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:
Oct '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Simply come together and hash out some agreeable details to establish a solution. There will always be an anomally or two.
Put the horse in the barn as it were. This can be done given the will to do so.
Oct '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
wilber forge
Samuel Amaral
wilber forge: Yet, when you added, Again, documents and your existence are not related.
Flatout holds no water in the real world, unless they are really good forgeries.· 5 minutes ago
I am pretty sure the Obama 2012 Budget proves that good forgery still exist.
More seriously, the legal documents don't make you a person, so claiming that life start at birth because it is when a certificate of birth is issued is gimmicky. There are billions born and grown up without any kind of documentation around the globe, are they not persons ? · 5 minutes ago
An organized civilization depends upon such structures of documentation.
Does the statement of the Gimmickry on documents you made mean they are meaningless and they are a waste of time ? · 6 hours ago
The documentation is many times necessary to engage in human activity, but in themselves don't define you as human. I think I have seen enough people with fake or no ID in my life to appreciate that.
Yes it is a waste of time, and gimmick to claim that a Birth certificate disprove anything. with or without the Baby still is.
Jun '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
wilber forge:
To get back to the original proposal that it is agreed that life begins at conception. Then simply grant the fetus all the rights, protections and regulations we live with daily.
If that is to be decison, then let it be so. Not to difficult one thinks and ends all the debates. · 53 minutes ago
I'm really struggling to understand you. Is this an argument, or a question, or a joke?
I don't understand why you think a "certificate of conception" matters. The right to life in an inalienable right endowed by God, not by some bureaucrat stamping a piece of paper.
That said, if issuing such a certificate really would "end all the debates" then I'm all for it. Somehow, I don't think NARAL or Planned Parenthood would change their minds so easily.
May '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I haven't had a chance to read through all the comments, and I think the plan has been amended at the request of Gov. McDonnell to address concerns of women's group. Having recently given birth to my 3rd child, I remember this ultrasound procedure very well at around 10 weeks and "probe" doesn't quite do justice to the description. It's huge and not terribly comfortable, even with a good glob of lubricant to help. Frankly, I'd feel violated if I was forced to have that thing in me against my will. I don't understand why people are insensitive to this.
May '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I keep re-reading Delingpole's post and wondering where to begin. I despair.
He seems happy to be agreeable with conservatism where he agrees, but halts at a fence when troubled and commands "Till now shall you come, but no further: and here shall your proud conservatism be stayed".
Right before consigning us all to Hell for disagreeing.
Dec '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
The problem is that the Supreme Court took that ability away from us 30 years ago. This is absolutely the sort of thing that should be left to the citizenry, state by state. The fact that it's still one of the most divisive issues in the country 3 decades later is a testament to just how wrong that decision was.
Feb '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
I'll tell you why I'm insensitive to this: because women who might have been subject to this requirement are endeavoring to end a human life.
That's a significant act, and I don't understand why so many people take it so lightly. Killing someone shouldn't be convenient, comfortable, and easy.
Murderers get vastly more compassion and regard than aborted babies. Every execution in the US get enormous attention yet every abortion- oh.
No regard at all.
Something is wrong with that priority, somehow.
Nov '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
This is just silly. I am a radiologist. I am also a former fertility patient and have suffered 5 miscarriages. I have personally done hundreds of transvaginal ultrasounds and have probably also experienced transvaginal ultrasounds in the three-digit numbers.
A transvaginal ultrasound probe is large, but only a small part of it goes in the vagina. What goes in the vagina is much smaller and infinitely more comfortable than a speculum used for a pelvic exam. I guarantee that no woman getting an abortion is going to bypass a pelvic exam.
Nov '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Transvaginal ultrasounds are performed when the fetus is too small to be easily evaluated by transabdominal ultrasounds. I can't see how an abortion could be performed these days without an ultrasound to verify an intrauterine pregnancy. These days, just about any female presenting to a doctor for any reason in the first trimester of pregnancy is going to get an ultrasound to confirm that the pregnancy is intrauterine (not ectopic). By the way, in my experience, many women far prefer the transvaginal ultrasound to the transabdominal ultrasound, because the latter requires an uncomfortably full bladder.
There was a comment early on in this thread that said that 92% of patients have an ultrasound before an abortion. This makes no sense to me; I can't imagine any way that that the number can be less than 100%. I would have to look into the statistic; perhaps the 8% have their ultrasound intraoperatively or perhaps they are the 8% whose pregnancies are sufficiently advanced that a transabdominal ultrasound will adequately demonstrate the fetus. Perhaps someone can clarify?
Edited on February 25, 2012 at 5:10pmNov '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
This is exactly the same type of garbage that people are saying about the contraceptive mandate. Let us assume that the Governor had signed the law. No one would have been forced to have a TV ultrasound, just as no one will be prevented from purchasing birth control pills if the contraceptive mandate is overturned. [edited for Code of Conduct]
Edited on February 25, 2012 at 4:47pmJul '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
As has been demonstrated in the comments, it isn't.
Not much, just enough to allow people of bad faith to portray American conservatives as wackos who support "state-sponsored rape". As, I am afraid, you have now done, though possibly without meaning to.
But of course we don't objectively look that way from the outside. We are being portrayed that way (particularly unfairly in this instance, as you must now see) by people on the other side of the debate. It pains me to say it, James, but you ran the risk of giving the pro-abortion side undeserved aid and comfort when you wrote this post without troubling to get a few more facts first. Please consider that possibility before you shed too many more tears over your rough treatment.
(I write this with the friendliest intentions and from a spirit of genuine admiration for your work.)
Edited on February 25, 2012 at 3:59pmFeb '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
wilber forge: 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. · 16 hours ago
And it's social cons who are accused of being absolutist? Wilber, none of this follows a belief that human life, worthy of protection, begins at contraception.
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
@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.
Oct '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Isn't Ron Paul kind of a conservative on this issue ?
Or do you still support him ?
Edited on February 25, 2012 at 4:37pmJul '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Oh, dear…
Do you at least acknowledge that the story you linked to in your post does not give an entirely "fair representation" of "facts on the ground"?
(I particularly enjoyed the image accompanying the article. The blood-red gashes of light on McDonnell's face and hand are a nice touch. All that was missing were the dripping fangs and the neatly-waxed pencil moustache being gleefully twirled.)
Edited on February 25, 2012 at 4:56pmNov '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. · 5 minutes ago
You do not have any point whatsoever. Your refusal to respond to the many issues raised by commenters about your post is quite telling.
Aug '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
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.
Mandating the medical procedure of vaccination for public school attendance can be considered a legitimate exercise of state (not federal) police powers, even by Constitutional traditionalists.
Since precedents already exist for states mandating medical procedures for broad swathes of the population, I'm less worried about a dangerous precedent being set by a state mandating the viewing of a (possibly vaginal) ultrasound of the baby before aborting it.
Still, I don't consider it wrong of me to hold mandates of any sort as prima facie suspicious.
Nov '10
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
Why not? We micro-manage to death all kinds of things that we do approve of. Why shouldn't we micro-manage things that we are at best ambivalent about? Almost no one says that they actually approve of abortion; at best we say we are "personally opposed."
Edited on February 25, 2012 at 5:14pmFeb '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. · 31 minutes ago
James, if you're going to start debates and then fail to contribute to the give and take, then you could at least have the decency to drop the passive-aggressive insults.
Nov '11
Re: The Nasty Face of Conservatism
James is a liberal on this issue. What do you say about liberals, James? Re-read your article with this thought in mind as it contains the usual rhetoric. Will the facts in the posts sway him at all on this particular issue? Perhaps, but the real issue is abortion (not the probe), and the real question is if a fetus is a baby/human. I call on James to write an article defending his position on abortion in total instead of this trollish one-though the comments were very interesting. (write a book: Watermellons. Fruit of the Womb : ) However, I get the feeling his fishing expeditions on social issues, in general, are perhaps just to help him get evidence and experienced conservative perspectives/arguments to change his mind as wrenching as that would be. If he did change his social opinions he would most probably be a total pariah in England.I can see how hard this would be (opposed to 1/2 pariahship now) and how sure he must be to take the step. Related is that libertarians should consider using the same logic on social/moral issues as they do on economic issues.