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 '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Stuart Creque
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Still, I do feel uncomfortable with the mandate in some ways:
...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...
Yes, when I woke up this morning, I thought to myself, "Oh, vaccination!" Then I came here to check if anyone had reminded me of what had taken me so long to remind myself. Thank you, Stuart...
Still, I don't consider it wrong of me to hold mandates of any sort as prima faciesuspicious.
As Rick Perry found to his regret, not everyone agrees with every vaccination mandate. (Of course, pointing that out too aggressively backfired on Michelle Bachmann.)
The difference between vaccination and the ultrasound mandate is that the vaccination mandate is far more universal and applied to people who aren't otherwise undergoing medical treatment. The ultrasound requirement is only done on women seeking abortions, so it's more a regulation of an existing medical procedure.
Jun '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Actually, Karen is right. Yesterday in another thread, some people raised the possibility that anyone who has used monthly hormonal contraception for long enough had likely given herself a chemical abortion without realizing it.
Prof Rahe also pointed out that IUDs act as abortifacients rather than contraceptives. So far I don't believe anyone has disputed the point.
Dec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Joseph Stanko
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 seeingyour own babyon 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." · 19 hours ago
I believe that radical shift happens regardless of gender, when "it" becomes a "who". But I'm with you.
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
James - since you haven't even acknowledged the debunking of the facts at your disposal, I would argue that your use of the word "further" is in error. You tossed the hand grenade, folks dived on it and you cannot even engage them on the facts.
Very poor form.
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
The white flag already? Are you sure it isn't Monsieur Delingpole?
Oct '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Not sure why the more invasive vaginal ultrasound would be required.
Texas has a similar law, but I believe it's simply abdominal ultrasound... agree with earlier comment about Informed Consent. A woman having an abortion may have regrets down the road; better to be sure she knows what she is doing before the deed is done.
Going one step further, if there were potential side effects, like increased likelihood of miscarriage/infertility, or even a documented increase in depression or suicide, I can't imagine why anyone would want to suppress this information.
Edited on February 26, 2012 at 12:33amApr '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
James, this is such an inadequate response to the interesting and thoughtful (if occasionally heated) discussion engendered by your original post. I'm sure everyone here would sincerely appreciate some honest engagement on your part (it's your topic, after all!).
May '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
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.
May '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Karen
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. · 47 minutes ago
I understand what you mean. As a user of contraceptives, and therefore a baby killer according to some here, I can say that I'm grateful that those who so vehemently disagree with you are in the minority opinion, and will remain so. Even the very conservative Gov. McDonnell realized this plan was flawed. Forcing a woman to have such an invasive procedure without her consentis wrong. But this is less about stopping abortions than just proving their righteousness on the matter. If pro-lifers truly wanted to persuade women to not have abortions, despite the legal right to have one, pro-lifers could try handing out a little more of that compassion they supposedly possess to these women who find themselves in the difficult circumstance of an unwanted pregnancy. But that's probably too much to ask. · 8 hours ago
Way to go conflating contraception with abortion. Sounds familiar.
Dec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Karen
I understand what you mean. As a user of contraceptives, and therefore a baby killer according to some here, I can say that I'm grateful that those who so vehemently disagree with you are in the minority opinion, and will remain so. Even the very conservative Gov. McDonnell realized this plan was flawed. Forcing a woman to have such an invasive procedure without her consentis wrong. But this is less about stopping abortions than just proving their righteousness on the matter. If pro-lifers truly wanted to persuade women to not have abortions, despite the legal right to have one, pro-lifers could try handing out a little more of that compassion they supposedly possess to these women who find themselves in the difficult circumstance of an unwanted pregnancy. But that's probably too much to ask. · 9 hours ago
I must have missed that post. Could you be so kind as to point out where anyone even suggested that using contraceptives makes one a killer of babies? Thanks so much.
Dec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Actually, Karen is right. Yesterday in another thread, some people raised the possibility that anyone who has used monthly hormonal contraception for long enough had likely given herself a chemical abortion without realizing it.
Now, it was my understanding that monthly pills are supposed to prevent ovulation, not implantation, thoughifthe pills aren't taken according to instructions, ovulation and fertilization followed by implantation failuremayoccur.
...
A couple of points.
First, as pointed out, if even possible, such a condition would be quite rare. Second it would be completely unintended.
An equally valid argument could be made to call truck drivers child killers because children sometimes die in accidents with commercial trucks. It doesn't happen often, at least compared to other causes of death to children, and it's never intended.
Making such an accusation would require a willing suspension of critical thought. And a much more profound suspension would be required to make the contraception as baby killer argument. There are an order of magnitude more women using the pill in the US than there are commercial trucks, and probably an order of magnitude fewer deaths.
Apr '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
As a physician involved in female ultrasound from it's infancy the decision to use vaginal ultrasound should be left to the sonographer. It depends on the size of the patient and the number of weeks of the pregnancy. No bill should mandate the type of ultrasound.
Mar '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
The bill doesn't mandate transvaginal ultrasounds. The bill only mandates the ultrasound. The type depends upon the needs of the circumstances, as determined by the ultrasound technician. Can we have a show of hands of who has actually read the bill? Otherwise, debate is futile if folks just keep bringing up Daily Show red herrings.
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Having come to this thread with nearly 200 comments ahead of me, I admit to not having read them all, but I've read all of James's, and it seems to me that he's missed the point entirely, even though it's been made several times over: A woman can't claim psychological damage due to the invasiveness of an ultrasound when she's asking for an even more invasive abortion to be performed on her.
The only actual psychological damage that may result is the greater guilt resulting from seeing the fetus or embryo before aborting it, which is very much the point. But if liberals want to hang their ideological hat on the insistence that women should be allowed to be ignorant of the nature of what they're aborting so that they won't feel guilty, that's a pretty flimsy hat rack.
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Jerry Broaddus
First, as pointed out, if even possible, such a condition would be quite rare. Second it would be completely unintended.
An equally valid argument could be made to call truck drivers child killers because children sometimes die in accidents with commercial trucks. It doesn't happen often, at least compared to other causes of death to children, and it's never intended.
Making such an accusation would require a willing suspension of critical thought. And a much more profound suspension would be required to make the contraception as baby killer argument. There are an order of magnitude more women using the pill in the US than there are commercial trucks, and probably an order of magnitude fewer deaths.
Oh, I agree with you.
I merely pointed out that Karen was right when she said that some people expressed the opinion that women who habitually used ovulation-preventing monthly pills were likely giving themselves unintended abortions. It didn't mean I agreed with that opinion.
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Christopher Esget
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
As a pastor, what do you make of...
...Shortly before I got married I learned of the possibility you mention, and it mortified me.
Because of the disconnect between my church's current teaching and my own conclusions, I try to thread the needle by giving engaged couples reading assignments on contraception and seek to persuade them in our conversations to always remain open to procreation, and make them aware of the possibility of an unintended chemical abortion. As you might imagine, this is not always welcome advice.
Thanks for your honest reply. It meant a lot to me.
I'll be honest in return:
I cannot say that the possibility that a drug designed to 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 intended to 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?
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
It would be interesting to know how the risks of implantation failure due to ovulation-preventing birth control pills compares to the risks of implantation failure from other sources, such as stress, illness, lack of sleep, use of other prescription drugs, coffee consumption, smoking, drinking, and so forth.
If the risk of implantation failure from ovulation-preventing contraception is no greater than the risk of implantation failure from such common activities, then I would say it's unnecessary to worry about unintended chemical abortion from ovulation-preventing contraceptives.
This might sound like gambling with life. But gambling with life is something that each of us cannot help but do every day, even with the simplest actions such as eating a sandwich and crossing the street.
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Stuart Creque
The difference between vaccination and the ultrasound mandate is that the vaccination mandate is far more universal and applied to people who aren't otherwise undergoing medical treatment. The ultrasound requirement is only done on women seeking abortions, so it's more a regulation of an existing medical procedure.
Yes, that makes sense.
Again, it's not so bad to be prima facie suspicious of the desire to regulate medical procedure. But in this case, the regulation seems far more warranted than in other cases that we accept without question.
Dec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
James Delingpole:
In the 198 previous comments, no one has asked who'd be footing this bill?
Nov '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Per Lucy Pevensie's post #149, ultrasounds are already performed prior to almost all, if not all, abortion procedures. There would of course be some additional costs associated with administration and documentation, but I think they would be relatively low (the government has a way of making things more expensive than they need to be, however). The law would require that the ultrasound performing doctor/tech offer to show the abortion seeker the ultrasound image; it is my understanding that this would be the only real change from current practice. I have no idea how such a law would be enforceable, since there would be no way to tell if the doctor/ultrasound tech was honestly documenting that they offered to show the image to the abortion seeker.