If there ever were a silent a majority it is those who are anti-abortion and economically liberal.

It's unfortunate that so many pro-choice liberals, like so many other subgroups on the left (including obnoxious groups like the NY wing of NOW), don't understand this basic principle.

He lost me at "anti-choicers."

Want to win over pro-life voters? How about this slogan:

"Abortion: Early and Often!"

According to Josh Patashnik, “To reach voters who are opposed to abortion but who hold liberal economic views, Sullivan writes, Democrats first have to ‘pass the cultural threshold’ with them. One way to do this is going to be for Democratic politicians to emphasize their moral qualms about abortion. This might make the minority of people who lack such moral qualms uneasy, but for better or for worse, at the federal level, the fortunes of the pro-choice movement are tightly bound to the fortunes of the Democratic Party, so pro-choicers benefit when Democrats can find ways to expand their electoral coalition.”

If a political candidate doesn’t have moral qualms with abortion, it is important for the candidate not to say that he or she does -- even if doing so would help the candidate win elections.  It is important for the electorate not to be told something by the candidate that the candidate knows is untrue.  It is important for voters to understand what candidates think about important issues.  Moreover, sometimes stressing moral qualms with abortion could hurt the legality of abortion.  A lot of people have a hard time distinguishing between what ought to be illegal and what is unethical.  And it’s important not to push society in the direction of criminalizing abortion.  

Now what if a candidate does think abortion is unethical in some cases but thinks it ought not to be illegal?  If the question is brought up by reporter, the candidate should say that.  And why the candidate believes that.  It is not an unreasonable position, and arguing for it might help people better understand the issues involved and see the important distinction between ethics and what ought to be illegal.  

However, candidates should not gratuitously bring up the issue of abortion.  Roe v Wade was a good decision by the courts.  We have good national laws in place.  So, we shouldn’t focus on abortion.  We should focus on more pressing public policy matters, such as health care and Iraq.  

I say we legalize the pro-life argument and give the fetus all of the rights of a natural American citizen.

Of course - then we'll have to punish it for attacking the female womb, sucking nutrients from innocent females, and causing the female to gain weight against her will. It's really a vicious attack on women by a fetal citizen. I'd say about 10 years in prison (for assault) would be in order for most fetuses - though the woman has it in her right to kill the thing in self-defense.

The government's most basic job is to protect people from bodily harm. While women can certainly choose to withstand the fetal attack and carry it the fetus-person term, they should also have the right to defend themselves against their attacker - with deadly force, if need be.

VAcentrist, tongue-in-cheek aside, punishment is usually reserved for those who freely decide to infringe on someone else's rights, with treatment available to those who act against their will (for example, the mentally ill). Considering that by the time treatment is possible, the condition requiring it no longer exists, I hardly think the analogy works.

The abortion debate is extremely complicated. I think distinctions need to be made not just between the trimesters, but various stages of development, and practical concerns need to be considered aside philosophical ones. It's hard to believe a singe cell should be given rights over a living, breathing member of society. It's just as hard to believe that a late-term fetus is somehow less of a human being than a premature newborn. And whatever you think of questions of "potential life" or the fact is that illegalizing abortion will lead to dangerous back-alley procedures. I think most of us, regardless of positions on the issue, know (and all of us know without knowing we know, to paraphrase Rumsfeld) people who've gone through this, and no one except for the zealot is comfortable facing up to the implications, legal as well as practical, of overturning Roe v. Wade.

The best strategy for the short term is for people to come together on things they can agree on and to take a different approach to the whole debate. This seems counterintuitive, as one side sees the most fundamental liberty at stake, while the other sees innocent life in the balance. But looking back 30 years, can we really say polarization has achieved much? Perhaps if you're a die-hard pro-choicer who also doesn't care about issues like prenatal care or day care which could perhaps be dealt with in a new way by bringing anti-abortion forces into play. Otherwise, I think everyone could benefit from a cooling off.

CharlesFosterKane -

Then let's throw out punishment. I was being silly and I took it too far. Let's just look at self-defense.

You have the right to defend your life with deadly force if a person with an IQ below 70 attacks you, right?

Even if the fetus doesn't understand it's actions, the law allows someone to defend against bodily harm.

Forgive me, but I was always fascinated by this argument (give the fetus citizenship, but then hold it accountable).

There's been a fair amount of back-and-forth on the issue of abortion and its perennially inflammatory

I keep swearing to myself that I will let the abortion thing go, stop bitching about it, and just agree to disagree with my otherwise favorite magazine on this one issue.  But just when I think I'm out, they pull me right back in.  So...a random couple of responses:

Scott Lemieux: "Anti-choicers"???  Dude, you are so getting called "pro-dead-baby-er" from now on.

Bukharin: Anti-abortion & economically liberal, that's me, but I've never considered myself all that silent.

David52194: England doesn't have a Roe v. Wade, and has a more reasonable (and less divisive) legislated abortion policy because of it.  Legislation by courts is BAD.  Besides, RvW does not actually guarantee 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions.  I mean it nicely, not sarcastically, when I say you should try reading it - it's an enlightening experience.  "Roe v. Wade!" rolls more easily off the tongue, but I really think that the rallying cry for both sides should be "Casey v. Planned Parenthood!"

VAcentrist: Interesting argument.  I guess I would say in response that the actions that make up an attack are objective and well-legislated.  Therefore, if one pregnancy is an attack, then all pregnancies are an attack, and should be treated as such.  Even if you choose, for instance, not to press charges against a mugger, the state still has an interest in doing so, to prevent future muggings.  Therefore, if an abortion is legitimate self-defense against an attack, the perpetrator is in all cases an attacker, regardless of his/her "victim's" feelings on the matter, and the state has a responsibility to consistently punish said perpetrators.  Of course, the punishment you recommend, 10 years of confinement, with crappy food, curtailed freedom of movement dependent on another's whims, and suitable education aimed at making one a productive member of society, doesn't sound so different from the current life of a 0 - 10 year old, so maybe that's alright.

There - now I promise I won't ever post anything about abortion again... until the next time.

To the science whizzes out there is it feasible that sometime in the (perhaps very, very distant) future technology could allows transference of an early-trimester embryo/zygote/fetus from one womb to another? A sort of deathless abortion? Then Kate Michelman and Randall Terry could join hands and way back in forth singing Kumbaya...

(I might be jaw-droppingly dumb in this speculation, please let me know if I am, but, hey, a lot of things have happened no one would have predicted, like flying cars and hoverboards for every teenager, and weather reports timed to the second, and skintight facial masks that mike Christopher Lloyd look like he's 30 - what's that? Oh never mind ... but give it 7 years, I swear...)

Sure - once they invent transporters.

Count me in with dhauck.

As for a rallying cry, well, Bill Clinton suggested "safe, legal and rare."

How about "safe, but rarely legal" instead?

CharlesFosterKane, I have a pediatrician brother who says that there is very little technical advance required to create an artificial placenta.

However, we are surely entering Brave New World territory at that point.

Dhauk wrote: “David52194: England doesn't have a Roe v. Wade, and has a more reasonable (and less divisive) legislated abortion policy because of it.”

Why do you say it is more reasonable?  I’m not familiar with the law.

Dhauk wrote: “Legislation by courts is BAD.”

Roe v. Wade was a good decision.  For one, it guarantees that women won’t be put in jail for having abortions in the first trimester.  Jail is hard.  And the fetus is part of the woman.

Dhauk wrote: “Besides, RvW does not actually guarantee 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions.  I mean it nicely, not sarcastically, when I say you should try reading it - it's an enlightening experience.”

I’ve read it.

Dhauk wrote: "Roe v. Wade!" rolls more easily off the tongue, but I really think that the rallying cry for both sides should be "Casey v. Planned Parenthood!"

Could you elaborate on that?  

Timteeter wrote: “How about ‘safe, but rarely legal’ instead?”

Because when you are in prison, you are severely limited in what you can do.  And fines can be onerous.  Moreover, the fetus is physically in the woman, and not particularly well-developed neurologically and cognitively.

Dhauk wrote: “David52194: England doesn't have a Roe v. Wade, and has a more reasonable (and less divisive) legislated abortion policy because of it.”

That a law is divisive isn't particularly important to whether it would be enacted.  The Civil Rights Act was divisive, but it was a good law.  The Voting Rights Act was divisive, but it was a good law.  It would have been divisive for the Supreme Court to rule the opposite to what it did in Dred Scott, but it should have.  So that Roe v. Divisive isn’t particularly important to whether it should be changed.  

Roe is an awful decision, a position backed by noted right-winger Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  It is legislation by the courts and is intellectually incoherent.  I'm pro-choice, and abortion should be legislated in all 50 states, just like every other political issue.  But for the GOP Roe has been a Godsend - all those wing nuts all riled up to vote the Dems out.  So, thanks, folks, keep it in place for awhile longer.

butchie b wrote: "Roe is an awful decision, a position backed by noted right-winger Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  It is legislation by the courts and is intellectually incoherent."

I disagree that Roe is intellectually incoherent.  For example, there is an implicit right of privacy in the 14th amendment and the 9th amendment.  Roe was also consistent with precedent, for instance, Loving v. Virginia.  

Also, Supreme Court judges should weigh the consequences of the decisions when making decisions.  For example, in the case of Dred Scott the majority did a pretty good job of inferring the likely intent of the framers of the constitution.  And they made a terrible ruling.  Moreover, Roe makes it so women won't be put in jail for having abortions, which is good.  

David52194:

1. On "Reasonable" - I perhaps should have chosen a different word.  By reasonable, I meant more in line with the beliefs of the country's populace.  I am no expert on English law, either, but as I understand it, their law allows unfettered access to abortion in the 1st trimester, places some (I think strong) limitations on it in the 2nd, and nearly proscribes it in the 3rd.  This mirrors the feelings the populace have about the issue, because the laws were developed by persons accountable to the people in a way that our SC justices are not.

2. I reiterate, legislation by courts is BAD.  Let me put it in liberal terms: Supposing the Roberts court were to decide that, per the 2nd amendment, all Americans should have unfettered access to any small arms their hearts desire.  No waiting period, no background check, nothing that prevents any American from getting a gun right this instant would be considered legal.  Yes, the conservative masses, who're about as intellectually consistent as the liberal masses, would love it.  But it would still be a BAD decision.  The Constitution says Americans can own guns, but it does not say HOW Americans can own guns.  State and city governments, who have to live day-to-day with the results of a heavily-armed populace, need to be able to set reasonable limits on gun ownership.  (In cliche terms, it's the whole "fire in a crowded theater" thing.)  Hopefully, Roberts sees this and would not attempt such a decision.  But that is pretty much what Blackmun et al. did (or what they were thought to have done - see #3, below) with Roe.

3. You've read it - good.  Then recall this part from Blackmun's majority opinion:  "...the appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses.  WITH THIS WE DO NOT AGREE." (Obviously, the caps are mine.)  The opinion goes on to describe an escalating series of limitations as the pregnancy progresses, similar to what I described for the English law, above.  Although this is a reasonable method for determining access to abortion, it's still BAD because they should have left implementation to the elected legislature.

4. Based on #3, you can see why Roe is not the best rallying cry for the absolutist factions of the abortion debate.  Casey, on the other hand, is.  As I said, Roe put a number of limitations on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.  It was Casey that gave us the "undue burden" criterion for evaluating abortion legislation.  This criterion has since been used to strike down many abortion-regulation laws that would have been legal under Roe.  By this, Casey took a somewhat extreme SC position and made it much more so (which is funny, because from much of their language, I believe their intent was actually to define a middle ground.)

Whew!  Sorry for the novel, but you did ask.

Dhauk, thanks for the detailed response.

“1. On "Reasonable" - I perhaps should have chosen a different word.  By reasonable, I meant more in line with the beliefs of the country's populace.  I am no expert on English law, either, but as I understand it, their law allows unfettered access to abortion in the 1st trimester, places some (I think strong) limitations on it in the 2nd, and nearly proscribes it in the 3rd.  This mirrors the feelings the populace have about the issue, because the laws were developed by persons accountable to the people in a way that our SC justices are not.”

That a given law, or ruling by a court, would be “more in line with the beliefs of the country's populace” shouldn’t be particularly important to whether the legislature should pass the law, or the court should rule that way.  For example, the ruling in Dred Scott was probably more in line with the beliefs of the country’s populace at the time than the converse of Dred Scott.  And the court should not have ruled the way it did on Dred Scott.  At the time, Plessy vs. Ferguson was probably more in line with the beliefs of the country's populace than a law than a ruling that would not have allowed “separate but equal.”  And the court should have ruled different in Plessy.  When the Constiution was enacted, the three-fifths clause was probably popular overall, but the framers shouldn’t have enacted it.  So, if the US's abortion laws are less "in line with the beliefs of the country's populace” than they could be shouldn’t be particularly important to whether the US should change Roe v. Wade.    

Dhauk wrote: “2. I reiterate, legislation by courts is BAD.  Let me put it in liberal terms: Supposing the Roberts court were to decide that, per the 2nd amendment, all Americans should have unfettered access to any small arms their hearts desire.  No waiting period, no background check, nothing that prevents any American from getting a gun right this instant would be considered legal.  Yes, the conservative masses, who're about as intellectually consistent as the liberal masses, would love it.  But it would still be a BAD decision.  The Constitution says Americans can own guns, but it does not say HOW Americans can own guns.  State and city governments, who have to live day-to-day with the results of a heavily-armed populace, need to be able to set reasonable limits on gun ownership.  (In cliche terms, it's the whole "fire in a crowded theater" thing.)  Hopefully, Roberts sees this and would not attempt such a decision.  But that is pretty much what Blackmun et al. did (or what they were thought to have done - see #3, below) with Roe.”

Prima facie, a court should not rule that "X" will mean "not-X" if a democratic body enacted a law that says X.  However, in Roe, the Court’s ruling was not logically inconsistent with any sentence in the US Constitution, which is the highest law in the US.  Moreover, there are parts of the Constitution that together suggest that there is a right to privacy that includes the right to have an abortion.  For example, the 9th amendment and the 14th amendment.  And the court's decision in Roe was consistent with precedent.  

Dhauk wrote: "3. You've read it - good.  Then recall this part from Blackmun's majority opinion:  "...the appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses.  WITH THIS WE DO NOT AGREE." (Obviously, the caps are mine.)  The opinion goes on to describe an escalating series of limitations as the pregnancy progresses, similar to what I described for the English law, above.  Although this is a reasonable method for determining access to abortion, it's still BAD because they should have left implementation to the elected legislature."

I agree that the above is in Roe.  But I disagree with you that the majority made a bad decision.  They made a good decision in Roe.  Please see my previous posts.  

Dhauk wrote: "Based on #3, you can see why Roe is not the best rallying cry for the absolutist factions of the abortion debate.  Casey, on the other hand, is.  As I said, Roe put a number of limitations on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.  It was Casey that gave us the "undue burden" criterion for evaluating abortion legislation.  This criterion has since been used to strike down many abortion-regulation laws that would have been legal under Roe.  By this, Casey took a somewhat extreme SC position and made it much more so (which is funny, because from much of their language, I believe their intent was actually to define a middle ground.)"

My point is that the Supreme Court made a good decision in Roe.  I don't remember the Casey case.  And I might not have read it.  

David - You are right that a court ruling needn't be "in line with the beliefs of a country's populace".  However, neither should it be about "right vs. wrong".  A court's job is only to APPLY existing laws.  Where the actions of an entity (person, corporation, etc.) are under scrutiny, the court should evaluate them using legislated law.  Where it is the legislated law that needs re-evaluation, it should be evaluated according to our nation's highest law, i.e., the Constitution.  That's it - there is no question of good/bad for a court, only legal/not-legal.  

Although I'm a little more squishy than you on the implied right to privacy "guaranteed" by the 14th amendment's Due Process clause, at least as it applies to abortion, that is not why I call the Roe decision bad.  Had they stopped at, "No, sorry, we find your complete proscription of abortion to be in violation of Amendments X and Y, and precedents A and B - try again," then I would call it a good decision, albeit one I might disagree with.  But they went on to basically write the abortion laws, tying the legislature's hands and providing only one path for changing abortion law: via another court decision.  Therefore, people like me (although I was only 3 at the time) were left to battle not in the legislature or even in the hearts and minds of the populace, but only in court, seeking to overturn Roe.  In short, Roe's judicial fiat left no room for a negotiated middle ground, and so it forced us into the bitter absolutism that surrounds this issue today.  That's BAD.

On another note...

You said: "That a given LAW ... would be 'more in line with the beliefs of the country's populace' shouldn’t be particularly important to whether the legislature should pass the LAW..."  (again, caps are mine.)

Well, yeah, actually - it should, and I'm not even talking abortion here.  Yes, I know that Congress has passed some real stinkers over the years, with the full support of We the People.  And I'm well aware of the phrase "tyranny of the majority", so I'm not suggesting Congress take a poll before each vote - I said the law should reflect the BELIEFS of the populace, not its momentary whims.  But the whole point of a democracy is to have a government that is beholden to its populace, even if sometimes that means making some bad (in hindsight) decisions.  Right now, if our Congressman legislates only according to what he thinks is right, rather than what we think is right, he will (eventually) be voted out.  As long as we have that power, our laws will (again, eventually) reflect our common beliefs.  Take that power away - even one step away, by giving it to appointed-for-life justices - and we are no longer a democracy but an oligarchy.  Keeping it is worth the occasional misstep.

Doug

P.S. - God, I'm so sick of using caps.  When do we get our <i>italics</i> back?

Doug wrote: “David - You are right that a court ruling needn't be "in line with the beliefs of a country's populace".  However, neither should it be about "right vs. wrong".  A court's job is only to APPLY existing laws.”

I disagree that bringing about good consequences overall should play no role in how courts should rule.  For example, Dred Scott.  

Obviously bringing about good consequences should not be the only criterion that courts use to make decisions.  But it should be a criterion.

“Although I'm a little more squishy than you on the implied right to privacy "guaranteed" by the 14th amendment's Due Process clause, at least as it applies to abortion, that is not why I call the Roe decision bad.  Had they stopped at, "No, sorry, we find your complete proscription of abortion to be in violation of Amendments X and Y, and precedents A and B - try again," then I would call it a good decision, albeit one I might disagree with.  But they went on to basically write the abortion laws, tying the legislature's hands and providing only one path for changing abortion law: via another court decision.  Therefore, people like me (although I was only 3 at the time) were left to battle not in the legislature or even in the hearts and minds of the populace, but only in court, seeking to overturn Roe.  In short, Roe's judicial fiat left no room for a negotiated middle ground, and so it forced us into the bitter absolutism that surrounds this issue today.  That's BAD.”

I disagree that the specificity of the court as far as directing legislatures makes the decision in Roe not good.  First, the ruling itself was good, for some of the reasons I mentioned.  And the ruling is very important to evaluating a court’s decision, because the ruling affects the law and how it will be understood.  Second, I’m not sure what you have in mind by “tying the legislature's hands and providing only one path for changing abortion law.”  At least on the surface, I suppose I don’t disagree with that characterization.  But that is what happens when the courts find a law unconstitutional.  The states can no longer implement the law.  And the decision was a good decision.  Is your point that they were to specific as far as what abortion laws would be constitutional and what laws would not be?  I don’t know.  I think they did a good job on that.  Maybe I should read the decision again.  But they made a ruling that invalidates a certain law.  And states needed to have some sense of what would be constitutional and what wouldn’t be.  Also, they did leave quite a bit open to the states, whether rightly or wrongly.  The court allowed the state to criminalize certain kinds of abortions, and not others.  

At any rate, the Supreme Court should not overturn Roe v. Wade and the US should not amend the constitution to overturn Roe v. Wade.  For one thing, it is important that women aren’t put in jail for having abortions.  

“Well, yeah, actually - it should, and I'm not even talking abortion here.  Yes, I know that Congress has passed some real stinkers over the years, with the full support of We the People.  And I'm well aware of the phrase "tyranny of the majority", so I'm not suggesting Congress take a poll before each vote - I said the law should reflect the BELIEFS of the populace, not its momentary whims.  But the whole point of a democracy is to have a government that is beholden to its populace, even if sometimes that means making some bad (in hindsight) decisions.  Right now, if our Congressman legislates only according to what he thinks is right, rather than what we think is right, he will (eventually) be voted out.  As long as we have that power, our laws will (again, eventually) reflect our common beliefs.  Take that power away - even one step away, by giving it to appointed-for-life justices - and we are no longer a democracy but an oligarchy.  Keeping it is worth the occasional misstep.”

I strongly disagree.  That a given law would be popular should not be particularly important to whether the legislature enacts it.  For example, the three-fifth clause of the constitution.  It was probably fairly popular when it was enacted.  And it shouldn’t have been.  African Americans were to count as only three-fifths of a person in terms of apportionment.  Moreover, it was unpopular for Truman to desegregate the armed forces.  And it was the right thing to do.  If I were elected to public office and my voting for X would be unpopular, that would make much, if any, difference to me.