structures, etc... I think as you said that they did "branch off" and use the Beatles as an influence to create a unique sound. Their songs are great, and I could (and am currently) listening to it over and over. "Don't Look Back in Anger" is probably my current favorite.
Apparently this was their second album. They did one right before it, I think it's called "Definitely Maybe". Both Definitely Maybe and What's the Story are very critically acclaimed, and I am on line with you to get the first one.
Ah, if only we were gay. If only, Chuck.
I agree w/most of what you said about abortion, Chuck, but I think it is important to note that both parties do a shitty job on this issue.
Democrats get, in my opinion, overly-zealous when it comes to abortion legislation. Just becomes someone wants to regulate it, doesn't necessarily mean that we are one step closer to outlawing it. The Democrats' position on abortion legislation is somewhat akin to the NRA's position on guns . . . if we give an inch, they'll take a mile.
I think this is a bad way to reach reasoned decisions on the complicated issues (like the ones you note: parental notification, late-term abortions, etc.).
I also don't understand why abortion is the one issue about which people cannot engage in a rational conversation. Pro-choice people go crazy when you try to point out that, generally, abortion is pretty fucked up. By contrast, pro-life people go crazy any time you present them with a few rational policy- or morality-based arguments in favor of keeping abortion legal.
I guess I just see both sides of the issue, and, while I come down on the pro-life side, I don't find fault with people who have made a reasoned-decision to come down pro-life.
Democrats get, in my opinion, overly-zealous when it comes to abortion legislation. Just becomes someone wants to regulate it, doesn't necessarily mean that we are one step closer to outlawing it. The Democrats' position on abortion legislation is somewhat akin to the NRA's position on guns . . . if we give an inch, they'll take a mile.
I think this is a bad way to reach reasoned decisions on the complicated issues (like the ones you note: parental notification, late-term abortions, etc.).
I also don't understand why abortion is the one issue about which people cannot engage in a rational conversation. Pro-choice people go crazy when you try to point out that, generally, abortion is pretty fucked up. By contrast, pro-life people go crazy any time you present them with a few rational policy- or morality-based arguments in favor of keeping abortion legal.
I guess I just see both sides of the issue, and, while I come down on the pro-life side, I don't find fault with people who have made a reasoned-decision to come down pro-life.
# posted by 
: Thursday, May 26, 2005
: Thursday, May 26, 2005
Congrats, Brian, by the way.
I disagree that pro-choice people, in general, go crazy when you point that abortion is kinda "fucked up", as you put it. I don't think they kid themselves about the physics of an abortion. They'll admit that it's fucked up but still say that people should be able to do it if they choose to.
I disagree that pro-choice people, in general, go crazy when you point that abortion is kinda "fucked up", as you put it. I don't think they kid themselves about the physics of an abortion. They'll admit that it's fucked up but still say that people should be able to do it if they choose to.
I know this is a few days late, but...
Maybe I'm overreaching here, but I think Abortion/Roe v. Wade dwarfs any other "moral value" in the entire "moral values" argument going on right now. Every other "moral values" issue is merely an extension of abortion. It's really the only important "value" in the whole debate. If "moral values" were the 90s Bulls, abortion would be Michael Jordan.
Each side has gone so extremist (did you see the Governor of Texas sign a parental notification/gay marriage law INSIDE A CHURCH on Sunday?) that anyone trying to make a rational point or even listen to the other side is ignored or labeled a traitor.
And this may upset some of my liberal friends, but I think Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision. I do think abortion should be legal ("Safe, legal, and rare."--Bill Clinton), but there is nothing in the Constitution on this. Back in 1973, the states were already making their own decisions. The Supreme Court should have left it up to them.
Instead (a lot of credit to David Brooks on this), pro-lifers, who make up half the country, felt betrayed by their government. It was like their chance to make what seemed to them a completely moral and individual decision was removed--exactly the way pro-choicers would feel were abortion outlawed. Ever since, this one issue has pushed people on either side further away from each other--all because there wasn't the chance to have a legitimate discussion, while people could still be open-minded.
Certain parts of the country (the red and the blue, most likely) would have come to different conclusions about it, and I guarantee the nation wouldn't be nearly as polarized as it is right now.
In nearly any social issue today (gay marriage, church vs. state, stem cells, evolution), you can trace the roots of the disagreement back to Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, the damage has been done. Overturning it probably won't help. It might even make things worse at this point.
I don't know if or when we'll see a democrat with the guts to say, "I'm pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade went too far. It should be a state issue" or a republican saying "I am pro-life, but that doesn't mean I can tell my neighbor to have her baby or not." That would seem to fall under the "political suicide" category. But until this issue gets brought back into the middle (where most people ultimately are), it's only gonna get worse and it's just gonna make everything else that much tougher.
Post a Comment
Maybe I'm overreaching here, but I think Abortion/Roe v. Wade dwarfs any other "moral value" in the entire "moral values" argument going on right now. Every other "moral values" issue is merely an extension of abortion. It's really the only important "value" in the whole debate. If "moral values" were the 90s Bulls, abortion would be Michael Jordan.
Each side has gone so extremist (did you see the Governor of Texas sign a parental notification/gay marriage law INSIDE A CHURCH on Sunday?) that anyone trying to make a rational point or even listen to the other side is ignored or labeled a traitor.
And this may upset some of my liberal friends, but I think Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision. I do think abortion should be legal ("Safe, legal, and rare."--Bill Clinton), but there is nothing in the Constitution on this. Back in 1973, the states were already making their own decisions. The Supreme Court should have left it up to them.
Instead (a lot of credit to David Brooks on this), pro-lifers, who make up half the country, felt betrayed by their government. It was like their chance to make what seemed to them a completely moral and individual decision was removed--exactly the way pro-choicers would feel were abortion outlawed. Ever since, this one issue has pushed people on either side further away from each other--all because there wasn't the chance to have a legitimate discussion, while people could still be open-minded.
Certain parts of the country (the red and the blue, most likely) would have come to different conclusions about it, and I guarantee the nation wouldn't be nearly as polarized as it is right now.
In nearly any social issue today (gay marriage, church vs. state, stem cells, evolution), you can trace the roots of the disagreement back to Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, the damage has been done. Overturning it probably won't help. It might even make things worse at this point.
I don't know if or when we'll see a democrat with the guts to say, "I'm pro-choice, but Roe v. Wade went too far. It should be a state issue" or a republican saying "I am pro-life, but that doesn't mean I can tell my neighbor to have her baby or not." That would seem to fall under the "political suicide" category. But until this issue gets brought back into the middle (where most people ultimately are), it's only gonna get worse and it's just gonna make everything else that much tougher.
# posted by : Monday, June 06, 2005
: Monday, June 06, 2005<< Home
