The Abortion Memo - David Brooks

[TitanTiger 20,511]

 

Quote

To: Democratic Party Leaders

From: Imaginary Democratic Consultant

Re: Late-Term Abortions

Dear Democratic Leaders,

Last week I watched as our senators voted down the Republican bill that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks. Our people hung together. Only three Democrats voted with the other side. Yet as I was watching I kept wondering: How much is our position on late-term abortions hurting us? How many progressive priorities are we giving up just so we can have our way on this one?

Continue reading at NY Times

He makes some very good points about how a shift on this issue could fundamentally change the way the voting blocks are aligned - and how it likely would benefit Democrats long term.

[homersapien 11,453]

Brooks makes very good points.

Serious question: 

Is all the conservative joy over Gorsuch - and other federal judge appointees - derived from the abortion issue?  What else would motivate people to rejoice over conservative judges.  Surely not the tilt toward corporate, oligarchic interests that such judges presumably represent?

 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Brooks makes very good points.

Serious question: 

Is all the conservative joy over Gorsuch - and other federal judge appointees - derived from the abortion issue?  What else would motivate people to rejoice over conservative judges.  Surely not the tilt toward corporate, oligarchic interests that such judges presumably represent?

I imagine that's a good portion of it.  Issues of religious liberty are probably another portion.  There are probably some other reasons as well due to a differing view on how judges are to interpret the Constitution and on the separation of powers.

[HVAU 673]

Almost all states have restrictions concerning abortions beyond ~20 weeks that stipulate the procedure may only be obtained if the mother's life or health are at risk.  The states that have no such restrictions are Alaska, Colorado, D.C., New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/-at-late-term-abortion-restrictions-state-by-state/448098/01alook).  I, as a center left voter, would support a Federal 20 week or viability ban as long as stipulations for the mother's health are permitted.

One of the issues is that such a compromise is neither acceptable to the leftmost kooks, proclaiming there should be no restrictions on what a woman can do with her body, and the rightmost zealots, proclaiming an adherence to pseudo-righteous religious dogma.  On top of that, as I think you pointed out in your previous abortion related topic, the gooey center of each party has an aversion to losing the political theatre that is the abortion morality play.

What to do?

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

 

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Brooks makes very good points.

Serious question: 

Is all the conservative joy over Gorsuch - and other federal judge appointees - derived from the abortion issue?  What else would motivate people to rejoice over conservative judges.  Surely not the tilt toward corporate, oligarchic interests that such judges presumably represent?

 

Like Scalia, Gorsuch's ideals reflect originalism and textualism. Conservatives didn't want to lose those ideals with the passing of Scalia. 

[HVAU 673]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

religious liberty

Is this really a misnomer?  When applied by the current conservatives in this country, isn't the appropriate term Christian liberty?

[homersapien 11,453]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

Like Scalia, Gorsuch's ideals reflect originalism and textualism. Conservatives didn't want to lose those ideals with the passing of Scalia. 

Such as money is speech and corporations are citizens?  

[TitanTiger 20,511]

4 minutes ago, HVAU said:

Is this really a misnomer?  When applied by the current conservatives in this country, isn't the appropriate term Christian liberty?

Do you think the only potential conflicts in these areas surround Christians?  What of devout Muslims or orthodox Jews?

[homersapien 11,453]

6 minutes ago, HVAU said:

Almost all states have restrictions concerning abortions beyond ~20 weeks that stipulate the procedure may only be obtained if the mother's life or health are at risk.  The states that have no such restrictions are Alaska, Colorado, D.C., New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/-at-late-term-abortion-restrictions-state-by-state/448098/01alook).  I, as a center left voter, would support a Federal 20 week or viability ban as long as stipulations for the mother's health are permitted.

One of the issues is that such a compromise is neither acceptable to the leftmost kooks, proclaiming there should be no restrictions on what a woman can do with her body, and the rightmost zealots, proclaiming an adherence to pseudo-righteous religious dogma.  On top of that, as I think you pointed out in your previous abortion related topic, the gooey center of each party has an aversion to losing the political theatre that is the abortion morality play.

What to do?

 

I am not a woman, but if I were, I don't think the idea the government has no business intervening in my personal reproductive decisions makes me a "kook".

[HVAU 673]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Do you think the only potential conflicts in these areas surround Christians?  What of devout Muslims or orthodox Jews?

I don't, but I also don't see large movements with a bent toward restricting the rights of others emanating from the religions you mentioned.  It also appears that the "religious liberty" banner has been occasionally waved, maybe by ill informed people, when Christianity is being placed in a supreme position compared to other religions, a la Alabama's Ten Commandments debacle.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Just now, homersapien said:

I am not a woman, but if I were, I don't think the idea the government has no business intervening in my personal reproductive decisions makes me a "kook".

But again, it's not quite that simple.  If it were, I'd agree with you.  Brooks' article articulates this problem well.  Put succinctly, science doesn't seem to support the 'abortion on demand, at any time during pregnancy' view:

 

Quote

 

We need to acknowledge our vulnerability here. Democrats support the right to choose throughout the 40 weeks of pregnancy. But babies are now viable outside the womb at 22 weeks. As Emma Green wrote in The Atlantic, scientific advances “fundamentally shift the moral intuition around abortion.” Parents can see their babies’ faces earlier and earlier.

We’re learning how cognitively active fetuses are. A researcher from Britain recently found that fetuses prefer to look at face-like images while in the womb. Early in the pregnancy they can recognize and distinguish between tastes. Late in the term they can recognize words, tunes, languages. They seem to begin crying, for example, by the 28th week. It could be that one of the current behaviors that future generations will regard as most barbaric is our treatment of fetuses.

 

 

The more we learn about the unborn, the more this granting (or lack thereof) of "personhood" being used to justify certain late term abortions looks just as arbitrary and calloused as the way we regarded various racial groups in American history.

[HVAU 673]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am not a woman, but if I were, I don't think the idea the government has no business intervening in my personal reproductive decisions makes me a "kook".

I quite understand that perspective, and I concede that those health determinations should be made by the mother, but it is also my opinion that at a certain point in a pregnancy, for me viability beyond the womb, concern for the well being of another living being must enter the equation.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

2 minutes ago, HVAU said:

I don't, but I also don't see large movements with a bent toward restricting the rights of others emanating from the religions you mentioned.  It also appears that the "religious liberty" banner has been occasionally waved, maybe by ill informed people, when Christianity is being placed in a supreme position compared to other religions, a la Alabama's Ten Commandments debacle.

I don't really think most folks who think of religious liberty when it comes to SCOTUS justices these days are at all concerned about Ten Commandments monuments.  I think they are more concerned about people being coerced into participating in activities that violate their conscience, or of religious citizens being harmed in their careers for failing to line up with the current vein of popular thought on various social or moral issues.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

Such as money is speech and corporations are citizens?  

Seriously, you think that's what it boils down to, Citizens United? You bring up a 5-4 decision to erroneously articulate his statutory interpretation in a nutshell? Which by the way, you're not even close. Truly pathetic. Even liberal scholars appreciate and respect Scalia's contributions - including beloved Ginsburg, his good friend.

I simply provided a reasonable explanation for the "celebration" of Gorsuch. 

[HVAU 673]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't really think most folks who think of religious liberty when it comes to SCOTUS justices these days are at all concerned about Ten Commandments monuments.  I think they are more concerned about people being coerced into participating in activities that violate their conscience, or of religious citizens being harmed in their careers for failing to line up with the current vein of popular thought on various social or moral issues.

That is fair if the harm received is either government induced or privately induced and illegal, but if that harm is simply society expressing its distaste at, let's say, a business, and the business losing revenue from that, I see no necessity for protection.  If it's an employee being fired from a business because their religion prevents them from executing duties outlined in a job description, I see no necessity for protection.  Of course, there are scenarios that exist that do require, in my mind, protection.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

12 minutes ago, HVAU said:

That is fair if the harm received is either government induced or privately induced and illegal, but if that harm is simply society expressing its distaste at, let's say, a business, and the business losing revenue from that, I see no necessity for protection. 

Yeah, that's not the sort of thing people are talking about here.

 

Quote

If it's an employee being fired from a business because their religion prevent them from executing duties outlined in a job description, I see no necessity for protection.  Of course, there are scenarios that exist that do require, in my mind, protection.

If they accepted the job knowing those things were required beforehand, then you have a point.  If they are fired because of something that was not outlined beforehand and the employer is imposing new requirements on them that violate their conscience and beliefs, they should have some protection.

And as a case in Washington State recently shows, even business owners themselves aren't exempt.  A privately owned small chain of pharmacies, because of Scalia's death and the split on the remaining court, has been forced to carry certain kinds of products in their stores that they felt violated their religious freedom.  And this wasn't a situation where they were somehow denying anyone these things.  They weren't pushing to outlaw the products or keep other pharmacies from carrying them.  They simply didn't want to be involved, but the state of Washington railroaded their 1st Amendment rights when they updated their statutes.

Now whether you agree with that protection being valid here or not really isn't the critical point.  The point is, many people do.  They don't see allowing liberty on such things as analogous to Ten Commandments monuments or trying to get a statewide ban on a product for instance - "imposing your religion on others."  They see it as more of a thing where the solution is to allow both sides to retain their rights under law without preventing or coercing the other side from exercising theirs. 

In that light, more conservative justices are going to be favored by folks who feel this way, as it has been made clear that liberal justices will not be of any help.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

32 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Such as money is speech and corporations are citizens?  

Of course a corporation is a citizen. Reffered to as a “juridical person.” . The rules of civil procedure mention jurisdiction, they can sue and be sued in their own name, hold property in their own name, and so on.

Boy you’re showing your true colors haha

[homersapien 11,453]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Of course a corporation is a citizen. Reffered to as a “juridical person.” . The rules of civil procedure mention jurisdiction, they can sue and be sued in their own name, hold property in their own name, and so on.

Boy you’re showing your true colors haha

So they should vote, right?

Simply because corporations are legal entities that can own property and incur liabilities hardly makes them citizens. 

Not sure what you mean by the "true colors" remark, but your position is a lot more radical than mine.

[homersapien 11,453]

28 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Seriously, you think that's what it boils down to, Citizens United? You bring up a 5-4 decision to erroneously articulate his statutory interpretation in a nutshell? Which by the way, you're not even close. Truly pathetic. Even liberal scholars appreciate and respect Scalia's contributions - including beloved Ginsburg, his good friend.

I simply provided a reasonable explanation for the "celebration" of Gorsuch. 

Who are you talking about?  Gorsuch wasn't on the court for Citizens United.

And I have made no comments regarding "textualism" or any other judicial philosophy.  That's more "begging the question" (opposing an argument I haven't made).

[homersapien 11,453]

35 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But again, it's not quite that simple.  If it were, I'd agree with you.  Brooks' article articulates this problem well.  Put succinctly, science doesn't seem to support the 'abortion on demand, at any time during pregnancy'....

I am not making a scientific argument.  I am making a personal liberty or soveriegnty argument. 

(And before you respond, yes, I am subordinating the fertilized egg/diploid cell/blastosphere/zygote.....'s rights to the woman - arbitrarily if you wish.) 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I am not making a scientific argument.  I am making a personal liberty or soveriegnty argument. 

(And before you respond, yes, I am subordinating the fertilized egg/diploid cell/blastosphere/zygote.....'s rights to the woman - arbitrarily if you wish.) 

Well, aside from the personal liberty aspect, Brooks also indicates that incresingly, the next generation doesn't feel comfortable with that arbitrary distinction in the name of personal sovereignty.  It seems a more middle ground position...that personal liberty is not just owed to one side of this dilemma, depending on the circumstances.

[homersapien 11,453]

50 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The more we learn about the unborn, the more this granting (or lack thereof) of "personhood" being used to justify certain late term abortions looks just as arbitrary and calloused as the way we regarded various racial groups in American history.

Not to mention how we regard innocent civilians in war.  

[homersapien 11,453]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, aside from the personal liberty aspect, Brooks also indicates that incresingly, the next generation doesn't feel comfortable with that arbitrary distinction in the name of personal sovereignty.  It seems a more middle ground position...that personal liberty is not just owed to one side of this dilemma, depending on the circumstances.

Operative words.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Who are you talking about?  Gorsuch wasn't on the court for Citizens United.

And I have made no comments regarding "textualism" or any other judicial philosophy.  That's more "begging the question" (opposing an argument I haven't made).

Yes but Scalia is, to whom I referred in the comment you responded to. 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Operative words.

The operative words seem to refer to things such as:

20 weeks or more gestation (give or take a week or so).

The life of the mother being in danger.

In other words, roughly what the GOP proposed earlier this week with the late term abortion ban that was shot down by the Dems.  Hence, Brooks' column.