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
Mr. Delingpole,
While I may agree that the law is a bit gimmicky, considering these tests will happen anyways, it's far from a horribly invasive measure. Comparing this to the killing of thousands of people is quite extreme, and really just seems to avoid the issue. Quite seriously, I ask you the following question (which I hope you answer)?
What legal actions should pro-life people take (remembering the failure of previous bills) to prevent the murder of around 3000 children a day?
Jun '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
We could have avoided that little unpleasantness back in the 1860's, too, if busybodies had just agreed to not press the issue on whether certain beings were fully human. The audacity! Being right not only for themselves, but also for others.
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
James, I seem to recall in your recent podcast that you cited tens of thousands of deaths as a reason to legalize drugs. Would that you were as concerned about the taking of millions of lives by abortion. In my view, murder is murder. I think it appalling and evil no matter the method employed. Nasty indeed. I also believe in forgiveness and mercy and hope women who choose abortion find peace. As far as friendship goes, I guess that is up to you. We agree in many other areas, and I admire your talent and dedication to libertarian causes. I accept there are differences as well as common cause among conservatives, Ricochetti included. However, I am American throughout and openly admit that opinion of those across the pond ranks near the bottom of my considerations when I form or discuss my opinions.
Dec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Christopher Esget
We could have avoided that little unpleasantness back in the 1860's, too, if busybodies had just agreed to not press the issue on whether certain beings were fully human. The audacity! Being right not only for themselves, but also for others. · 1 minute ago
Point well taken. Perhaps I think of my influence (as an individual) on others in various corners of the country in the same way that I hope to be influenced (i.e., coerced) by my federal government - that is, in a limited way.
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
So let's keep faces out of it, be they "nasty" or not fully formed?I saw an interesting article in the Telegraph this week about gender selection in the UK. Now that's really nasty.
Oct '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Christopher Esget
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. · 4 minutes ago
Well then, Apply the thought, may have been a better turn of phrase.
In a way, the certificate of live birth represents a gap and is excusal in a manner of speaking to parental responsibility as regards carrying to term. A buffer as it were.
The point was to define legal questions that would be agreeable to all.
What folly, that.
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Flapjack,I would choose to live in a state where murder is illegal. Some things are good for all even if there are those who disagree. Laws are based on morals. We agree I think that our government is too large and soft tyranny abounds in Western culture today. I think however that truth exists, and there is right for all.
Dec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I agree with you. But I think that it is clear that, given the deterioration of moral standing in some areas of the country and the threat (and in some cases, the reality) of Left-Statist tyranny, it would be better to separate from them (at least legislatively) than live under their version of what is right and just (which we do now in some ways with more coming to a federal gov't near you). Forgive me if I sound disheartening, but I do not think the Left can be convinced to accept our argument regarding life and liberty. But the Left can be out-lived and out-educated - in the long run.
Jun '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
wilber forge:
A Social Security ID would be issued at conception as well. Would the parents need to name the embryo at that time to comply ? Or is it just embryo #xxx.xx.xxxx until the sex is established ?
Unless the unborn child is going to be working and earning a taxable income I don't see why he needs a Social Security number...
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Flapjack,I understand your impulse. A good friend of mine shares it. He always says he is heading out to the woods to grow his own food and hunt to provide meat. I cannot agree. Therefore go and make disciples of all the nations....To me outliving the left is not the point. Bringing truth, goodness and beauty to the nations, yes most importantly the one in which I live, is the point.
Oct '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Joseph Stanko
wilber forge:
A Social Security ID would be issued at conception as well. Would the parents need to name the embryo at that time to comply ? Or is it just embryo #xxx.xx.xxxx until the sex is established ?
Unless the unborn child is going to be working and earning a taxable income I don't see why he needs a Social Security number... · 2 minutes ago
May have missed something, but are not the young issued mandated Social Security IDs shortly after birth these days ?
Dec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I'm not heading out to the woods to live off the land, Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking style. That would be defeatist. You and I probably agree on very, very many things. I just think that I can affect more change locally - though I do not doubt that you would focus locally as well. When I look to "all the nations", the task of changing them appears overwhelming, and so I focus locally with a hope (probably much like you, I think) that my effort might influence positively.
Apr '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
wilber forge
Joseph Stanko
wilber forge:
A Social Security ID would be issued at conception as well. Would the parents need to name the embryo at that time to comply ? Or is it just embryo #xxx.xx.xxxx until the sex is established ?
Unless the unborn child is going to be working and earning a taxable income I don't see why he needs a Social Security number... · 2 minutes ago
May have missed something, but are not the young issued mandated Social Security IDs shortly after birth these days ? · 2 minutes ago
Unfortunately, yes.
Apr '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
wilber forge
Joseph Stanko
Unless the unborn child is going to be working and earning a taxable income I don't see why he needs a Social Security number... ·
May have missed something, but are not the young issued mandated Social Security IDs shortly after birth these days ? · 0 minutes ago
I believe the change was required to allow the IRS to track dependents claimed on tax returns. That prevents two people from claiming the same child. So, it was just a revenue enhancement law -- i.e., to prevent fraud.
Jun '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Jerry Broaddus: James, I think the ultrasound is intended to make the "patient" aware that her decision will end a life.
Perhaps those who object to this educational demonstration could agree to make a public statement that they're fully aware that the abortion will end a human life. The ultrasound would then be completely redundant.
I think there's a fair bit of difference between the abstract knowledge of fetal development and seeing your own baby on the screen. It goes from being abstract to personal.
Women who've had abortions and later come to regret them seldom talk about ending "a life," they talk about their son or daughter: what would I have named him, this would be her 5th birthday, is she in heaven now, does she forgive me?
There's a radical shift in perspective when "it" becomes a "he" or a "she."
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Flapjack I agree the focus must be local but I hold out hope for all the nations for hope does not put us to shame.
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
With respect, you think you find it unpleasant? I hear tell it's absolute murder on the baby.
Mar '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
What many participating in this conversation fail to realize is this: sonograms are mandated by the National Abortion Federation in their Clinical Policy Guidelines and already performed by Planned Parenthood with every abortion. The rub is that the bill would require the patient to see the sonogram, which might convince her to keep the child. Naturally, the pro-choice types want to prevent the patient from any chance of having second thoughts, so they attack an action that they are already taking, and not about to stop, with the cri de coeur, "Rape!" In fact, they only want to prevent the patient from seeing the sonogram.
I used to be mildly pro-choice, but, the longer I've thought about the subject, I've become more and more staunchly pro-life. While I still respect and enjoy Mr. Delingpole's work, and I can understand how he could come to his conclusion reading the mainstream media, I am disappointed that he didn't investigate the issue further before posting on it.
Nov '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
James, I have to say I'm a bit shocked by your casual view of abortion. Dr. Brian Stiller, then President of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, tells of a meeting with Dr. H. Morgenthaler, the leading abortionist in Canada.
It was the 80's and the issue was hot. Dr's S and M had debated the issue numerous times on national television and Brian had just been flown in to Toronto for another one on CBC the next day. By accident he discovered Dr. M was staying in the same hotel. They had never met except on air in a debate.
Brian knocked on his antagonist's door and suggested they spend the evening getting to know each other on a better level. The latter agreed, they went out for dinner and talked long into the evening in Brian's room, discovering many common interests. But "the subject" was not broached.
cont...
Edited on February 25, 2012 at 4:19amJun '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
wilber forge
Well then, Apply the thought, may have been a better turn of phrase.
I think I was too subtle. I was trying to make a point about adoption as a viable option.