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
The strategic mistake made by the Republican House leadership was pushing both the sonogram and "personhood" bills through in the same session. It made Virginia a lightning rod for the Pro-Choicers.
Mar '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I must be a nasty conservative, cause when I first heard this story I thought "good idea!". I wasn't shocked at all.
The procedure described by Stuart is shocking enough - showing the "mother" a pic seems to be the least shocking part of it. I would almost say it shows compassion to maybe avoid a lotta emotional hurt afterwards.
As Mr Gingrich reminded us at the debate the other nite, one of Mr Obama's rare legislative achievements in the Illinois senate was to pass the "partial birth abortion" legislation. That procedure is way more shocking.
All in all, I am going through a Romneyian conversion from Pro-Choice to Pro-Life - all this discussion is good.
Oh, and by the way James, did you read about that UK doctor who is aborting girls, err, female fetuses, at the "mother's" request? - now, that's nasty. I bet he doesn't force the "mother" to see a pic, so that's OK, then.
Oh, and free on the NHS, natch.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 11:29pmJun '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
One of the things I love about Ricochet is that, with a few awful exceptions, the writers and commenters here are reasonable and civil in their disagreements. I enjoy your work, Mr Delingpole, even if I disagree with your stance on this question.
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I know you mean there is no middle ground on the argument in this post.
As for the law itself, it can be considered to be a middle-ground position, depending on where you stand. It does not ban abortion or remove the choice. It is a compromise between that and the current status quo, which is pretty much all the way in the pro-choice camp's desired place.
If anything, it's barely a weak and tentative step in the right direction.
In the predominant secular media narrative, it's always commendable to compromise as long as the compromise moves us further left. But if the compromise inches us even a tiny bit to the right, it's RADICAL RIGHT-WING EXTREMISM! Rape! Sexism! Forcing women to be slaves to their fetuses!
And some on our side look at the shrillness and say, there's no way we can win with these rubes. They're embarrassing us. They make the other side scream so loudly!
Where's the sense of perspective?
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 11:25pmDec '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
All of that said.
Here is the sure kicker for all the arguements about women and their doctors, and what not.
I am bankrolling this now. I get an opinion.
Nov '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
We make the jury and the judge convict and sentence the man they are condemning to death with him in full view. Why oughtn't the lady seeking the abortion see the baby she is executing before she orders his death? Particularly, as I understand to be the case here, there is no additional physical invasion required to accomplish that.
George Orwell dealt with the consequences of visualizing the child in Keep the Aspidistra Flying, which, to me at least, retains its power through the years.
Dec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
James, my point at #2 is not that abortion is nasty, but that it is far more invasive than a intravaginal ultrasound. The ultrasound probe remains in the vagina; the curettage instruments go past the vagina, through the cervix and into the recesses of the uterus. To characterize the former as forcible rape when the woman in question is seeking to undergo the latter is a disgusting abuse of language and reflects the fantasy that abortion is a simple, painless, invariably safe and consequence-free procedure no more invasive than trimming a toenail.
Nov '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Maybe the conservative approach to this would be to “suggest” an ultrasound through a public relations campaign by the government.
· 20 minutes ago
You know, the funny thing here is that should a woman go into Planned Parenthood for a consult on an abortion, the probability is high that the surgeon doing the abortion might advise that she have this very procedure done so that s/he would have a proper preoperative assessment of the situation.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 11:36pmApr '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Conservatism tends to have a nasty face because we tend to be stuck telling people the ugly truths of life:
"You can't get free anything. Someone has to pay for it."
"Alternative fuels can't supply in the amount you want."
"You can't discourage business and expect them to stay."
"There's a living being inside."
We shouldn't shy away from that. Social conservatism is a hard sell because we point out what reality is like. It's an ancient principle: No one likes to hear the hard truth. Read the book of Jeremiah, which pretty much demonstrates that.
Also, side note, Mr. Delingpole, I don't like you any less for disagreeing with my opinions and ideas, and I still find your posts worthwhile. Dismissing those who disagree is more a progressive tactic. Unless you want me to do so. Then we can be arch-nemeses or something. I'm cool with that.
Sep '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
1. So all they would really be requiring is for the ultrasound monitor to be turned around?
2. There is reason to believe that many feminists privately think "rape" should be defined as anything a woman is forced to do.
Dec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
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. And then maybe they could explain how their personal convenience makes that loss worthwhile.
Edited on February 24, 2012 at 11:59pmJun '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
We mock the "Euro weenies", but it is hard for them to grok the absolutism of our abortion culture (and therefore hard for them to grok what little we can do legally).
America's abortion legal regime -- on-demand, throughout the pregnancy -- is as far I know, unique in the Western world. It has been a while since I read Mary Ann Glendon's book on the topic, but I believe that only we and the Commies were abortion on demand, all three trimesters.
Nov '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Mr. Delingpole, it really comes down to this: As I'm sure you agree, one of the (actual) purposes of government is to protect the lives of the citizenry from those who would do harm.
If you are a legislator who takes this responsibility seriously, and if you are convinced that an unborn child is a life which should be under your protection, you are going to do all you can to protect it. If the courts will not let you do so directly, you will take every opportunity to use indirect means to protect as many lives as possible. Regardless of "how it looks from the outside."
Sep '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Fricosis Guy: We mock the "Euro weenies", but it is hard for them to grok the absolutism of our abortion culture (and therefore hard for them to grok what little we can do legally).
America's abortion legal regime -- on-demand, throughout the pregnancy -- is as far I know, unique in the Western world. It has been a while since I read Mary Ann Glendon's book on the topic, but I believe that only we and the Commies were abortion on demand, all three trimesters. · 3 minutes ago
Liberals often believe in "American Exceptionalism" in their own way and for the wrong reasons.
Mar '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Am I the only one who thinks the proposed Virginia law was naive? It implicitly accepted the liberal propaganda about who has abortions and why. Very few of the women who have abortions are innocent school girls who were raped by their evil step-father. Over half of abortions are second or subsequent abortions. Available, safe and rare. Yeah, right.
The feigned outrage about state-sponsored rape is a wonderful illustration of the adaptability of liberal values.
Jun '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
C. U. Douglas: Conservatism tends to have a nasty face because we tend to be stuck telling people the ugly truths of life:
"You can't get free anything. Someone has to pay for it."
"Alternative fuels can't supply in the amount you want."
"You can't discourage business and expect them to stay."
"There's a living being inside."
You have absolutely hit the nail on the head, C.U.
And frankly, James, though others are being very polite in response to your post, I am very disappointed by its inflammatory title. There is nothing "nasty" in requiring a woman to have a clear picture (literally and figuratively) of what she is about to do in terminating the life of her baby.
In fact, if you truly believe that seeing a clear picture of the life that is about to be terminated amounts to nastiness or cruelty, I would submit that you are much more morally squeamish about the abortion itself than your Libertarian philosophy might lead you to believe.
Oct '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
With all due respect to the devoted folks on this topic, invite all to consider a few future possiblilites.
For those that adopt that life begins at conception, why bother to have a certificate of live birth ? Logic follows that the document then needs to be updated, what would it be called ?
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 ?
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.
Jun '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
This all seems quite confusing...can this be taken as an admission that abortion is indeed a horrible action? Why horror? If there is no moral horror to be attached with abortion, then its a question of rubbing her nose in flowers, not something objectionable.
If you concede though that there is some aspect of horror tied in with it, that is worth exploring. No one would feel genuine horror at having a hangnail removed (well, my wife nearly fainted when she saw blood...) but if looking at a foetus before terminating it is too horrible, there must be something more there. Hey, isn't it time for a Godwin's Law invocation? :) We certainly wanted to rub the German's noses in the horrors of Auschwitz. If we agree there is horror there, let's not paper it over and try to ignore those "bad thoughts".
Mar '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
From the article:
The act is already traumatic, so adding to the information available to the patient (the one they are asking for permission from, anyway) is cruel interference? Nuts. I hope that at a minimum that they are at least giving the patient some form of Stuart's description above.
I wouldn't worry about losing friends here, James. Personally, I haven't cast anybody into a lake of eternal hellfire in, oh, probably about a year or so.
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
With respect, Mr Delingpole, you're either being facetious or whining. (I can only hope it's not the latter.):
He's right, you know.
As for me, I can't help being uneasy when a state mandates any medical procedure, however well-intentioned, but to call it rape smacks of hyperbole to me.
As others have pointed out, anyone going through with an abortion will be subject to something much, much more invasive than vaginal ultrasound. Also, I wonder what's supposed to make vaginal ultrasound so much more invasive than your typical gynecological visit, which all women of reproductive age, even virgins, are strongly urged to have on a yearly basis. (1/2)