Pandagon, ahh....what a shining example of the left wing progressive approach to life. Or as the Blessed Amanda would no doubt term it, 'life'...

"..the partial-birth abortion of healthy babies for non-health-related reasons."

One of the things you think he'd be praised for, even by the usual suspects, did anyone have any idea just what 'partial birth abortion' actually meant.

I have no intention of being inflammatory. I do have a question. People in the US who oppose abortion seem extreme to you? How so? And that is an honest question.

Two points. Just so I can bend over backwards to be fair to my political opposition, yes, the feminuts like pandagon (cruise her site -- she's completely off the deep end) use what can only be described as truly offensive rhetoric, but many supporters of abortion do not. However, the rhetoric of the larger group is just as problematic, though not nearly as inflammatory, and the nation is split down the middle on abortion because half the nation won't buy into the rhetoric. For example, "it's not a human being, it's a fetus." That's just idiotic. What is it, then, a jellyfish? Or Hillary's frequent line, borrowed from Bill, that she wants to make abortion safe, legal, and rare -- yet she and her elected sympathizers block every bill meant to help make abortion rare. Or when abortion supporters claim that abortions aren't done for birth control, when the data show that over 95% of abortions are performed precisely for birth control.

You're also correct about different playing fields, though they're different for one crucial reason you didn't mention. Federalism. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg has stated in public that Roe v. Wade was bad law. I won't share my personal feelings about abortion, but Roe v. Wade must go -- and will at some point be striken down -- and abrtion returned to the control of the states, where it belongs.

When that happens, abortion supporters will need to change their rhetoric if they are to succeed in their state legislatures. The empty, nonsensical rhetoric they have been using since the 70s isn't getting them any supporters, because frankly, you have to be stupid to believe it.

> People in the US who oppose abortion seem extreme to you? How so?

I don't know if Jo's coming from the same place as me, but what we see of the US anti-abortion movement over here is what's best described as the lunatic fringe: the ones who want to bomb clinics and murder doctors, or get jobs in chemists so they can make sure that women don't get the morning-after pill in any circumstances whatsoever. I'm quite sure such views are representative of a noisy minority, because reasonable majorities don't tend to make the news.

Although I think Jo's falling into the same trap - just because some pro-choicers are nuts doesn't mean they all are. On both sides of the debate it's the extremist shouters who get all the attention.

I thought Joseph made it clear: the anti-abortionists in the USA look like lunatics to Britons because Britons have no idea what USA law on abortion is, and have never heard the rhetoric used to defend that law in the USA. Which is to say, the British press tells its audience all about the fanatic fringes of the pro-life side, since they make for good copy, but they don't talk about the pro-choice side or the law, so their audience imagines there's nothing odd about them. A classic case of lying by omission.

I'd like to add that Britons also don't know that USA abortion law is, in effect, not within the jurisdiction of our Congress -- which is why the debate is so very acrimonious. The British law can be (and, I suppose, is) changed by acts of Parliament; the US Congress cannot outlaw any form of abortion until five Supreme Court Justices agree to reverse the Roe precedent, and Justices have life tenure. If anything about the next nomination for a USSC vacancy strikes you foreigners as odd ... remember that four of the current Justices would vote to reverse Roe, and none of them are expected to retire.

> what we see of the US anti-abortion movement over here is what's best described as the lunatic fringe

Yes, but there's also the way that the non-lunatic non-fringe are portrayed. The recent fuss about Bush's attempts to limit abortions, for example: did anyone see any British media report on what partial-birth abortion is and why anyone might want the procedure banned in cases where the health of the mother is not at stake? All I saw were reports about Bush representing the American Fundamentalist Christian Right who want to ban all abortion completely.

> Although I think Jo's falling into the same trap - just because some pro-choicers are nuts doesn't mean they all are.

Amanda Marcotte is marginally more offensive than a lot of other pro-abortionists. But I've been rather shocked over the last couple of years to discover what absolutists American pro-abortionists are. I can't stand the Democratic Party, but I'm willing to admit that they're kind of mainstream; they're not the extremist lunatic fringe. And everything Senators and Representatives say is published. So go on: find a handful of Democrats who are on record as saying that maybe abortion is just a little bit more legal than might be ideal. Proposals to introduce one-day thinking-about-it periods between asking for an abortion and getting it — which, here, would be regarded as not just normal, but rather quick — are always staunchly opposed by almost all the Democrats. Proposals just to have counsellors talk to women before they have abortions are always staunchly opposed by almost all the Democrats. Proposals that partial-birth abortion in the third trimester should only be allowed for medical reasons are always staunchly opposed by almost all the Democrats. Any Democrat going for the Presidency will be asked about abortion in the Primaries and is highly unlikely to get the Candidacy if he doesn't make it clear that he supports the current law.


> the anti-abortionists in the USA look like lunatics to Britons because Britons have no idea what USA law on abortion is

Exactly, yes. Anecdotal evidence indicates that even pro-abortion Britons react with utter disgust when you tell them what US abortion law says is a constitutional right. Very few people outside the US think that abortion should be that legal.

> The British law can be (and, I suppose, is) changed by acts of Parliament

I think it was changed a few weeks ago, as it happens.

The whole problem with law-making by judges in the manner of Roe v Wade is exactly that it is such a blunt instrument: there is no way to navigate the middle path in the way that it has been done in the UK, using the legislature. The Supremes placed any restriction on abortion outside the purview of the legislature- an extreme position- and as a result the debate has been completely polarised. But the fact is that a reversal on Roe v Wade would not make abortion illegal overnight, despite the "pro-choice" propaganda; it would simply return the issue to the domain of the democratic representatives of the will of the people.

I see the hysteria around any "threat" to Roe v Wade as another example of the anti-democratic streak in the Left, which is quite happy to see people forced to follow a position deemed correct by the elite, despite the dictatorial way it is achieved.

On the other hand, the UK has abolished the death penalty despite consistent, clear, majority support for it, so perhaps we shouldn't be too smug!

"I'd like to add that Britons also don't know that USA abortion law is, in effect, not within the jurisdiction of our Congress -- which is why the debate is so very acrimonious. "

That is certainly correct -- it's also the reason that gay marriage is such a contentious issue. However, let me give you a more realistic, and less sensationalist, view of what pro-life activists do (and bombings? Murders? There are so few of them that they don't blip on the radar.)

Once a week here, the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Missouri Synod Lutheran parishes sponsor a prayer for the unborn across the street from the local abortion clinic. There are perhaps 400 people there on average (this is a small town), and they kneel and pray. That's it. They do not protest, they do not scream, they do not fling bombs at the clinic. They pray, the Catholics pray the rosary, the Orthodox the Jesus Prayer with their prayer beads, and the Lutherans just pray. Quietly. To me, at any rate, that isn't extreme (though the pro-abortionists in town hate it). Some pro-life protests are more energetic (signs, passing out pamphlets, etc.) but violence is nearly non-existent (though from what I see, violence in the US is grossly exaggerated in the British and European press -- we don't even lock our doors here, though yes, like half the homes in the US, there are firearms in the house just in case.)

And John Edwards just announced that pandagon would be his campaign blogger.

> And John Edwards just announced that pandagon would be his campaign blogger.

Oh my good fucking lord.

See, Gary? I told you this crap was mainstream.

Blimey.

No trackbacks? Here.

Mr Prof,

Can I just say that yours is the best comment?

> Roe v. Wade must go -- and will at some point be striken down -- and abrtion returned to the control of the states, where it belongs.

> When that happens, abortion supporters will need to change their rhetoric if they are to succeed in their state legislatures. The empty, nonsensical rhetoric they have been using since the 70s isn't getting them any supporters, because frankly, you have to be stupid to believe it.

This is so true. All their rhetoric -- except it's not just rhetoric, as I discovered -- their entire philosophy is based on fighting anyone who tries to change the status quo, safe in the knowledge that the whole question cannot currently be touched by politicians. They don't need to persuade anyone of anything, so don't even try. They're in for a nasty shock when they have to campaign to get a law passed in their favour. And you're right: one day, sometime, they will have to.

On an entirely unrelated note, your comments RSS feed is filling with spam.

So I see. I'll turn on moderation for a day or two.

That is terrifying. As a Brit I had (naively) assumed that abortion arguments both sides of the pond were only about:

1. the morning-after pill, taken up to 72 hours after sex, when the "baby" (if there is one) is no more than a pinpoint of cells that is certainly not capable of thought or pain.

2. Chemical or surgical abortions performed after pregnancy is confirmed, but before a baby would be able to survive outside the womb.

3. Abortions performed at whatever stage of pregnancy because it has been medically established that carrying the baby to term would put the life of the mother at risk.

The idea of "aborting a perfectly healthy baby at thirty-six weeks because the mother has decided she just doesn't want a baby" is just... well, it's left me numb, to be honest, although I'll probably get angry about it once it's sunk in.

Babies aren't a "punishment" for having sex, but I was under the impression that most people knew that having sex could result in a baby... If a couple don't have a plan for what to do if their contraception fails (particularly if their contraception is "hoping she doesn't get pregnant") then they're probably a bit too immature to be having sex in the first place.

> "aborting a perfectly healthy baby at thirty-six weeks because the mother has decided she just doesn't want a baby"

I hasten to add that I'm not saying that this happens much, or at all; just that it's effectively legal. It's a bizarre debate: one side say that it shouldn't be legal on principle; the other insist that it never happens, that it's mysogynist even to suggest that it could theoretically happen, and that they will fight tooth and nail against any attempts to ban something which never happens because it would be a terrible restriction of the rights of women to do something which no woman would ever do.

Hi, I followed the link here from nhsblogdoc - you're absolutely right, I'm British and I had no idea that it's legal in the USA to abort at the ninth month for non-medical reasons. Like Mary who commented before me, I am stunned, I really had no idea. I feel like asking a few other people, "did you know this...?"

I remember feeling the same way when I discovered it.

In my post, I deliberately linked to Wikipedia, rather than some pro-life site, for the legal interpretation of Doe vs Bolton, not because Wikipedia is unbiased — though, generally, it is — but because controversial pages on Wikipedia get mired in bunfights from competing editors and then end up locked and moderated. I think the fact that the page is unlocked makes it clear that, contrary to the commenters at Pandagon, that interpretation of the law is non-controversial.

I might add, the interesting thing about partial-birth abortion is the reason for it. There's no technical reason why you can't just deliver the baby and then kill it. But, of course, that would be murder. So the doctor partially delivers the baby, kills it, then finishes the delivery. That way, legally, since the baby's dead at the moment of birth, it's a still-birth, not a death, so no murder has occurred.

No wonder so many doctors refuse to perform the procedure.

Then again, it's sad that so many don't.

As I said on nhsblogdoc, why not have it adopted instead? I just can't get inside the head of someone making that decision - trying to imagine I am a woman, nine months pregnant, going to the hospital to have a medical procedure - either I have the baby removed alive and adopted, or this partial birth abortion thing - I just can't see why I would choose the abortion instead of adoption.

Well, quite. Thing is, what could possibly be a better example of socialist principles at their best than adoption? And I don't know about the US, but in the UK, due to the prevalence of abortion, there's now a shortage of babies to be adopted. British couples who can't have children — or who are simply charitable and generous and love kids — are increasingly having to go abroad to find babies they can adopt. And that's dead expensive, so adopting is increasingly a market that poor people are priced out of. Thanks, socialists.

what could possibly be a better example of socialist principles at their best than adoption?

I don't follow you there. How does that tie in with the collective ownership of production, distribution and exchange?

You're being literal-minded (and this coming from me). Or maybe you're not being literal enough: if that was what I'd meant, I'd have written "Socialism" with a capital S. I meant the basic broad socialist principle of those who have providing to those who have not. However fucked up things may get when the misguided try to turn those principles into government policies, fact remains that those principles ought to cause those who hold them to think of adoption as a better option than abortion. In all other areas of life, socialists tell us we're being selfish when we put the needs of one individual ahead of those of the wider community, but, when it comes to women who can't have children and women who can but don't want to, they put the desires of the individual ahead of the needs of the community.

Squander Two - have you seen this - "Babies are being removed from their parents so that councils can meet adoption targets, MPs have claimed." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/ 6297573.stm

Hmm. Given that children aren't removed from their parents even when they bloody well should be, I think we can take the assertions above with a pinch of salt...

Strange logic there, John: you think the authorities can only fuck up in one direction?