The Nasty Face of Conservatism
After the flaming I've had on Ricochet recently with regards to homosexuality and drugs legalization, I've learned my lesson and now plan to stick resolutely to uncontroversial subjects.
So: abortion.
Here's a story in the UK press that my wife (who like me would consider herself a conservative) and I both found pretty shocking.
To obtain a termination under the Republican plan, women in Virginia would first be made to have an ultrasound, which would allow them to see their foetus and to hear its heartbeat.
During the first three months of pregnancy – when 80 per cent of abortions occur – such an ultrasound must be carried out by vaginal probe. The plan is furiously opposed by women's rights groups and Democrats.
It is due to be signed this week by the state's governor, Bob McDonnell, who is a high-profile ally of Mitt Romney, and is frequently tipped as a potential Republican vice-presidential candidate.
Opponents have grouped it with comparable rules elsewhere in the US, along with new measures to restrict contraception, to claim that the Republicans have launched a "war on women's health".
Virginia Democrats who oppose the ultrasound bill said that it would force women to undergo an invasive procedure that was akin to "state-sponsored rape."
Now I don't know how fair a representation this is of the facts on the ground. But I can tell you that even if it contains a scintilla of truth, it's an approach that most of us on this side of the Atlantic - including I'm guessing maybe 80 to 90 per cent of conservatives - would find wantonly vindictive and unpleasant. Some of you, I know will dismiss us as bien-pensant Euro weenies who have long since lost the moral plot. But speaking as one of the reddest-meat, most pro-gun, most anti-big-government, pro-Constitution, pro-liberty, pro-American conservative you are ever likely to meet, I'd just like those of you who support these kind of measures to pause and consider how it makes you look from the outside.
The reason I'm a conservative and proud to be a conservative is because I believe that ours is the philosophy that truly values human beings and works with human nature. The reason I despise liberals - well, not so much liberals, as their political philosophy - is that I see in almost everything they believe a deep intolerance masquerading as virtue, a determination to impose their Weltanschauung on EVERYONE, an urge to bully and control because, darn it, they KNOW they are right.
I referred to another example of this in my most enjoyable podcast with Paul Rahe the other day. The one where I cited the truly disgusting Anti-Saloon League chief enforcer Wayne Wheeler who just knew that alcohol was so wrong he considered it perfectly acceptable to persuade the US government to poison the nation's supply of industrial alcohol which (as everyone knew) was being used to make moonshine. This "Formula No. 5" - a mixture of methanol, pyridine bases and benzene, resulted in 10,000 deaths.
Wheeler joked about this: "If a man wishes to violate the Constitution of the United States he should be free to commit suicide in his own way."
I worry about this strain in US Conservatism, a) because I think it confirms all liberals worst prejudices and b) because it makes it that much less electorally attractive to the nation as a whole.
Discuss.
- Comment (234)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (10)
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
The problem is that this ultrasound is already being performed as part of the abortion, the only change is that the picture is then given to the young lady in question. This very same ultrasound is performed currently before a law is passed during 92% of abortions.
So a law that at its absolute worst says "keep doing exactly what you are doing" is now cause for alarm and hyperventilating hysteria? Really?
The hysteria isnt about a procedure that is going to be performed without the law, its about the idea that somebody might actually become aware of the fact that they are killing off their kin.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 9:45pmDec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
A long time ago, I worked for a company that made a nifty machine called the Vac-U-Rette. It was one of the first vacuum assisted curettage machines made for early-stage abortions.
The business end of the Vac-U-Rette was a disposable plastic tube, the end closed and a sharpened opening cut into the side (like the mouthpiece of a recorder). The practitioner uses it by first dilating the woman's cervix with a speculum, and then running the curettage tube over the lining of her uterus, scraping away the bits of uterine lining, placenta, amniotic sac and fetus. The tiny bits -- including the chopped-up fetus -- get sucked away by the vacuum into a disposal container. The doctor has to be thorough and careful: nicking the uterine wall can cause fatal hemorrhaging, while failing to remove all the "products of pregnacy" can lead to fatal septic infection.
This is the standard procedure for first-trimester abortions. This is what the women covered by the proposed Virginia law are going to abortion clinics and asking to undergo.
And you say the intravaginal ultrasound procedure is invasive?
Dec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
If medical probing is rape, should I seek prosecution against my proctologist?
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
3d ultrasound at 11 weeks:
Dec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
For your reference.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/va-governor-bob-mcdonnell_n_1299348.html
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
One of the things that I love about Ricochet is that fairly frequently I learn things from the comments that I hitherto knew nothing about.
James, as the first two comments suggest, banning abortion in Virginia would solve a lot of problems. There is only one obstacle, however.
Apr '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
"Force" seems a strange word in this case, and Democrats get that one wrong almost every time.
The choice is still upon the woman. The legislation does not require every women to submit to this procedure. It will only be required should a woman decided to explore termination of a pregnancy -- which those of us who are on the Pro-Life side understand to be ending a life (though the premises of this argument are a slight digression I must admit; I just find them worth repeating.)
The legislation thus places an "if-then" clause, for those of you programmers out there. The power of choice is still on the individual; what is being added are additional ramifications of said choice.
Dec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Only if you live in Quohog, RI.
Apr '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
James,
In what way do you consider the requirement to have an ultrasound before an abortion to be "wantonly vindictive and unpleasant"? Even if most abortions were not already preceded by an ultrasound, do you believe that ignoring the consequences of abortion is an appropriate or desirable outcome?
Jun '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Wait, wait. I don't understand. I had an ultrasound 27 years ago with my daughter at 10 weeks. There was not a vaginal ultrasound in the room. Why that now? Sounds like overkill to me. No pun intended.
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Yes. I do wonder whether I'll have any friends left on Ricochet by the time I'm done. You understand, of course, that I too find abortion deeply unpleasant. But I find myself unpersuaded by the argument that goes something like: "Killing unborn babies is so ugly and evil that no measure is too extreme to discourage it." I can imagine in the future all sorts of situations in which my daughter ended up pregnant and that regrettably a termination made sense. I would not want the emotional trauma of her situation being deliberately exascerbated by some fascistic state measure designed to rub her nose in the horror of her action. Sorry.
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
As post #2 illustrates quite vividly, the main ironic thing about this post is the ones being described as "nasty" are the least so, especially when compared to the ones who usually define them as such. I'm not singling you out here, James; it's primarily the narrative of the social left that far too many of us buy into.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 10:13pmAug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Regardless of those responding to you with ire and venom, I think you will continue to have many friends and fans here on Ricochet.
That said, the use of terms like "regrettably a termination made sense" won't increase your current fan base. It isn't the concept that terminations aren't sometimes medically necessary to save life that would bother some as a concept, it is the euphemistic choice of words. I agree with you more often than not, and I found your choice of words chilling in this case.
As for your argument that this measure was "designed to rub her nose in the horror of her action" is to concede that the action is a horror in the first place. Should we routinely commit horrors?
That said, note those who point out that the ultrasounds are already being used as a matter of medical practice. The only change is the conveyance of an image, not in the invasive procedure. The invasive procedure, and one even more invasive, occur regardless.
So you know, I'm for persuading away from abortion rather than legislatively coercing. It's evil is evident on its face and coercive actions empower the immoral.
Jun '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
So, James, rather than having the facts before the "procedure", you would have someone try to forget about it and never see what a baby looks like at that stage?
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Perhaps because the technology was not the same as it is today?
I'm not sure, not having undergone one myself, but to describe it as shockingly invasive certainly seems a bit much. Given that people voluntarily choose to use these machines, it can't be that horrible.
Remember we're not just talking about a woman's body here. There's another human being involved. As much as I would like to ban abortion outright due to this fact, I'll take incrementalism, because it works. If a prospective client for abortion sees her baby, the consequences of her action become that much clearer to her, and she will be less likely to undergo the "procedure."
The shrill, overdone reaction from the left ("Rape! RAPE!" to which the corresponding and perhaps even more accurate cry might be "Murder! MURDER!") only confirms that this will be effective.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 10:29pmOct '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Excluding rape, what situation could it be ?
Trying to keep my young sister out of trouble allows me to understand what you are saying, but if someone cause another life to come into existence in this world either by accident or carelessness, wouldn't it be fair that they at least assist the baby till the term of the pregnancy ?
Once born the baby can be assisted by someone one else, sure it takes 9 months, but don't we suffer the consequences of other mistakes in life ?
I wouldn't mind either to spare my self the legal, financial and social cost of assisting someone I wrongfully hit with a car, but even if it was an accident, wouldn't skipping the consequence wrong ?
Sep '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
James,
You will continue to have many fans here. Surely you're aware that original Hippocratic Oath prohibited abortions? And I'm sure as a libertarian you'll agree that medical procedures should only be undergone by someone who has a thoroughgoing understanding of the risks and benefits of that procedure, since no surgery is without risks or complications? In every other medical procedure that I'm aware of, pay tv channels are only too happy to craft a medical show based on the detailed surgery surrounding it, save one. In this case, the surgeon isn't asking her to look at pictures of aborted babies preserved in a pickle jar (you'll recall the stories about the NHS preserving brains in the same containers?), merely a faithful ultrasound representation of what is about to be removed. What is objectionable from a medical, libertarian point of view about that? She is, after all, still free to choose, isn't she?
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 10:24pmApr '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Exactly. I think the main issue I take with James' post is the assumption that the prospective law is punitive, when I take it to be a way to help a woman have all the facts before she proceeds with an act that can't be undone.
Dec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Mr. Delingpole,
This discussion is like the discussion about slavery in the early 19th century (no really its the exact same fundamental question, who is and is not a person and what can we do to the people who dont make the cut). Just replace my body with my property and we are in a time machine.
Since there is no broad agreement on the metaphysical question at hand, and we are arguing with increasing shrillness about the secondary questions, and even more shrilly about tertiary questions. Witness the hysteria over a law that changes nothing.
I am willing to disagree politely with people who disagree politely.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 10:35pmMay '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I agree with James to this extent: If we're going to prohibit abortion, we should prohibit abortion. We should not micro-manage it to death.