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:
Oct '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I am pretty sure that the Baby is without or with a certificate of life birth. When the document is issued doesn't change a thing, it is an human being and will not be anything else if left unmolested.
Would it not be a Baby if I give him a fake Social security number ? Again, documents and your existence are not related.
wilber forge: As the embryo now has been quantified as a child, with all rights and laws that apply, if the child expires before birth is the mother held liable for the death under what criminal code ?
Work with that. · 7 minutes ago
I am pretty sure we all understand that miscarriages are accidents and private affairs. the point ?
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I don't know if you know what a gynecologist's checkup is like, but they use this thing that looks like a cross between a corkscrew and a medieval torture device to pry open the vaginal canal, and then the doctor pokes inside for a bit. It can be quite uncomfortable and not a bit embarrassing for gals of shyer sensibilities.
If a mandated ultrasound which must, in the first few weeks of pregnancy, be done vaginally constitutes rape, that is, sexual congress without consent, then does an annual gynecological checkup constitute a form of sexual congress (obviously not rape, since it's done consensually)? Did I go to my wedding bed deflowered simply because I had seen a gynecologist beforehand?
(2/2)
Apr '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I fail to see why, if a women is willing to have a vacuum hose inserted into her vagina to suck her child out in pieces to be thrown away, she shouldn't be willing to have an ultrasound device inserted into her vagina.
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Felicia, this statement is funny on so many levels...
Dec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
My wife's first pregnancy ended in miscarriage. (And, by the way, to ensure that she didn't suffer sepsis from "products of pregnancy" being left in her uterus, the doctor performed a D&C procedure on her of the type I described in #2 above.) Of course, we very much wanted that baby -- we did regard it as a baby, even at 12 weeks. Some women don't much care, and they abuse alcohol and other substances during pregnancy. It turns out that the harm they do to the potential infants in their uteruses lingers on after they become actual infants.
Now, if a woman is six or eight or nine months pregnant and someone shoots her in the belly, and her unborn child stops living... has a person died? Or is it a matter of tissue damage?
The moral issues are not so simple and straightforward as you might wish them to be.
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
FeliciaB:
AUMom, if the pregnancy is early on, the only way to get a good look at the baby is with a vaginal probe instead over the belly. I think the baby is big enough around 8 weeks to be seen via the belly probe. Prior to the that, you can only see the baby via the vaginal probe.
Which suggest that anyone wishing to avoid a vaginal probe to get the picture could just wait until after the 8-week mark in order to get the belly ultrasound instead.
Still, I do feel uncomfortable with the mandate in some ways:
If the point of the picture is to show you there's a person growing inside you, then shouldn't abortion just be illegal, as it deprives that person of life?
Also, if the state can mandate this medical procedure, no matter how good the cause, doesn't that set up the precedent for mandating further medical procedures? This possibility disturbs me.
I'd beg a friend contemplating abortion to at least look at a picture of the little life growing inside her before she made the decision. But mandates trouble me, even this one. I'm conflicted.
Edited on February 25, 2012 at 1:06amDec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I still marvel that the US Supreme Court has ruled that executing a man for the crime of rape is forbidden as cruel and unusual punishment...
... while the same Supreme Court says that the rape victim has the right to kill her own child for having a rapist for a father.
The difference, I suspect, is that we can see the rapist protest his sentence and feel some compassion for him, so we decide it's wrong to kill him, whereas it's very easy to avert our eyes from the unborn child of the rapist's victim, so we decide it's not wrong to kill him or her to make the whole horrific episode disappear.
It seems to me in this situation that the wrong person gets killed.
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Is it possible that the people putting this bill forth are sincere, loving people with a true concern for life, as opposed to nasty scolds?
A few years ago, a campaign started on billboards showing babies at various stages of pre-natal development. The goal was simply to show people that what the popular media had depicted, consciously over and over again as "non-viable tissue matter" is actually very clearly early stage human life- as illustrated by EJ Hill's posted photo. Over the decades since 1973, the popular media had taken pains to characterize "choice" as anything other than a difficult decision to take life.
My own view after all political processes and discretion were removed from our hands was that we should 1) admit that this is life, 2) acknowledge that sometimes we take life, and 3) when we do, we are careful about it. Give the foetus the same rights as any convicted murderer- mom, go ahead and "choose", but at least give the kid a Legal Services advocate.
Every pre-abortion step described above has actually been approved by the Supreme Court- no friend of the pro-life cause- in Casey.
Oct '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Anytime.
Dec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Still, I do feel uncomfortable with the mandate in some ways:
If the point of the picture is to show you there's a person growing inside you, then shouldn't abortion just be illegal, as it ends the life of that person?
Also, if the state can mandate this medical procedure, no matter how good the cause, doesn't that set up the precedent for mandating further medical procedures? This possibility disturbs me.
We already experience government-mandated procedures in various situations, vaccination being probably the most common. Forced sampling of bodily fluids or excretions for blood alcohol testing is another. Since the procedure in this case is imaging, not tissue sampling or introducing anything into the bloodstream, it's less invasive than those other examples. I still see how it can be worrying, of course.
As for imaging vs. outlawing abortion, the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman's conscience is the deciding factor over abortion. This law is intended not to prohibit women from getting abortions, but to force -- mandate -- them to confront the reality of what they are choosing to do and use their consciences to make a fully informed decision.
Dec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I think that's about right. Give the kid a hearing to determine whether he/she ought to be subjected to the ultimate sanction because of his/her mother's countervailing rights.
The only difference I have is that I think the unborn child deserves more consideration than a convicted murderer, simply because the murderer is a criminal and the unborn child hasn't even been charged with a crime.
Oct '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Re. Stuart Creque. My ex wife also miscarried and it clearly took an emotional toll on both of us. And do I take to heart the unspoken burden that a resposible woman carries thruout her life by having an abortion.
The possibilities in the post were meant to address points that would make all of these arguements a moot via non existent law.
If there is a line to be drawn in the sand, it is still in sand and subject to the winds. Get my direction ?
Edited on February 25, 2012 at 2:09amJun '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I'm thinking of having charges brought against my dentist for mouth rape. He had the audacity to want take a picture of the inside of my mouth before he extracted my tooth. Then he . . . gasp . . . inserted something into my mouth to facilitate the x-ray. And then he even wanted me to look at the picture before he performed the extraction.
Oh the nasty cruelness of it all.
Oct '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Re. Samuel Amaral. The point was to address currently non existent legislation that would put a possible end to the never ending dialog on this topic.
Yet, when you added, Again, documents and your existence are not related.
Flatout holds no water in the real world, unless they are really good forgeries.
Oct '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Colin B Lane: I'm thinking of having charges brought against my dentist for mouth rape. He had the audacity to want take a picture of the inside of my mouth before he extracted my tooth. Then he . . . gasp . . . inserted something into my mouth to facilitate the x-ray. And then he even wanted me to look at the picture before he performed the extraction.
Oh the nasty cruelness of it all. · 6 minutes ago
Try the colon exam where one has the joy of watching the probe advance on a color monitor. Add the visual of the Doc that knows this function is the highlight of his profession. Be afraid.
Then there are Dental Surgeons. Hmmm.
Oct '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
wilber forge: Yet, when you added, Again, documents and your existence are not related.
Flatout holds no water in the real world, unless they are really good forgeries.· 5 minutes ago
I am pretty sure the Obama 2012 Budget proves that good forgery still exist.
More seriously, the legal documents don't make you a person, so claiming that life start at birth because it is when a certificate of birth is issued is gimmicky. There are billions born and grown up without any kind of documentation around the globe, are they not persons ?
Dec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
wilber forge: Re. Stuart Creque. My ex wife also miscarried and it clearly took an emotional toll and both of us. And do I take to heart the unspoken burden that a resposible woman carries thruout her life by having an abortion.
The possibilities in the post were meant to address points that would make all of these arguements a moot via non existent law.
If there is a line to be drawn in the sand, it is still in sand and subject to the winds. Get my direction ? · 15 minutes ago
I don't see the line in the sand. To prove criminal wrong doing (I doubt civilian court will be involved much) the people must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the cause of the miscarriage was a deliberate attempt to kill the fetus. If not, as in all homicide/manslaughter cases, the event is ruled an accident and no one is at fault. Done.
Jun '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
It's not a matter of "adopting" that viewpoint (although it's a felicitous use of that word). It's simply the science of the thing: sperm fertilizes egg = new life.
The certificate of live birth deals with the reality of miscarriages and stillbirths. But I'd be in favor of your proposal to give children in utero government documentation, if it would help to recognize their humanity.
Of course, not even a live birth was good enough for our current president to recognize that, as Gingrich pointed out in the Ash Wednesday debate.
Oct '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Samuel Amaral
wilber forge: Yet, when you added, Again, documents and your existence are not related.
Flatout holds no water in the real world, unless they are really good forgeries.· 5 minutes ago
I am pretty sure the Obama 2012 Budget proves that good forgery still exist.
More seriously, the legal documents don't make you a person, so claiming that life start at birth because it is when a certificate of birth is issued is gimmicky. There are billions born and grown up without any kind of documentation around the globe, are they not persons ? · 5 minutes ago
Setting the mind boggling skullduggery of budgets aside.
Agree a person is a person and there are cultures where ones existence , lineage or worth in the community is verified by word of mouth. Save that on the global and nation state levels documentation is required and desireable for a plethora of reasons.
An organized civilization depends upon such structures of documentation.
Does the statement of the Gimmickry on documents you made mean they are meaningless and they are a waste of time ?
Dec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
In my humble opinion, laws that require such invasive procedures as that described (and it is invasive - I was in the room with my wife when she needed to have an ultrasound done very early in the first trimester) are a response - however wrongheaded - to the universalism dictated by Roe v. Wade. If the ability to get an abortion is protected by Supreme Court ruling, then one of the few options open to states that would rather ban abortions is to put as many hurdles in the way as possible. It's DC gun laws for anti-abortion types.
In a version of our country that is less universalist in its decrees, those who want abortion under all circumstances could live apart from those who choose to ban abortions - and there would be room for all varieties in between in the space of our 50 states. But for those who must not only be right for themselves and those they love and care for but also for all of us from sea to shining sea, this will never do. And so, we have the big state getting ever bigger.