Ugly People in an Ugly World

Wow, that is really disgusting. I'm vehemently pro-choice, but part of allowing women to have control over their reproduction is to, well, allow women to have control over their reproduction. Too fine a point cannot be put on this: making laws (or just moral judgments) against women who choose to carry their pregnancies is just as wrong as making laws and moral judgments against those who make a different choice; this is the pro-choice point of view.

Interesting post. The reality is that both camps are split by two main factions.

On the Left (if you will), is the 'pro-choice' and the 'pro-abortion'. I think that roro shows what pro-choice is suppose to be (and they are the moderates of the Left side of this argument), and the Lady Logician show what it means to be pro-abortion (eugenics, by another name).

On the Right, there is 'anti-abortion' and 'anti-choice'. One faction, anti-abortion, has for various reasons a total, or at least almost total, rejection of abortion for any reason. The anti-choice crowd seems to a mix of 'limited-choice' proponents and the Constitutionalists that believe Row v Wade was for various reasons a bad Constitutional ruling, and represent the moderate side of the Right on this debate..

As is always too often these days though, the extremists on each side suck up all the air, and get all the news attention. After all, time and time again we (meaning the general public) continue to prove that reasoned, moderated debate on the issues loses out to emotional, rage-filled screaming every time in the ratings game.

I'm pro choice but feel that every option should be considered before abortion.
There are people who want to have chlldren desperately( like myself) but can't and there are those who seem to win the fertility lottery who have no business being parents, much less members of society. Just sticks in my gut.

There should be some method of ridding society of undesirables. Not people with disabilities, but people who are simply too stupid to continue to take up space on this planet (who always seem to be two people ahead of me at airport security lines searching desperately for their identification).

I suggest using a form of polo mallet. First, it has the reach necessary to span the distance across one or two normal people, plus there is the added benefit of not having to waste a bullet.

See, there is always a good compromise if you just look at things logically.

AustinRoth et al.: Sometimes it is useful, as well as good blogging hygiene, to read original texts instead of posts that link to a post that links a post about the original text. The original text to which you object (as do I) was written by Nicholas Provenzo, and it's on a site called "The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism: Enterprise Demands Freedom." This doesn't sound "Left Wing" to me. Here's the URL:

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2008/09/palins...

I have *never* met anyone on the American Left who was pro-abortion in the sense that AustinRoth uses, right-wing propaganda to the contrary. The most extreme position I've seen on the Left personally is that elective abortion ought to be legal until birth, a position that is way more extreme than Roe v. Wade and which no abortion rights advocacy group promotes. However, that's not the same extreme position we're objecting to here.

I've argued for a long time that the real abortion extremists in the U.S. are almost entirely on the Right. As far as the "anti-abortion" and "anti-choice" distinction AustinRoth makes, it is little distinction at all if the end result is that abortion is criminalized. Oppression is oppression; the theoretical underpinnings get to be irrelevent after a while.

barbara - sorry if I have indeed misrepresented by not following the links. I am in Hawaii (I know, poor me),working (really), and just checking in occasionally. Again, any inference directed at the wrong persons was unintentional, and i apologize.

So, first, I have indeed read posts by the extreme left about abortion the way I characterized it. That is my own personal experience. I don't have time to chase links (sorry). Advocacy of abortion to eliminate 'undesirable traits' is eugenics, and I only need point you to Professor Singer at Princeton to find writings promoting that position.

I also object to the position that the elimination of Roe v Wade 'criminalizes' abortion. It does return it initially to a state by state decision, which certainly lead to some states criminalizing it, but others not. That is not a good outcome, I grant.

However, the abortion debate was short-cut by the Supreme Court. That is why is continues to be so contentious. Until we, as a whole, address it via legislation, it will remain so. If those who believe in choice (and to be clear, I am pro-choice first trimester, only to save the mother third-trimester, and situation second-trimester) do not prevail due the majority of the country failing to agree with their position, then the people have spoken.

But without a true Constitutional Amendment settling either the right to privacy or self-determination issue, or even a narrow one on abortion, this will always cause political fighting.

Of course, neither side is willing to take the risk of doing that, as they fear the results, given the polling that consistently shows support overall for first trimester abortion, but not second or third except in special circumstances.

Barbara -- Thanks for the link; it looks like the site is for those Ayn Rand followers -- DEFINITELY not lefties, by any means. I'd say the article makes a lot more sense now, considering the source. I would concur that I've never met pro-choice people who think it's ok to force someone into an abortion, no matter the condition of the fetus. As I think more about this, the only examples of people who actually advocate that some people who want to should not be allowed to reproduce even if they want to are the Chinese government, and people who fear Latinos and Muslims are "outbreeding" white people in the US. These are both groups that are strongly opposed by abortion-rights activists. Even the zero-population-growth movement doesn't advocate that some people should get abortions whether they want them or not -- they just want individuals to come to the choice themselves that having lots of kids isn't good for the environment, if I understand their position correctly.

mmm polo mallets....

or maybe a giant ballista or trebuchet !

Austin Roth -- I don't think that everything should be decided by the voters. There is absolutely such thing as tyranny of the majority. I wonder, if we put it to vote, whether or not we could, for example, pass a national law that performing or getting a sex-change operation is illegal. Or outlaw baggy pants. These are not issues that should be decided by vote. We've already seen what happens when the voters get to decide whether or not to take away people's rights to live out their lives as they choose -- just look at all the same-sex marriage bans.

Roro,

I’m an advocate of forced abortion/sterilization in certain circumstances. This may seem cruel or insensitive, but if we are ever going to have healthcare for everyone some things need to change.

HBO ran a documentary a few years back highlighting a late-40’s crack whore who was pregnant with her 5th child. Each of her previous children were born addicted, underweight and with developmental problems. Each needed hundreds of thousands in neonatal care and naturally each had serious problems as they grew.

This woman should have been strapped down on her second pregnancy and not only aborted, but permanently sterilized.

roro -

I agree in principle that not every law should be a 'will of the majority', but to create Constitutional Rights whole cloth where they do not exist is equally wrong. And we are talking about the creation of Constitutional Amendments, which are much more than a simple 'will of the people' vote. There are already checks and balances in the Constitution to prevent that in the Congress as well.

And look at the legislatures that have voted for same-sex marriage. In the end, we all think 'our' ideas are right, and want them forced on the 'un-enlightened'. I pointed out, I am pro-choice, but I do not like how we got to where we are on this issue.

And if we followed your logic, why pass laws at all? Why not just put the issues in front of the Supreme Court, and let them make ALL our laws?

AustinRoth,

"I have indeed read posts by the extreme left about abortion the way I characterized it. "

I suppose you can find people of all sorts who believe just about anything. However, I point out again that *none of the active abortion rights advocacy groups takes that position." Not NOW, not NARAL, not Planned Parenthood, not anyone else I can think of. However, you can find many active and well-funded advocacy groups pushing for the most extreme right-wing positions, including a ban on all abortions and even bans on some forms of birth control.

So, it's just plain not even. The idea that there are equal extreme forces pushing against each other in this debate is just plain wrong. For all practical purposes, the abortion debate in America comes down to extremist right-wing whackjobs versus everybody else.

"However, the abortion debate was short-cut by the Supreme Court. "

To me, this is a bit like saying that Emerson v. Board of Ed. short-cut the productive national discussion we were having on racial equality in 1954. The Bill of Rights exists to protect the rights of citizens against the government, including state governments per the 14th Amendment. I know right-wingers object to the notion of a "right to privacy," but to me abortion is a 4th Amendment issue. See Scott Lemieux's series "The Rightness of Roe" is you want the constitutional argument.

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/01/rightness...

Returning the abortion decision to the states is, to me, like returning slavery to the states or to allow states to practice censorship and establish religions. Some things even a majority may not do.

jwest -- My head just exploded. That is all.

AR -- Most of my last post had to do with your "the people have spoken" line, meaning, I thought, that voters should have a say, but perhaps I misinterpreted what you were saying. I think it's also important that the Bill of Rights is very clear that it is not an exhaustive list, and that it covers rights not explicitly stated therein. I agree with Barbara that abortion does fall under right to privacy, which is the basis of the Roe decision. The government doesn't get to choose whether or not you have a blood transfusion or go onto dialysis or donate a kidney or get a physical every year. It also should not be able to tell me what I can do with a group of cells about to implant into my uterus, or what to do with it once it's implanted.

To your final question: I'm not intimately familiar with all the intricacies of the myriad ways a law gets into the books, but I know that most civil rights gains have not come along with a majority of the general population's backing; making popular vote a touchstone for civil rights will necessarily mean a stymying of civil rights gains. Many have come along due to a judge/judges interpreting an agreed-upon law in a way such that it applies to all people (not just the few that may have been originally intended), or due to a judge ruling a particular law unconstitutional. I guess what I'm saying is that the balance of powers is vital, and I don't think your suggestion is a logical extension of my argument.

At this point, Roe v Wade is a political boogeyman. It has been around for 35 years and affirmed for 16. Stare decisis, Casey and just plain static inertia make any pragmatic chance of it being raised, much less overturned down to nil. My famous lefty friends here implied all kinds of precedent reversing appetities onto Alito and Roberts.,,,,,,,and how many times have they gone against stare decisis? 2 times to my best recollection.

Do whatever you want ladies, just don't contemplate sending me the bill.

Um, roro, do the 13th, 14th, 15th 19th and 24th Amendments not count?

How about the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, 1957, 1960, 1964 1968 and 1991?

Those don't count, either?

Attempts to equate 'pro-choice' with 'pro-abortion' is nothing more than a political sound byte.

Most 'pro-choice' advocates also advocate sex education (to help prevent unwanted pregnancy) , contraceptives (ditto) and greater availability of professional family planning consultation (so the individual making the "choice" has the benefit of knowing their options). 'Pro-choice' is NO MORE / NO LESS than 'pro-choice'. Yes, sometimes it ends with abortion but that's not really the point.

If a woman (let's say Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter) chooses to carry her baby to term and raise it... that's FINE, it was her CHOICE! If she chose to carry it to term and put it up for adoption... again, that's FINE, it was her CHOICE! AND if she chooses abortion as her only option... unfortunate, but still FINE, it's her choice.

Parroting the "pro-choice = pro-abortion" talking point is at best disingenuous and at worst an intentional lie used to further the personal view of the parrot.

* * *

casualobserver said: "Do whatever you want ladies, just don't contemplate sending me the bill."

CO, Can we assume that you meant don't "send me the bill" UNLESS I'm the father? Or are you from the "she should have known better" camp?

Well, after so many decade of being told "if you don't want to pay, you should have kept it in your pants," maybe he's lining up for a shot at the long overdue, "if YOU didn't want to pay, you should have kept your legs together."

Ok. Now I'll run away before the tar and feathers shipment arrives. (*snickers*)

Um (um?) Austin -- do they not count for what? What is your question? Are you asking whether they were popular at the time? The 13th, 14th, and 15th were so overwhelmingly unpopular that half the country tried to break off from the rest of the country because of the ideas they capture. The 19th was an exception that only happened because so few men were actually in the country at the time due to WWI. The 24th was certainly imposed upon the states that actually had poll taxes in the first place, where they were, presumably, wanted. And on and on. It's when the majority of people think a group shouldn't have a certain right the rest of us enjoy that you need a law to protect/establish those rights in the first place. If the majority of the voting population in the South in the mid-19th-century thought it was ok for black people to vote, they wouldn't have needed an amendment to protect that right for them in the first place.

Maybe that wasn't your point, though. In which case, I ask again: do they not count for what?

"Attempts to equate 'pro-choice' with 'pro-abortion' is nothing more than a political sound [bite]."

Not true, of course. The correct terms always have been "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion." The issue always has been abortion. "Choice" is weasel language; we have all kinds of choices we make throughout every day once we awaken.

There are extremists on both sides (those who want abortion always legal -- and in the most extreme cases in our population, want provided for by "society," raising a large threat related to federal health care for childbearing-age women and in the case of extremists, minors -- as well as those who want abortion always illegal).

The current distribution, according to the most recent good poll on this subject, is as follows:

Abortion -- people think it should be (by current voting preference)

Legal in all cases:

All, 18%; GOP, 10%; Dem, 23%; Ind., 20%.

Legal in most cases:

All, 38%; GOP, 32%; Dem, 42%; Ind., 39%.

Illegal in most cases:

All, 27%; GOP, 37%; Dem, 18%; Ind., 26%.

Illegal in all cases:

All, 13%; GOP, 18%; Dem, 12%; Ind., 10%.

Don't know, Refused:

All, 4%; GOP, 3%; Dem, 5%; Ind., 6%.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/933.pdf

* * *

"late-40’s crack whore who was pregnant with her 5th child"

And each by a different father, probably, just as was true with the woman in New York City at a public hearing in the _1960s_, exposing the _real_ societal-burden problem that was engendered by well-meaning (or in some cases, radical) leftists (the same kind who make up all kinds of stupid sterotypes and straw men about the Right these days): "Each of these babies has a different daddy. It's my job to have these kids, Mr. Mayor, and your job to care for them!" Some haven't learned after 40+ years. They'd rather insist on being typically dishonest when not outright delusional. They want to extend though logical rape (pun intended) the attitude some idiots have toward "breeders" toward Palin because she's not a militant leftist in the PC mold, rather than promptly think of the welfare-mom stereotype that _normal_ people do. The abnormal can be exploited by the Dems (complete with fright, of the mythical Far Right! that encompasses everyone right of Brookings Institution) and this makes the case for qualification and weighting of the suffrage.

"the Bill of Rights is very clear that it is not an exhaustive list, and that it covers rights not explicitly stated therein."

CAREFUL. The Ninth Amendment does in fact state that the list of rights (as opposed to powers held by the federal government, the part lefties have ignored since the 1930s along with some righties) is not limited to those enumerated. But the concept of "rights" does not include claims on public or other people's money or other assets. (This was what many of us feared with ClintonCare in the early 1990s, that the Ninth Amendment would be deliberately misconstrued and used to support the federal takeover of health care in this country.) There is no "right to privacy" (interpreted specifically as contraception and abortion) in the Bill of Rights, that state and local governments may not govern. Under the real Constitution, the rights in question are not in the document, and thus are reserved to state and local governments to legislate as these governments see fit. That is correct construction.

Roe v. Wade (along with other rulings such as Baker v. Carr) was substitution of judges' left-wing views and wishes for real law. The "trimester rule" portion of Roe v. Wade is perhaps the most remarkable and clearly activist portion of the ruling: it obviously is coming from nothing but thin air (inside some Justices' crania). (See below) Only a fool cannot realize this upon even the most brief contemplation or introspection. (That is, if they're able and willing to think rather than to feel.) This is properly a state and local issue, and abortion rights are recognized in nearly every state in the Union currently. There is no bogus cause for panic, even were Roe v. Wade endangered, which it is in no imminent danger -- rulings are rarely overturned.

[Roe v. Wade, the "trimester rule," determination of legality of abortion personnel, from the Summary -- anyone with a brain can see the legislation being done by the Court rather than the state and local governments as should be the case, or even in lieu of this, by Congress, not a federal court]

"1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term 'physician,' as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. "

[from Reynolds v. Sims, carrying Baker v. Carr "forward," another example of judicial activism -- why not demand the U.S. Senate reconstitute itself, too?]

"The Equal Protection Clause requires substantially equal legislative representation for all citizens in a State regardless of where they reside.

(a) Legislators represent people, not areas.

(b) Weighting votes differently according to where citizens happen to reside is discriminatory.

4. The seats in both houses of a bicameral legislature must, under the Equal Protection Clause, be apportioned substantially on a population basis."

Austin, I live on Oahu. If you want any tourism tips while visiting here, let me know. I don't know the neighbor isles all that well, but I have been to Maui and the Big Isle for a few days. But really I'm only good for Oahu stuff. My email is my screen name at yahoo.

To DLS, CO and et al, I hope the "crack whore" and "New York ... public" isn't code for black welfare queen. How does the KKK anecdotes explain the white Spears sisters? Talk about forced sterilization...

Plenty like Spears in Pasco county (Florida), but without the wealth...

roro - "I know that most civil rights gains have not come along with a majority of the general population's backing; making popular vote a touchstone for civil rights will necessarily mean a stymying of civil rights gains. Many have come along due to a judge/judges interpreting an agreed-upon law in a way such that it applies to all people (not just the few that may have been originally intended), or due to a judge ruling a particular law unconstitutional. I guess what I'm saying is that the balance of powers is vital, and I don't think your suggestion is a logical extension of my argument."

Your words I replied to. Your claim that the legislative process and the will of the people will prevent civil rights from moving forward was, in my mind, ill-informed. To say that we need judges to make law when us ignoramuses won;t id offensive. That is the point I was trying to make by pointing out a few, high-visibility examples of the process doing what it should. We absolutely SHOULD NOT count on judges to make our laws, IMHO.

paca - actually, while I appreciate the offer, I lived here for twenty years, met my wife at UH, both my kids were born at Kaiser Moanalua.

But tanks brah, and Aloha!

Hey, maybe I should ask YOU for directions then. I've only got five years under the belt here.

I'm female, I am pro-choice for everything, not just abortion, and I'd like to ask the person who wrote this below, did they watch the Beijing Paralympics?:

"…unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child’s life upon others."

Rudi,

Just for clarification, the crack whore featured in the HBO documentary was white.

Laura Abraham is a crack-whore and a shilo inn skank hole.
Just ask her mother!!