Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A few times a year, we forgo the guests and open the floor to you, our faithful members to ask us anything. Also, some thoughts on the firing of Kevin Williamson and announcing our live podcast event in Washington DC on May 10th and 11th!
Music from this week’s episode: Bad Blood by Taylor Swift
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
You’re right. I should have given you a chance to respond and I thank you for such a direct and unambiguous reply. I disagree with you (obviously), but I respect your candor.
I too was pretty shocked at Peter’s response, and I have to think he was doing a kind of thinking that lawyerly types do when they are trying to mount a defense for someone: they narrow the scope of the issue down to a very limited, technical area and just speak to that in order to contain the controversy. That’s charitable of him, but it completely misses the point. Kevin was simply being morally consistent in a way that most pro-lifers are not, and that speaks to his bravery. Peter was haggling over murder as it is currently legally defined. I don’t think anyone is saying abortion is murder according to current law; that’s obviously not true, hence Roe v Wade. Kevin was saying it should be, and giving an argument as to why. Peter didn’t really tackle the issue, because, let’s admit it, it’s hard to be pro-life but still not speak of a pregnant mother as a kind of social victim, and it’s unpopular to do so. That was the taboo that Kevin was breaking: he was saying a mother who gets an abortion is not a victim at all; she is a criminal and should be treated as such. That’s farther than most pro-lifers go, and what his Twitter opponent wanted to bait him into saying, so then the outrage machine could be unleashed on him.
I consider myself pro-life, but the moral inconsistency of this has always bothered me. I, too, think it’s basically murder, but I’ve always agreed with the whole “except for rape/incest” and “let’s punish the rich doctor but not the poor mother” sentiment. It isn’t really morally consistent, let’s be honest.
And I respect that you disagree, but I would also like to see you state more clearly what your position is… :-)
Indeed. Unfortunately the left is not satisfied with having abortion legal. Many want it celebrated. There is also a curious need to talk about all sorts of things rather than what actually happens. What actually happens is a baby dies … violently. They speak of “no women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term”. Well fine but they have no time for the counter argument which is that no baby should be murdered by a paid assassin acting on behalf of its mother! They even argue the assassin should be paid by the taxpayer and call it “health care”! The other one that amazes me is the “I’m too young/not ready to have a child!” Fine, but you already have a child so you can either carry it to term or kill it. That’s the choice no matter what euphemisms are employed to make the woman and society feel better about themselves. They seem to think it is fine for a woman to decide who lives and who dies according to her convenience. That a “clump of cells” is miraculously transformed into a cherished child if the mother desires it and that same clump of cells becomes medical waste (or parts for sale) if the mother doesn’t desire it. And all this at a time when effective contraception is readily and cheaply available.
I really believe our future selves will be ashamed of what happened during this time. At least I hope so.
At one point Peter referred to Trump as “the man with the marmalade hair” and all I could think was that it has the same cadence as “a girl with kaleidoscope eyes.”
Is Peter a Beatles fan?
@jameslileks, I’m sure a lot of us have noticed and appreciate that you do participate here more than Rob or Peter. Do you think they noticed that little rebuke?
May I take a crack at this? I also disagree with you, Max. I believe that abortion is killing a human life. How could it not be? But I don’t believe it is the same as what Simpson did. His victims were able to walk around, breath on their own, and carry on with life as most adults can. A baby in the womb cannot do that. It needs the good health of the Mother to survive. Even if it were born only a few weeks premature, it would possibly need the aid of a machine to keep breathing, until its lungs were stronger. So, for me, calling abortion murder is to muddy the difference between types of life.
This is why I wish they would just socialize childbirth. You can stop abortion with guns, but you can’t force anyone to give a level of prenatal care.
The low birthrate is causing myriad problems, too.
This argument doesn’t work for me George. A full term baby needs the care of a mother or he/she won’t survive. The baby’s location shouldn’t have a bearing on whether it is murder or not.
murder
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority.
That last part is what makes it different from what OJ did. Nothing else.
The risk of getting psychological attachment issues starts in the third trimester, too. What is to be done about that? Hmmm…
Trump’s language (broken English) bothers me most. And his demeanor, loudmouth at the bar, doesn’t help. But he is a far better alternative to Hillary who, as Richard says, would open the floodgates to immigration. His policies are conservative. What I like most about him is that in his own stupid way he is a patriot. This, i/m/o, cannot be said of the left. The takeover of the Democratic Party by the Socialist wing precludes love of country. The so-called moderates go along. and this makes them complicit.
The problem is he’s so obnoxious it makes him a easy target for ridicule and hate. I think that if there is a blowout in Nov., it’s attributable to Trump’s personality. Not trade wars, border wall, Mueller, Congress, or all the rest of the things the Left would bitch about no matter who was Pres.
It is the stupidity that bothers me most. I think there will be a big price to pay for that stupidity in the end.
Legally speaking, I certainly agree. Morally speaking, I’m using “murder” as a synonym for homicide.
We got Stupid Trump because we have let “experts” control The Republic too much. Look around.
I don’t let anyone I don’t know very well affect me that way. Get a thicker skin.
I remain a fan of John Derbyshire. But he’s been touching a different third rail.
I find it odd that you think impartiality is a conservative virtue and that seeing someone take a side is like staring at a cobra.
Robert Frost once described a liberal as someone who refuses to take his own side in an argument. After decades of unremitting attack by the Left, some conservatives now encourage others to assume to that same comical neutrality and find the advocacy of partisanship dangerous.
Paradoxically, these exhortations are meant to guide our conduct in such openly partisan venues as magazines of conservative opinion, platforms created and sustained by unyielding dissenters from the accepted right-thinking of our time.
I understand that it’s nice to see oneself as an objective arbiter, as an impartial jurist sitting on a dais, or as the umpire behind home plate, scrupulously sticking to calling balls and strikes. It’s even more attractive when those who should be performing that role have long since abdicated it. Why not take on the role yourself? You may not win, but you never lose, either.
But judges and courtrooms, like umpires and ballparks, wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the presence of two competing sides, each striving to win. Not only does nobody go to a baseball game to see the umpiring crew, but we expect our team to do everything it can to win, even protesting every umpire’s call they can.
My real objection to the umpire role is, of course, that it is a fantasy: there are no umpires, just as there are no referees, judges or governing bodies. There are just the two sides. Pick one.
When the bully Left punches, then James Damore, Brendan Eich, Jason Richwein, Laura Ingraham or you, @filmklassik have no mommy or policeman to run to for help. All you have are your friends and yourself. That’s why I believe that Williamson constantly mocking his 70% allies is a really bad idea.
I notice that in all of the comments about Kevin Williamson’s defenestration by The Atlantic, including the few responding to my own take, no one addressed the paragraph above.
Nor did anyone square Kevin’s dismissal with the January 2018 hiring by the very same The Atlantic of conservative Reihan Salam, a contributing editorship that was unremarked upon at the time and persists to this day.
I think you should look into the dismissal of John Derbyshire from National Review and ask that question of Rich Lowry, Ramesh Ponnuru, Josh Barro and Jonah Goldberg.
I’m sure their answers will be fascinating.
Racist! (Not “woman-hater,” as with Kevin.)
I’m in the “he’s doing more good than harm” camp. He probably is doing some significant harm, however.
I’ll point out however that Trump’s position on leading the world is — let’s not — and that’s what he ran on. He’s saying let’s worry more about ourselves. That’s a defensible position with lots of respectable people holding it. I’ll add that one reason the presidency has remained so powerful after WWII, is the Cold War.
He’s probably more involved in world affairs than he wants to be.
We’ve had presidents that were more respected than Trump — Obama was in Western Europe — but the more important factor in my mind is that Trump is feared. He’s feared by our sworn enemies, and not so sworn enemies.
As for being “at the forefront of leading the world”, we can’t do that anymore, except militarily, because we’re no longer a united nation. There’s a good chance we’re at the beginning of a breakup that will end 50-100 years from now. There’s talk of secession. It’s not serious yet, but it’s not in the realm of the ridiculous either.
We’re still in a good position to look after our own interests, but not be at the “forefront of leading the world.”
I am sorry we disagree, Julia. But I see no point in going on with our disagreement. As you said once, we probably agree 99% of the time. We finally found that one percent. But I understand and respect your position. :-)
Al, I just noted Kevin’s contempt. It never kept me from reading his articles, buying 3 of his books, listening to the great majority of MD&E podcasts and following him on Twitter…although he eventually blocked me.
I certainly never asked for him to be fired or censured. My skin is quite thick, thank you.
And as for Derb, yes, as I mentioned, he stepped on the third rail of race, which makes the majority of conservatives mince like ballerinas.
Personally, I’m not that excited about it. I stopped reading The Atlantic years ago, though I was about to begin because of Kevin’s employment.
But this column by Jonah Goldberg probably addresses your point, at least in part.
Hoping to clarify what I said at the beginning of the podcast, a few points:
1) If by “murder” you mean simply the taking of human life–that is, if you’re using the term loosely or colloquially–then abortion surely fits the definition.
2) That isn’t the way Kevin was using he term. He was making a legal argument.
3) And I believe he got the argument wrong. Although criminal statutes of course vary from state to state, in most states criminal law is based on common law–and reflects the ancient definition of “murder” as the taking of human life “with malice aforethought.” The destruction of life by itself, in other words, need not involve murder. It must instead be combined with a particular motive–with demonstrable ill-will or evil intent.
4) Before Roe vs. Wade, laws that forbade abortion targeted the abortionists themselves, not the women on whom they were performed. As best I can tell, this represented a recognition of actual experience–an honest reading of the psychology of abortion. Women who sought abortions, the states appear to have reasoned, found themselves in tragic circumstances–frightened, humiliated, and abandoned or bullied by the men in their lives. They simply wanted out. They did not look upon their unborn children with malice. In a word, they were not guilty, before the law, of murder. In the words of Clarke Forsythe, senior counsel of Americans United for Life, “[T]he states expressly treated women as the second ‘victim’ of abortion; state courts expressly called the woman a second ‘victim.’ Abortionists were the exclusive target of the law.”
5) This remains the position of the pro-life movement today. Just look at Donald Trump. During the campaign, Trump, new to the pro-life cause, stumbled in answering a question, asserting that “there has to be some form of punishment” for the women involved in abortions. After consulting with pro-life leaders, Trump issued a correction the same day: “The doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb.”
6) Arguing that women who undergo abortions are guilty of murder not only gets the law wrong. It damages the pro-life cause. Women who get abortions should be hanged? Really? And pro-life conservatives are supposed to applaud Kevin for that remark? As if it would help persuade the country to the pro-life cause?
Kevin’s a friend. I’ve admired his work for years. He’s tough and he’s smart and he’s brave. And he writes just beautifully. But this incident? Yes, I know. He was speaking loosely. It was only a podcast. But he got the law wrong–and did the pro-life cause no good at all.
Hi Peter,
OK, so I’ve renewed my Ricochet membership from across the pond just so I can raise this point with you, and to appeal to the Ricochet Circuit Court for judgement on a point of law. I don’t know enough about English common law to pretend to be authoritative, I just want to have the point clarified for my better understanding.
From the podcast:
The point in question concerns “malice aforethought”. This is a term that seems to have a somewhat vague history and application in English common law, but the term seems to have become particularly important in US law in the 19th Century, specifically with reference to first degree murder.
One online definition of the term, which seems broadly reflective of other online definitions (e.g., here, here and here), is: “the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm”.
The constituent words are defined as follows in the Oxford English Dictionary:
Thus, my own interpretation of the term “malice aforethought” would be, “the premeditated desire to cause serious injury or death”.
It would seem to me that an abortion, unless done on the spur of the moment and/or in a state of diminished responsibility, would of necessity be both (a) premeditated, and (b) an expression of a desire to cause death.
Therefore, I cannot understand how a planned abortion could be categorised as anything other than murder with malice aforethought.
Returning to the podcast discussion, you seem to be saying that the scheduling of an abortion does not imply “malice”, even though you are happy to concede it may be “aforethought”. However, in my opinion, “malice” here simply means the desire to cause injury, which is clearly the purpose of any abortion.
I would therefore put it to you, m’learned friend, that you have made an error in law, and I appeal to the Court for judgement.
I think you’re operating on old information. Reihan did work for a time at The Atlantic but he is now the executive editor of National Review, and has been for several years. FYI my wife is an associate editor at National Review.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Worrying more about ourselves is a defensible position, and probably the right one. What I see in Trump is that he thinks – together with people like Rand Paul – we should only worry about ourselves. I do not think that, in today’s world, this is a defensible position. Other nations look to us. You mention World War II. Well, sure, we rebuilt Europe because it was in our interest. But that was not the only reason. We care about others. When I say we lead the world, it is because other people’s admire the freedom we have, the goodness we represent. Our declaration of independence was written because our Founding Fathers knew that we had to tell the world why we were leaving our homeland. And, in doing so, we inspired the world into what a nation should strive to do. To my mind, this is the essence of conservatism. We want to conserve that spirit. To abandon it is abandon who and what we are.
Your argument and clarifications are cogent, understandable, and logical.
But I’m not sure that Kevin’s argument was strictly a legal one. I also think it’s an emotional issue for him, given his past history.
Not very much.
The ruling class is really bad at finishing wars. That is the issue.
You gotta be so careful with what you write, with some people. I’ll provide the answer as followers, which I hope will clarify my position: A talented writer should be allowed to write what he wishes, unless that writing is judged to be bigoted, thereby tainting the entire publication.
On a, umm, lighter note….I listened to the podcast before breakfast this morning. And I’d like Rob to know that, as a way to show I’m doing my bit to expand the membership, I had an extra piece of bacon with my egg and toast.