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:
Mar '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
EThompson
James Delingpole:
In the 198 previous comments, no one has asked who'd be footing this bill?· 3 hours ago
To quote Lili von Schtupp, "I'm tired." The ultrasounds are already performed before every abortion. They're paid for by the patient, their insurance company, and/or Planned Parenthood. The only taxpayer cost would be the expenses to print and process the release form.
Jul '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Silly, haven't you heard? From now on, health care is free! It's a human right! And I know it's true because the government passed a law that says so!
Sep '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Karen
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Ross Conatser
Actually, Karen is right.
Thanks for linking that discussion. That was the one I was referring to, so I should've linked it and clarified in my comments, but as usual you've explained it better than I could. · 23 hours ago
My apologies to Karen, I did not understand this point at the time. BTW I appreciate that we have folks like Karen and Practical Mary who will comment here. It would be far duller without them.
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
James Delingpole:
@everyone else. Guess, er, we'll have to agree to differ. I'm not even going to try arguing my point further for there is simply going to be no meeting of minds whatsoever. · Feb 25 at 7:31am
I know it has been mentioned already, but I want to add my voice to the chorus of disappointment Mr. Delingpole. I thoroughly enjoy your podcast, even when your opinions do not match mine.
However, I cannot fathom your motivation for bringing this up but not responding to even one of the salient points in the responses. You need not engage all. However, what about key ones relating to the misinformation regarding the law. Just address the fact that the ultrasounds you reference are already required and not some invention by the evil social right. How about addressing the issue that the liberal media coverage misrepresents the facts, leading to the erroneous image Europe has of American conservatives.
I would be happy if you started there. Throwing out "agree to disagree" as your only response, as if the above erroneous image is now complete in your mind, is a serious disservice to those who took the time to respond.
Oct '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Haakon Dahl
James Delingpole: @wilbur forge. Just got back to this post to find over 150 comments, a lot of it flak directed at you. Your kite must be badly shot up. Can you make it back to base good buddy?
@everyone else. Guess, er, we'll have to agree to differ. I'm not even going to try arguing my point further for there is simply going to be no meeting of minds whatsoever. · 9 hours ago
Right. Off you go then. Perhaps you can rattle on about Euro-weenies and things which should be changed in Britain. I genuinely value your contribution in those areas.
I fear that American conservatism escapes you, however, and you would have had no use for Samuel Adams or Thomas Jefferson, whose nasty conservative faces would no doubt have distressed you. You've been quite nasty in your own discourse, and offer to respond only to a fellow whom more than I alone have said is not quite making sense.
Good Day sir. · 20 hours ago
Happen to be of conservative bent and not symapthetic to Liberals.
Seems folks are firm on the birth and abortion issue but there is never agreement.
Feb '12
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Let’s assume that decisions about abortion choices occur through a lens of ignorance, to say nothing of emotion. Perhaps the luminous insight and understanding that a 3D photo of the fetus provides has the potential to erase ignorance. That's not micro managing anything to death, that's enlightenment and anyone can gain from enlightenment. “Here, see, this is what you’re deciding to terminate. Perfectly within your rights to do that. There are alternatives, however.” If, as someone stated, the law is simply adding the production of the 3D photo to the discussion about the abortion and its consequences, doesn't it just make sense? Or am I from some other planet?
Jul '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
@Delingpole - I am with you. This is despicable.
Jul '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Thinking through this.. You don't want Michelle O telling you what to put in your mouth- but you want to get into a girl's vagina while she is going through one of the toughest things she may undergo. Nice!
Jun '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Why is it tough?
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
But what if there's another person at the other end of that vagina? That's what makes this problem so difficult.
And as others more knowledgeable in these matters than I have pointed out, an ultrasound beforehand is already standard abortion procedure. The chief novelty is having to show it to the patient.
People can reasonably disagree on when personhood begins, but it's strange not to recognize that a great many people in this country believe abortion is about two people, one of whom dies. That's very different than "What's for lunch?"
Jun '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
I cannot say that the possibility that a drugdesignedto prevent ovulation might in rare instances allow ovulation but prevent implantation mortifies me.
There are many reasons why fertilization but not implantation might occur. If a contraceptive drug is not intendedto prevent implantation, and the likelihood of it allowing ovulation but not implantation is low enough (as may well be the case), then how would implantation failure due to this drug be morally different from any other purely accidental implantation failure? · 17 hours ago
In my mind, it's not accidental if I know that it's a possible outcome. Even though that's not the primary purpose, it nevertheless is a known possibility, and that risk is too much for me.
I fully acknowledge there's a possibility I haven't thought through this enough from every angle, or am mistaken in my logic. And that very bright Christian disagree with me. Thus, my reluctance to bind consciences. I feel I'm on safer ground when talking about one of the intended purposes of sex—procreation—and thus saying one should not ordinarily close the marital union off to that possibility.
Dec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
What's despicable? That James is okay with doing away with his grandchild, probably for the convenience of his daughter?
But that's not the issue. By most accounts, the ultrasound will be performed anyway before the procedure to protect the health of the "mother". He doesn't want the results of that test to be shared with his daughter.
Sorry, Barkha. That's despicable.
Dec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Christopher Esget
In my mind, it's not accidental if I know that it's a possible outcome. Even though that's not the primary purpose, it nevertheless is a known possibility, and that risk is too much for me.
I fully acknowledge there's a possibility I haven't thought through this enough from every angle, or am mistaken in my logic. And that very bright Christian disagree with me. Thus, my reluctance to bind consciences. I feel I'm on safer ground when talking about one of the intended purposes of sex—procreation—and thus saying one should not ordinarily close the marital union off to that possibility. · 1 minute ago
Unless I missed something, you don't know it's a possible outcome. You suspect that it may be possible if specific conditions exist. There is a world of difference in those two statements.
Jun '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Jerry Broaddus
Unless I missed something, you don't knowit's a possible outcome. You suspect that it may be possibleif specific conditions exist. There is a world of difference in those two statements. · 2 minutes ago
That's a good point. But I don't know enough to really even make that judgment, since I'm at the mercy of scientists, who don't seem to be in complete agreement. Thus, my wife and I decided to steer clear of any possible danger – but this was before we came to a religious conclusion that contraception itself is not God's intention for human sexuality.
I emphasize religious in that I would never seek to outlaw contraception; whereas abortion, like any murder, should be illegal, on the same basis that any of us find murder abhorrent.
May '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Jerry Broaddus
Unless I missed something, you don't knowit's a possible outcome. You suspect that it may be possibleif specific conditions exist. There is a world of difference in those two statements. · 21 minutes ago
Nonsense. If something
then all we have said is that it is not impossible. We have failed to prove that it can never happen.
On the other hand, if one
then all we have said is that it is not impossible. We have failed to prove that it can never happen.
Nov '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
But what if there's another person at the other end of that vagina? That's what makes this problem so difficult.
And as others more knowledgeable in these matters than I have pointed out, an ultrasound beforehand is already standard abortion procedure. The chief novelty is having to show it to the patient.
I just wanted to note that the abortion seeker may refuse to view the ultrasound image, according to the law; they will not be forced to view their unborn child. The ultrasound provider must offer to show the image, and document this. That is the only change that the law would have required, if the Governor had actually signed it.
Barkha: Is it too much to ask that you read what others have said prior to jumping into a controversial subject such as this?
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Christopher Esget
In my mind, it's not accidental if I know that it's a possible outcome. Even though that's not the primary purpose, it nevertheless is a known possibility, and that risk is too much for me.
I fully acknowledge there's a possibility I haven't thought through this enough from every angle...
Perhaps another angle is this analogy from law:
The rule of felony murder is that manslaughter committed in the course of a criminal activity becomes murder, even if there is no intent to kill.
You're an agent of a church that doesn't consider contraception a moral offense, but your personal journey has led you to believe that contraception is not morally innocent. So contraception may be a "felony" to your conscience, thus any "manslaughter" incurred during the course of contraception gets bumped up to "murder" in your conscience.
This seems like plausible moral reasoning to me.
Again, thanks for sharing with us.
May '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
The point of this is to push the "responsibility" end of this process back to the decision-making end, where it belongs. I am agnostic, but I don't need a burning bush to tell me that those who kill for convenience are a menace.
I urge you not to get all "up in a girl's vagina" on this argument, as it moves the conversation to what else got up in there and when, and why. Which we have so far nicely avoided. You'll not shame me out of a conversation by casting vague aspersions of furtive and perverted motives behind the conservative defense of life.
What's perverted is the permanent pursuit of supposedly consequence-free living no matter who has to die or go bankrupt to support it.
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Christopher Esget
In my mind, it's not accidental if I know that it's a possible outcome. Even though that's not the primary purpose, it nevertheless is a known possibility, and that risk is too much for me.
I think I know what you mean, but I suspect a better word for "possible" is "sufficiently likely".
We don't feed toddlers whole grapes because it's sufficiently likely that they could choke. However, if a mother came to you burdened with guilt because she had fed her developmentally normal eight-year-old son a whole grape and he choked to death, I bet you'd try to find a way to help her feel less guilty, since eight-year-olds are so unlikely to choke on grapes.
Likewise, if my husband were run over doing me the favor of crossing the street to buy milk, I would probably feel great guilt for having asked him that favor. But I would also know in the back of my mind that that sort of guilt isn't rightful, no matter how natural it feels. He wouldn't have crossed if he thought he was sufficiently likely to get run over.
Nov '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Here.