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
Fat Dave
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.
Sorry to have exhausted your patience, but may I remind you that Planned Parenthood receives federal funds- which is bad enough- so why put any more of the financial burden upon taxpayers?
Somebody earlier in this thread made a valid point; make abortion legal or illegal (through the legislative branch, of course), but let's not enforce anymore government mandates on a choice that is currently a legal one.
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
EThompson:
Somebody earlier in this thread made a valid point; make abortion legal or illegal (through the legislative branch, of course), but let's not enforce anymore government mandates on a choice that is currently a legal one.
To which many people made equally valid (in my opinion, more so) responses. Go back and read them, and either engage them and say why their points are not valid. But let's not just repeat points.
Edited on February 27, 2012 at 2:47amDec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Chris Deleon
EThompson:
Somebody earlier in this thread made a valid point; make abortion legal or illegal (through the legislative branch, of course), but let's not enforce anymore government mandates on a choice that is currently a legal one.
To which many people made equally valid (in my opinion, more so) responses. Go back and read them, and either engage them and say why their points are not valid. But let's not just repeat points. · 12 minutes ago
Edited 11 minutes ago
I made a specific point in the first part of post#221 and I'll repeat whatever responses I happen to support, thank you very much. This was a lengthy thread, I happen to be on a business trip this week and I don't have the luxury of writing dissertations on multiple viewpoints. You, however, may have the luxury of exercising better manners!
Mar '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
EThompson
Fat Dave
EThompson
James Delingpole:
In the 198 previous comments, no one has asked who'd be footing this bill?· 3 hours ago
Sorry to have exhausted your patience, but may I remind you that Planned Parenthood receives federal funds- which is bad enough- so why put any more of the financial burden upon taxpayers?
You asked who would pay for the ultrasound. I answered (a question to which you would've known the answer if you had read the rest of the thread). Besides, wouldn't you be happier knowing that a portion of Planned Parenthood's funds, extorted from the taxpayer, actually went to saving a life or two, instead of feeding Moloch? Of course there is a minor administrative cost to pay, but the apparatus is already in place, and well worth the expense. Of course, why am I arguing? We've all made up our minds, and only a handful of us have read the bill.
Dec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Fat Dave
EThompson
Fat Dave
EThompson
James Delingpole:
In the 198 previous comments, no one has asked who'd be footing this bill?· 3 hours ago
Sorry to have exhausted your patience, but may I remind you that Planned Parenthood receives federal funds- which is bad enough- so why put any more of the financial burden upon taxpayers?
You asked who would pay for the ultrasound. I answered (a question to which you would've known the answer if you had read the rest of the thread).
I asked a facetious question, indeed, because I am fully aware that the majority of abortions and ultrasounds are not paid for by individuals or people with health insurance; they are funded by PP (i.e. the Fed govt.) I would recommend you read some Charles Murray for further clarification.
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
EThompson
Somebody earlier in this thread made a valid point; make abortion legal or illegal (through the legislative branch, of course), but let's not enforce anymore government mandates on a choice that is currently a legal one.
In case you've forgotten, since 1973 we've been unable to make it illegal. So we look for ways to reduce abortion that doesn't get the dander of the SCOTUS up.
The left, in protesting this, implicitly agrees with the right that there are a lot of women at the margin who go through with an abortion because they're able to convince themselves they're merely flushing out a clump of cells, and who might change their mind if they were presented with a visual image of the embryo. The difference between the left and the right is whether they think this would be a bug or a feature.
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
James,
This is the only time in the years I have been reading your stuff that we have been in fundamental disagreement (although to be honest I sometimes think you a little PollyAnna-ish in your optimism). I was 100% with you in your debate with Prof. Rahe - although I listened to it a few times as there were many things which made me go HMMM.
I agree with Milton Freidman, that a person should be able to do pretty much whatever he or she wants as long as it does not hurt anyone else. While I agree that vaginal ultra sound is over the top, I don't know how one can say that murdering a totally unprotected fetus could fall in that MF definition. It is mandated as legal but a lot of majorities in a lot of states would ban it if it were not for a 70s Supreme Court decision. Making someone think twice about murdering a child, in principal, is difficult for me to fault. We can debate methodology.
Culturally abortion carries a totally different cultural moral paradigm in Europe than in many parts of the USA.
Dec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Haakon Dahl
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. · Feb 26 at 3:26pm
Suspecting that a thing may be possible is not the same as saying that it is possible.
Proving a negative is quite difficult. The only way to disprove it is to cause it to happen. And that would be something I'm not willing to try in this case.
May '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Jerry Broaddus
Haakon Dahl
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. · Feb 26 at 3:26pm
Suspecting that a thing may be possible is not the same as saying that it is possible.
Proving a negative is quite difficult. The only way to disprove it is to cause it to happen. And that would be something I'm not willing to try in this case. · 3 hours ago
Wrong again. Possibility means that there is an element which is unknown to the observer. The suspicion of the observer is irrelevant. You are quibbling over what exactly is unknown, which is not the point. Is this getting through to you? It's possible.
I can pile suspicions and possibilities up all day long, but that is all covered with the statement that a thing is possible. The only other option a priori is that it is not possible.
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Mr. Dahl, it appears that you're considering "possible" in an ontological sense, while Mr. Broaddus is using it as a matter of epistemology. In the latter realm, there's a perfectly legitimate concept of Second Order Uncertainty.
As an example, I might say, "It is possible for the movers to get the refrigerator through the upstairs doorway," if I've managed to do it before myself by twisting it to the correct geometry.
On the other hand, it would be more accurate for me to say, "It may be possible for the movers to get the refrigerator through the upstairs doorway," if I haven't done so myself, or the refrigerator is of a different size, or if my measurements are only approximate.
I could apply the same second order uncertainty to whether Abe Vigoda is in California right now, or even something as seemingly probabilistic as whether a particular roulette wheel will produce a 10 within the next five minutes.
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Ottoman Umpire: Mr. Dahl, it appears that you're considering "possible" in an ontological sense, while Mr. Broaddus is using it as a matter of epistemology. In the latter realm, there's a perfectly legitimate concept of Second Order Uncertainty.
As an example, I might say, "It is possible for the movers to get the refrigerator through the upstairs doorway," if I've managed to do it before myself by twisting it to the correct geometry.
On the other hand, it would be more accurate for me to say, "It may be possible for the movers to get the refrigerator through the upstairs doorway," if I haven't done so myself, or the refrigerator is of a different size, or if my measurements are only approximate.
I could apply the same second order uncertainty to whether Abe Vigoda is in California right now, or even something as seemingly probabilistic as whether a particular roulette wheel will produce a 10 within the next five minutes.
Good call, Ottoman Ump!
Earlier today, I tried to pen a response similar to yours, but ran out of time -- and I'm sure I wouldn't have put it nearly so well as you did.
Edited on February 29, 2012 at 2:59amDec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Haakon Dahl
Jerry Broaddus
Suspecting that a thing may be possible is not the same as saying that it is possible.
Proving a negative is quite difficult. The only way to disprove it is to cause it to happen. And that would be something I'm not willing to try in this case. · 3 hours ago
Wrong again. Possibility means that there is an element which is unknown to the observer. The suspicion of the observer is irrelevant. You are quibbling over what exactly is unknown, which is not the point. Is this getting through to you? It's possible.
I can pile suspicions and possibilities up all day long, but that is all covered with the statement that a thing is possible. The only other option a prioriis that it is not possible. · 22 hours ago
Who says the thing is possible? The statement assumes facts not in evidence.
It is conceivable. You can think it, therefore it is?
Edited on February 29, 2012 at 4:39amMay '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
While I appreciate the reasoned responses, including my sparring partner's, I respectfully submit that this is a faulty analysis, but only because of the nature of the uncertainty. It is not in question that in a generalized sense "the pill" can destroy "an embryo", right? Likewise, in a generalized sense, "the fridge" can be worked through "a doorway". But the example of moving furniture is about a specific refrigerator and a specific hallway, whereas the original claims about the possibility of destroying an embryo are (I think necessarily) non-specific. If we were to climb aboard a tiny submarine and go to gemba, would perhaps be able to mount an argument about a specific embryo. Until then, perhaps not.
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Well, not entirely non-specific.
There are specific scenarios in which ovulation-preventing pills are known to cause miscarriage (ovulation plus implantation failure): skipping doses, a gastro-intestinal complaint preventing the pill from being digested, other medicines interacting. That sort of thing.
Therefore, women can take precautions to minimize the risk of these pills causing chemical abortions: avoid sex for a time if they've missed a dose, or feel ill, avoid other medicines known to interfere with these pills....
It wouldn't surprise me if taking such precautions caused a woman's implantation-failure rate to be well below that of non-contraception-using women. But I'm just speculating here.
So the sense in which "the pill" can destroy "an embryo" is not merely generalized or uniform, but associated with certain scenarios. And this game is better suited to probabilities than absolute possibility.
After all, God made woman with a natural implantation-failure rate, and God is presumably not an abortionist.
Edited on February 29, 2012 at 4:47pm