RedState Debates the Pro-Choice Position
Tue Nov 06, 2007 at 03:57:45 AM PDT
After reading a blog posting that debated Fred Thompson's admission that he is against a constitional ammendmendment defining life at the moment of conception (thus having the practical effect of outlawing all abortions, many types of contraception and any practical discussion of family planning). Fred Thompson is against the so-called "Human Life" anti-choice ammendment because that would lead to having to jail women for being complicit in commiting a crime against the fetus.
Well we all know there are already countries that jail women for the offense of terminating their pregnancies (primarily in South and Central America as well as some parts of Europe
)."...However, his belief that life begins at conception means that life in the womb is as abundant and real and valuable as yours and mine. If that is the case, such life should be protected equally. By rejecting a Human Life Amendment, Thompson, by default, places the life of the unborn child on a different level. He essentially says that child is not as worthy of protection as a child one hour out of the womb."
So the true believers would say,
RedState Poster
"...However, his belief that life begins at conception means that life in the womb is as abundant and real and valuable as yours and mine. If that is the case, such life should be protected equally. By rejecting a Human Life Amendment, Thompson, by default, places the life of the unborn child on a different level. He essentially says that child is not as worthy of protection as a child one hour out of the womb."
In other words, either life begins at conception or it dosen't. There is no middle ground.
And continues,
RedState Poster
"...I consider myself a Federalist and believe small, local government is the most efficient way to work but we’re not talking about taxes or education here – we’re talking about life. However impractical it might seem to outlaw abortion completely, it is the only acceptable answer if one truly believes that our lives begin at day 1. "
So we must have protection for the deveolping cells as soon as the zygote is created or may be created or what does being anti-choice really mean?
Ah but then the practical problem, how does 15% - 20% of the electorate convince the rest that jailing women for terminating their pregnancies which they have been able to do legally for 34 years is good for the country? This is where Thompson says,
RedState Poster
..."he does not want to jail young, foolish mothers who go and have abortions. But if we were to pass a human life amendment, it would be inevitable that we started jailing the mothers, not just the abortionists."
That would be a political problem showing women in shackles being led off to federal prison after terminating their pregnancies illegally (assuming they survived the procedure).
So then they talk about in the comments, if it is a life at conception how can you get around not calling terminating a pregnancy murder,
RedState Poster
...Is there any other situation in which it is just to let a person who assists in the murder of someone else to escape punishment for their crime? What would be unjust about holding mothers to the same standard as any other accomplice to murder?
That is where the anti-choice argument starts to break down in order to say well it is better to try to save some fetuses from abortion than to allow any women to terminate a pregnancy without extensive restrictions.
RedState Poster
"...you don't have to equate abortion with murder to be opposed to abortion on demand. You seem to be claiming that the only crime we're allowed to arrest people for is murder, but that's not so."
Well that is interesting, the fetus is a life but not a life we can arrest a women for terminating or conspiring with a doctor to terminate.
But ok, maybe there are murders and then there are really bad murders, so maybe this is a little less than murder as this RedStater describes,
"Abortion just need to re-take its place alongside Manslaughter and Murder as crimes involving people getting killed."
OK, so it is not 1st Degree murder but the anti-choicers seem to agree that Manslaughter fits the criminalization of terminating a pregnancy. Where will they go from here?
Ah the practical wingnut steps in to create a winning coalition of voters who will pass something to save the fetuses,
"...write the new abortion laws in such a manner as to exclude laying on a table and letting it be done"
Yes that is exactly what happens of course, women walk into to terminate their pregnancies and just let it happen, they are not really chosing to terminate their pregnancies.
and he continues with the twisted logic,
"...If we aren't Constitutionally mandated to treat the unborn precisely the same as the born, we get that political leeway.
...Personally, I think the only coherent positions on abortion are to allow it on demand, or to allow it only to save the life of the mother.
But those two positions along omit a great many voters. You've got people who would ban it except for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother ... and all sorts of other combinations.
The only way we put together a pro-life majority in this country, is to let in a certain amount of political leeway..."
So being anti-choice is important but winning elections is even more important than saving the fetuses. Very interesting...but it gets better. The RedStaters continue to banter this point back and forth and then the real position comes out,
"...I 100% oppose a federal abortion ban. I want STATE abortion bans, the same way we have other state criminal laws..."
OK so the fetuses in the pro-choice states are less worth saving than the fetuses in the anti-choice states. Lets keep the federal government out of this decision and let the states decide ... hmmmm ...this sounds vaguely familiar. So the state legislatures are afforded the right of being pro-choice for the right to terminate your pregnancy but not the individuals of the anti-choice states.
Lets replace the word states with the word people and what you have is "Pro-Choice". Let the people decide.
Then RedStater comments continue down this path and the pro-choice argument gets hotter,
"...when you feel like you've been fighting the same fight for over thirty years. If you were a 20-year old Christian conservative in 1973, then you're now 54 and you've been fighting against Roe v. Wade for most of your life. If you're under 40, then you've been living under Roe for as long as you can remember. For a lot of so-cons the abortion war has been too long, the casualties too high, and a clear victory is sorely needed..."
The wingnuts are getting impatient at the end of the day and do not believe we can wait anymore...constitutional ammendment or bust but in the end the RedStaters are willing to compromise in order to allow the states to chose for women who can legally terminate pregnancies within their borders. That at its core is a pro-choice argument...just substitute the word people for the word state.
So except for the purists in favor of a constitutional ammendment banning all abortions (10% or less) the wingnuts are in favor of choice, they just want the States to make the choice for women instead of the people of the state.
Permalink | 24 comments