Inhuman

Let me repeat this in blunter terms.

Here is what President Bush said yesterday in defense of his veto of Rep. Mike Castle's bill allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research:

This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it. ...

Embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed for their cells. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value. ...

This is nonsense.

1. Countless thousands of frozen human embryos are regularly destroyed at fertility clinics.

2. President Bush claims to believe that these embryos are human lives "with inherent dignity and matchless value."

3. Therefore, President Bush has vetoed a bill that would have allowed the federal government to fund research that would use some few of these thousands of frozen embryos for research, instead of their being destroyed along with the many other thousands of embryos.

4. If No. 2 above were true, No. 3 would be an obscenely modest response. No one who genuinely believed what President Bush claims to believe could possibly be satisfied with such a response.

5. Therefore, President Bush is lying, or he does not fully understand the inescapable moral obligation demanded by his position, or he does not care about the inescapable moral obligation demanded by his position. He is a liar, a fool or a casual bystander whose inaction implicitly endorses what he believes is mass murder.

"There is no ban on embryonic stem cell research," President Bush said yesterday.

Why not? Why is he not actively, tirelessly campaigning for just such a ban?

If he truly believed that such research involved "the taking of innocent human life," then he would be obligated to stop it using every means at his disposal. "I won't fund it, but it's fine if others do," doesn't cut it. All such funding, all such research, would have to be outlawed -- with severe criminal penalties for the mass-murdering Mengeles who violated this ban. The fertility clinics, also, would have to be shut down. The innocent human lives imprisoned in their liquid-nitrogen charnel houses would have to be made wards of the state until such time as they could all -- in their many thousands -- be placed into snowflake foster care.

I am not suggesting that this is what President Bush's position implies taken to its logical extreme. This is what it demands as a bare minimum response. It is not possible, in any meaningful way, to believe that embryonic stem cell research is "the taking of innocent human life" unless you also advocate all of these steps.

President Bush does not advocate any of these steps. If he is not a liar then he is a fool or a monster. There is no fourth option.

Comments

[pharoute]

Testify brother!

[Duane]

If he is not a liar then he is a fool or a monster.

How about all three?

There is no fourth option.

But if there was, I think it would be "asshole".

[Kriz]

This whole thing makes me curious. Do these anti-stem-cell-research types believe in souls? Or just cells?

[Chuck Dupree (Belisarius)]

Absolutely damn right. Has any administration in history depended so totally on the stupidity of its base?

[PepperjackCandy]

Amen.

[Dave Lartigue]

My money is on fool. Bush strikes me as just being hopelessly dumb. He's just not smart, and he honestly doesn't mind not being smart. He's rich, so he doesn't HAVE to be smart. This is why the smart people, who are evil, have hired him as their front. The Republican party is very interested in a dumb populace, with their anti-science, anti-intellect, anti-curiosity campaign. So once they made a country that wanted dumb, goofy leaders, they had to find a dumb goofy leader to give them, who hopefully wouldn't screw up too much while they were busy looting and pillaging the world. Enter George W. Bush, who's never had the tiniest spark of intellectual curiosity. Bush only believes what he's told to believe, or whatever he thinks makes him into a charming, religious, important person.

[PepperjackCandy]

My money is on fool. Bush strikes me as just being hopelessly dumb.

I beg to disagree with you, Dave. Idiots don't get undergraduate degrees from Yale and MBAs from Harvard. He saw how well the "Aw shucks" persona worked for Reagan, and he's playing it for all he's worth.

[Scott]

The fertility clinics, also, would have to be shut down.

Nah, too many Good Evangelicals trying to have kids like God commands.

Although in The Evil One's defense, not funding something you disagree with but otherwise staying out of it (like destroying embryos) isn't a horribly inconsistent position in the abstract.

[Dave Lartigue]

I beg to disagree with you, Dave. Idiots don't get undergraduate degrees from Yale and MBAs from Harvard. He saw how well the "Aw shucks" persona worked for Reagan, and he's playing it for all he's worth.

From what I've seen, I doubt the intelligence required to get those things rather than doubting the dumbness of the man who has them.

[Mary]

This is what it demands as a bare minimum response. It is not possible, in any meaningful way, to believe that embryonic stem cell research is "the taking of innocent human life" unless you also advocate all of these steps.

I know people who do believe that (I think it is the Catholic church's official position), and do advocate those steps, but even they admit that bans on in vitro fertilization are not politically possible right now. Whereas it is possible to kill the (federal) funding for more stem cell research. They see this as human experimentation, and possibly human trafficking, and think it is worth ending in its own right. They'll settle for this small but achievable measure for now, a sort of "Missouri compromise"...

If Bush were to seriously try to close IVF clinics and ban stem cell research, the Republicans would be out of power at the next election and all of them would be lame ducks until them. And the measures wouldn't succeed.

But even if it were politically possible, I don't think Bush himself would really try for him. I can't imagine him risking any political capital that way. I not only don't think he has the courage of his convictions, I don't think he has any convictions. I don't think he's thought deeply enough about any of these issues to have them. He's jumped right to his conclusions without ever caring whether they were consistent or not...

Idiots don't get undergraduate degrees from Yale and MBAs from Harvard.

The more years I spend in academia, the less I believe this.

[Lila]

I not only don't think he has the courage of his convictions, I don't think he has any convictions.

Bingo.

[Field Marshall Stack]

I beg to disagree with you, Dave. Idiots don't get undergraduate degrees from Yale and MBAs from Harvard.

Children of the rich and powerful can get anything they damn well please.

[David]

I think it's a little naive to say all this is the minimum possible response: anyone who would say that embryos are human lives would almost certainly oppose abortion on similar grounds. Devoting every resource at your disposal to outlawing abortion in any form may be morally consistent, but it is not feasible given the state of the country right now. I don't think it's "monstrous" for a pro-life politician not to devote everything at his disposal to outlawing abortion, because such an effort would inevitably fail, would give no real progress, and could in fact achieve the opposite of what was intended.

I agree with the basic thesis: that Bush is a convictionless hypocrite. But I think this post is stretching inference too far based on this particular inaction.

Personally, I do oppose IVF for exactly the reasons outlined here -- but I also realize that my opposition is not about to change the culture in the immediate future. I hope that doesn't make me monstrous...

[Reverend Ref]

Yeah, I think it's door #5: he does not fully understand the inescapable moral obligation demanded by his position.

I think he simply obeys his handlers.

The scary thing is, people actually buy into this crap.

[Bob Ramsey]

I so wish this were the kind of real world tactical move that David outlined above.

Unfortunately, as Fred pointed out, you can't use absolute principle to support incremental steps. But sadly for this Administration, it seems that principled statements are merely a series of sounds and symbols meant to make it appear that the President is principled and (their favorite term) resolute. The actual content of the words means little at all. It's all a matter of posturing and imagery.

[Bugmaster]

What part of this is surprising ? Bush (or, more likely, his handlers) is a politician, doing what politicians do: attempting to maximize his approval rating. The Republican party has built up an excellent voter base, which values buzzwords above all else, and now they're milking it for all it's worth. It's sad, and increasingly more frightening, but the process has been going on for years. I don't find it surprising at all.

[Indecisive]

I guess I tend to agree with David that saying that such a response would be the minimum is going a bit overboard with the hyperbole. While I personally don't have a problem with embryonic stem-cell research, I still am not completely sure what my position on abortion is; I'm currently leaning toward a position in which I see pre-viability abortions as morally permissable but seriously question late-term abortions (what that says about mid-trimester abortions I'm not sure), but since it is an issue that has widespread disagreement in society (and practically the law isn't likely changing soon, regardless of how Roberts votes), I tend to take the position that I'm not sure enough about my belief to try to enforce it on the entire populace. This doesn't feel like it's all that inconsistent, nor do I think that I'm avoiding the obligations that my convictions demand of me. Or am I just crazy and trying to rationalize things?

[Jesurgislac]

I'm currently leaning toward a position in which I see pre-viability abortions as morally permissable but seriously question late-term abortions

You "seriously question" the right of a woman who's pregnant with a seriously disabled fetus that she knows won't live long past birth to be able to terminate the pregnancy? Or do you feel that a girl who was raped and either didn't know she might be pregnant or was too scared to go to anyone until physical changes made it obvious to others ought then to be forced to carry the pregnancy to term? Or perhaps you feel that a woman whose fetus has died ought to die too?

Late-term abortions for the most part take place because there is an urgent medical (or, in the case of underage rape victims who wait too long) psychological reason why they must take place. There's no good reason to "seriously question" them except the wish to see women suffer.

[Scott]

There's no good reason to "seriously question" them except the wish to see women suffer.

Anyone who disagrees w/ Jesurgislac only does so because of petty hatred. Nobody, NOBODY can simply think the fetus is past the point of turning human before birth but after the 2/4/8 cell stage w/o hate being involved somewhere. Let us all now bow down to Jesurgislac's moral superiority.

I don't particularly want our idiot govt involved in even late term abortions, but come on Jesurgislac, chill out a bit.

Since a woman, and thus her womb, wouldn't even exist w/o society to feed and clothe her, isn't her womb a product of society and thus owned by society to be used as society deems fit?

[Lucia]

In my view, Bush is a smart, lazy demagogue. He's used to coasting on his ability to size up the big picture without having to do any of the heavy lifting. Because of his wealth and family connections, he's never had to, and it's possible that those muscles are atrophied at this point. He's surprised every time failure to analyze even an inch below the surface bites him in the butt.

In one respect, his ability to play on popular emotion, he may be the most brilliant virtuoso of our time. With the drumbeat of facts drowning out his siren song for all but the most selectively deaf, all he can do is sing louder.

I think Bugmaster is right: he's just doing what politicians do and playing to his strength -- the only one he has left.

[Roberta]

Before we swirl down the drain of the abortion debate, flushed by namecallers on both sides, one more possibility for Bush's veto: the man is pig-headed stubborn. He refuses to admit he makes a mistake. If he balanced his checkbook with 2+2=5, he would by God refuse to admit an error. His "resolute leadership" is a myth based on a severe character flaw. If someone suggested removing one of the "Bush stem cell lines", he would oppose that too. He has spoken, he has decided, and it is beyond question. Papal infallibility is mush compared to --- oh, why do I bother? How could we have re-elected this man?

[Lucia]

That too, Roberta :). He's the decider.

[Duane]

Late-term abortions for the most part take place because there is an urgent medical (or, in the case of underage rape victims who wait too long) psychological reason why they must take place. There's no good reason to "seriously question" them except the wish to see women suffer.

Late-term abortions are also a convenient strawman since they represent a tiny tiny percentate of all abortions. And if you don't approve of 'em, feel free not to have one.

David: I agree with the basic thesis: that Bush is a convictionless hypocrite.

By all means, tell us how a Christian president with convictions would incrementally move along your Christianist agenda without appearing to be "convictionless".

[PerfectBlue]

I'm reminded of the last conversation had on this subject here on Slacktivist. It was a deeply thoughtful and well-written (when is anything here not?) piece about torture, and how monsterous those who support it and encourage it are in Fred's view, and then he sort of turned it around and said, that's how we must seem to the pro-life movement. It was interesting, but what I said at the time was the difference there is that Fred is not going to go torture someone under any circumstances and will oppose torture in any form, but that pro-lifers demonstrably do not believe what they are saying and do not consistently treat embryos as human beings. The value of embryos and fetuses as human beings is not a sustainable philosophy. Even pro-lifers cannot live in a way that is coherent with that concept. IVF is a vivid example of this on its own. If you truly believe that embryos are human beings with a right to live, IVF is nothing but cold-blooded mass murder, conducted for the sole purpose of giving a single child to a couple who could otherwise adopt one of the thousands of children available in the adoption system right now. I do think it's monsterous to not even lift a finger to protest what you ostensibly believe is mass murder because it's inconvenient or unpopular or because, as some very self-serving pro-life proponents have said to excuse their ho-hum attitude towards IVF, the pro-life community is far too busy attempting to force women to carry every pregnancy to term to give any consequence to the plight of IVF embryos. To say that no opposition has really been mounted against IVF because it is politically and socially unpopular is ridiculous. Most Americans favor legal abortion and stem cell research and that does not stop the pro-life movement from loudly and passionately opposing both. This vast inaction against IVF is nothing but reprehensible. It's disturbing. Unless...embryos do not have the same value as a person. Only then is this a reasonable, or in any sense human, way to behave. Sociopath or hypocrite, take your pick, but you cannot have it both ways. An embryo cannot be a human being with rights only when it is inside a woman who doesn't want it, unless one admits that the right of embryos to live is not the chief concern of this movement and that this rhetoric is empty. If it is a human being, it can never be treated as anything otherwise and to do so is indeed monsterous. These are the choices that the pro-life position offers its proponents on the subject of IVF.

Research on embryonic stem cells is an even more vivid illustration of this point. The pro-life movement is outraged that embryos could be destroyed for scientific purposes--but that outrage is about stem cell research, not IVF. They are quibbling about how the embryos are destroyed, but not trying to stop them from being destroyed otherwise. Their rationale for opposing stem cell research is that it's immoral to destroy embryos for the purpose of scientific research, even if that research could benefit all humanity, but how is that less moral than destroying embryos en masse for the purpose of impregnanting one couple that could otherwise adopt? The inconsistecy is almost shocking.

As awful as all this has been to watch, the part of this that disturbed me most was an article I read with comments from John Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri whose brother had died of Lou Gherig's. He is pro-life, but supports stem-cell research, and had taped ads in support of it, on the basis of being pro-life. He was upset about the veto. "Are they telling me that something happening in a petri dish is more important than my brother, more important than me?" (Not the exact quote, but close.) The pro-life people I know have told me for years that my goals, my plans, my marriage, my quality of life, my mental health, and my physical health were nothing compared to the life of an embryo, that no objection I could possibly have to carrying a pregnancy to term could outweigh an embryo's right to life. John Danforth told women that all through his career, and clearly his mind has not changed. His pique at being told the same is sickening.

[Angelika]

What strikes me as odd in the moral position of the administration is not so much the question, what happens with the excess embryos in the fertility clinics, if they are not used for research. I rather marvel at the hypocrisy of starting a war and causing thousands of people to die, while claiming each unborn live to be of inherent dignity and matchless value. Somehow, I'd assume, if an unborn is of such value, a person already born should have the same inherent dignity.

[MichMog]

"Since a woman, and thus her womb, wouldn't even exist w/o society to feed and clothe her, isn't her womb a product of society and thus owned by society to be used as society deems fit?"

Whoa! I hope you're being sarcastic, Scott. Because what if society decided that the woman's womb be used for fetal farming? In any case, the above statement is sickening in its implications regardless of what tone you intended.

Papal infallibility is mush compared to --- oh, why do I bother? How could we have re-elected this man?

I hat to be pedantic -- oh, who am I kidding, I love it -- but Papal infallibility as you are depicting it does not occur. The doctrine of Papal infallibility means that in certain extremely specific questions having to do with the definition of Catholicism, and only if he explicitly chooses to do so, the Pope can temporarily speak from a position of infallibility.

George Bush's infallibility is very different, based on the philosophy of Nietszche, and is never "turned off."

[A. Kennedy]

Oops, I posted the last comment, just to lay blame where it should be.

[David]

Duane: By all means, tell us how a Christian president with convictions would incrementally move along your Christianist agenda without appearing to be "convictionless".

Ehm... well, he could have not started an unjust war? He could also fight for the rights of the poor and downtrodden that have been born already. He could adamantly oppose torture, and try to strengthen instead of tear down our civil rights. He could stop bringing up the gay marriage debate during election years, pretending like that is a sincere conviction that matters to him instead of political capital.

I don't think the veto, all by itself, makes him hypocritical, and I never said so. My whole point was that, while I do think the man is a hypocrite, I don't think this veto is a particularly good illustration of it.

It does bother me a lot, in fact, that politicians are talking on the one hand as though the embryos are complete, practically self-aware human beings, and on the other hand completely ignoring the moral implications for IVF, and actively bragging about how they do still allow research on existing lines. I agree with Fred to the degree that I think if they really felt this way, they would at least mention the issue, and in that sense I believe this shows hypocrisy. But I disagree with the claim that failing to devote every possible resource to the problem is "monstrous" -- that's the kind of thinking that leads to clinic bombers.

PerfectBlue: The value of embryos and fetuses as human beings is not a sustainable philosophy. Even pro-lifers cannot live in a way that is coherent with that concept. IVF is a vivid example of this on its own.

Actually, the Catholic church is strongly against IVF. I don't know the details of the doctrine: for example, I don't know if they would say that every embryo has a soul (I would tend to suspect not, since their stance on birth control seems more focused on non-interference than on embryo preservation), but they would certainly say it is human life and should not be destroyed by artificial means. And it is a "sustainable philosophy" in the sense that the largest church on Earth has been very consistent about its teaching on this point ever since people realized what embryos were. You might disagree with whether it ought to be sustained, of course... :)

The pro-life people I know have told me for years that my goals, my plans, my marriage, my quality of life, my mental health, and my physical health were nothing compared to the life of an embryo

I know this wasn't the point of your comment, but a quick note on this -- as a pro-lifer myself, one of the things I find most disturbing about the pro-life movement is its utter lack of compassion for either the mother who finds herself facing a pregnancy that could ruin her life, or for the baby once it is born. It is sadly rare to find a pro-lifer who believes not just that abortions should be prevented, but that society is responsible for caring for the mother and child to make sure that the mother's life isn't ruined, and that the child has food and medical care. Apparently, as long as you don't get an abortion, it doesn't matter if you can't afford to feed the baby once he's born... *sigh*...

[Robert]

Any why isn't Bush enlisting his daughters into carrying some of these snowflakes trapped in test tubes? The twins are in there early 20's. I figure if they do twins with each pregnancy, the Bush twins alone could save 40 or so human lives in their lifetime!

[Beth]

I'm currently leaning toward a position in which I see pre-viability abortions as morally permissable but seriously question late-term abortions.

That strikes me as a reasonable attitude, trying balance a woman's rights over her own body with respect for life, but pragmatically it's rather difficult. First, as others have noted, late-term abortions a rarely, if ever, performed except for medical reasons. They're very expensive compared to 'early-term' abortions, and not many women will go through 6+ months of pregnancy unless they're seriously committed to having a baby. Doctors, too, are generally unwilling to perform such operations without valide medical reason. I suspect that in the majority of cases, late-term abortion could best be thought of as pre-birth euthenasia. The fetus is so damaged that if it was born it would have only a short, very painful life.

'Viability' is a tricky term as well. Those blastulas that Bush is so concerned about are arguably 'viable', since they could be implanted in a womb, where there's a chance they'd grow to full term. Even if you define 'viability' as 'viability outside the womb' it's still tricky. IIRC, even late second trimester preemies have survived, but the cost of the medical intervention required is very high. It seems monstrous to put a dollar value on human life, but with limited money and resources for health care, spending so much to save one life that might otherwise have gone to save many others seems monstrous as well. And what if science develops an 'artificial womb' which can carry blastulas to full term? Should abortion then be outlawed altogether?

I don't have any easy answers for those questions, and I very much doubt that such answers exist. I don't know myself when, if ever, a fetus is 'fully human'. I do, however, believe very strongly that a pregnant woman is fully human, and should therefore have the same rights as all other humans in this country to choose or refuse a medical procedure. If I were dying from blood loss and just a pint from you could save my life, no law would compel you to undergo even that minor inconvenience. Why should it be so different in the case of pregnancy?

[Ellen Fremedon]

Scott: Since a woman, and thus her womb, wouldn't even exist w/o society to feed and clothe her, isn't her womb a product of society and thus owned by society to be used as society deems fit?

Since a man, and thus all his organs, wouldn't even exist without society to feed and clothe him, aren't his kidneys, liver, heart, corneas, bone marrow, and blood all products of society and thus owned by society to be used as society deems fit?

I'm not sure which scares me more-- that you really might favor mandatory, involuntary organ harvesting, or that the logical correlate of your stance on women's bodily integrity just hadn't occurred to you.

[A. Kennedy]

Scott: Since a woman, and thus her womb, wouldn't even exist w/o society to feed and clothe her, isn't her womb a product of society and thus owned by society to be used as society deems fit?

Ellen: Since a man, and thus all his organs, wouldn't even exist without society to feed and clothe him, aren't his kidneys, liver, heart, corneas, bone marrow, and blood all products of society and thus owned by society to be used as society deems fit?

I'm probably the most ignorant, unworldly person here when it comes to using weblogs and fora, yet even I know this remark by Scott was meant to be trolling. Don't rise to the bait! Better angels of your nature, etc.

[wintermute]

Ellen:

Scott is our local resident Libertarian wingnut. His point is that because we believe that there are some things that are best kept as common property, then we must believe that everything is common property, inclding our own bodies.

[Ellen Fremedon]

Ah, sorry for feeding the troll. Thanks for the heads-up.

[A. Kennedy]

Scott is our local resident Libertarian wingnut.

Libertrollian? Maybe we could say he's "Ayn Random?"

[Jesurgislac]

Roberta: How could we have re-elected this man?

What makes you think you did?

[hf]

Indecisive, Scott, Beth, see this post and my comment on it.

PerfectBlue's recent comment, and the post itself, remind me of an essay I read recently saying that the expressed philosophy of social conservatives often seems more like a feeling than a thought. (I personally think this feeling involves an unexpressed version of the conservative arguement that Brad Hicks describes here and here.) Last time we had this discussion, I said that the pro-lifers in question believed that they believed what they said. I think I added that while we'd have to address their real unexpressed argument in order to get anywhere, it would help to point out the holes in their surface position because otherwise -- since they think they believe what they say -- they could just accuse us of ignoring their words and tune us out.

[pat greene]

When George Bush was running for President in 2000, I started looking at some of the death penalty cases in Texas. George Bush was on record as saying the Texas system of capital punishment was just fine. I figured the man either was an idiot and completely out of touch with what had been going on, or he was amoral and really had no problem sacrificing justice and human lives for political gain. Either way, I thought him unfit for the Presidency.

I believe I've been proven correct.

[Duane]

I rather marvel at the hypocrisy of starting a war and causing thousands of people to die, while claiming each unborn live to be of inherent dignity and matchless value.

It's not hypocrisy, it's lunacy. You didn't even take the comparison far enough. Pro-lifers have a whole raft of folks they'd like to see killed for various reasons. And those "babies" they think are so precious are microscopic cells frozen for perpetuity that can only ever be born by being implanted BY SCIENCE in a woman's womb.

[Jesurgislac]

David: It is sadly rare to find a pro-lifer who believes not just that abortions should be prevented, but that society is responsible for caring for the mother and child to make sure that the mother's life isn't ruined, and that the child has food and medical care.

Few pro-lifers - and no "pro-life" organisations - really believe that abortions should be prevented. There isn't a single "pro-life" organisation in the US, not one, that promotes contraception and effective sex education, which are together the most effective method of preventing abortions. Indeed, the "pro-life" movement overlaps nicely with the "abstinence-only" sex education movement, which pretty much ensures that teenage girls are more likely to get pregnant accidentally and need an abortion. (Which of course they might not be able to get, but it would have been better, thinks this pro-choicer, had they not needed to get one at all.)

The main way we can tell that "pro-lifers" really don't mean what they say when they claim to believe that abortion=murder is that they show no political interest in any of the many effective ways of preventing abortions; their organisations are exclusively concerned with attempting to make abortion illegal. Further, as you yourself note, "pro-lifers" for the most part show no interest in supporting pregnant women or women with children: no "pro-life" organization is involved with campaigning for free health care for pregnant women and all children, paid maternity and paternity leave, a right to paid family sick leave for parents, free daycare for low-income working parents, job protection for parents who need flexible working hours...

Which is how we know that the vast majority of "pro-lifers" may claim they want to protect fetuses, but they're lying - all they really want to do is punish women for having sex and escaping the consequences.

[pharoute]

as the great American thinker Bill Hicks put it "Think of the children?! What, does that mean when they reach a certain age they're off your love list? You either love people of all ages or STFU"

[bulbul]

all they really want to do is punish women for having sex and escaping the consequences.
.. and quite a few have even admitted that.

Speaking of great American thinkers, I can't help but think of these by George Carlin about pro-lifers:
"While your pre-born, you're fine. Once you're pre-school, you're fucked."

... and about "sanctity of all life":
"You don't see bumper stickers with 'I brake for advanced melanoma', do you?"

[LL]

I'm with Duane on this one. The fourth option would be "asshole."

[Mark]

Further, as you yourself note, "pro-lifers" for the most part show no interest in supporting pregnant women or women with children: no "pro-life" organization is involved with campaigning for free health care for pregnant women and all children, paid maternity and paternity leave, a right to paid family sick leave for parents, free daycare for low-income working parents, job protection for parents who need flexible working hours...

For that matter, why aren't they handing out condoms in church?

[PetaG]

"You "seriously question" the right of a woman who's pregnant with a seriously disabled fetus that she knows won't live long past birth to be able to terminate the pregnancy? Or do you feel that a girl who was raped and either didn't know she might be pregnant or was too scared to go to anyone until physical changes made it obvious to others ought then to be forced to carry the pregnancy to term? Or perhaps you feel that a woman whose fetus has died ought to die too?"

These are really controversial subjects and honest people can differ. But one thing I find disturbing is the distortion used (or believed) by so many people on these topics. The above comment is a good example. How many times do we hear these kinds of comments from pro-choice people, like it is all about rape and incest and deformaties? That's just pure distortion. The VAST majority of abortions are done for convenience - to end a pregnancy that would mean work, expense, or interference with careers or other personal aspirations. That is the the ugly fact no one wants do deal with honestly, and with good reason too. To acknowledge this as the primary motive for abortion make us and our society look pretty damn selfish. We want our freedom and our precious self-esteem as well so we go to unbelievable lengths to rationalize away or deflect attention from the real facts. I say let's cut the BS and just be honest.

[Duane]

Duane: By all means, tell us how a Christian president with convictions would incrementally move along your Christianist agenda without appearing to be "convictionless".

Ehm... well, he could have not started an unjust war? He could also fight for the rights of the poor and downtrodden that have been born already. He could adamantly oppose torture, and try to strengthen instead of tear down our civil rights. He could stop bringing up the gay marriage debate during election years, pretending like that is a sincere conviction that matters to him instead of political capital.

I don't think the veto, all by itself, makes him hypocritical, and I never said so. My whole point was that, while I do think the man is a hypocrite, I don't think this veto is a particularly good illustration of it.

George Bush is EXACTLY like his 30% evangelical base. He believes things contrary to evidence. He will lie in order to incrementally move along a Christianist agenda. He will pretend to have mainstream views (eg. pretend to support civil unions) so as not to freak out the 70% of the country that doesn't want to live in New Jerusalem. He thinks he talks to God and believes God is telling him to do things.

Does this sound like any evangelical you know? It sure as hell sounds like all the ones I know. He is only a hypocrite inasmuch as every Republican evangelical is. While I used to think these folks were hypocrites, I've come to believe it's just severe cognitive dissonance brought about by prolonged religious hysteria.

[Jesurgislac]

PetaG: The VAST majority of abortions are done for convenience - to end a pregnancy that would mean work, expense, or interference with careers or other personal aspirations.

Yes, of course. And THOSE abortions are done early on - certainly in the first trimester. (The vast majority of Americans agree that women ought to have the right to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy early on - no matter what her reason. )

23% of reported legal induced abortions were known to have been induced at <6 weeks of gestation, 57% at <8 weeks of gestation, 87% at <13 weeks. Only 4.3% were at 16--20 weeks, and 1.4% were at >21 weeks. (CDC data for 2000.)

Depending how "Indecisive" defines a "late term" abortion (after 15 weeks?) (after 20 weeks?) the abortions he says he "seriously questions" comprise at most 5.7% of the total abortions. According to a Planned Parenthood study, the reason most women delay until after >15 weeks is because of the cost of obtaining a legal abortion or the distance (meaning days off work) they'll have to travel to get one. Those women would prefer to be able to terminate earlier if some US states weren't so set on obstructing them.

That leaves probably around 1.5% of all abortions that are carried out at what I would call "late term" - 21> weeks - and those abortions are very, very rarely carried out for anything other than desperate medical need. (An exception might be an underage girl who'd been raped and the abortion she needed delayed through her ignorance or hateful behavior by her parents or guardians. That would be a psychologically if not medically needed abortion - but it would be needed.)

[Duane]

The VAST majority of abortions are done for convenience - to end a pregnancy that would mean work, expense, or interference with careers or other personal aspirations. That is the the ugly fact no one wants do deal with honestly, and with good reason too. To acknowledge this as the primary motive for abortion make us and our society look pretty damn selfish. We want our freedom and our precious self-esteem as well so we go to unbelievable lengths to rationalize away or deflect attention from the real facts. I say let's cut the BS and just be honest.

Okay, I'll start: Mind Your Own Business. If you don't like abortion, THEN DON'T HAVE ONE.

[Lucia]

An abortion that could easily have been prevented by contraception is wrong because it's wasteful. In addition to the child that might have been, it wastes time, money, and medical resources. By these measures IVF is if anything more wasteful, since several embryos die for every one that's implanted and becomes a child, and since it spends a lot of time and energy creating a child with the "right" genetic makeup instead of adopting one that already exists.

We consider IVF morally acceptable because its goal is to create a life, and so we can ignore the collateral damage; we are squeamish about abortion because its goal is to destroy a life, so we tend to concentrate on that and not on the woman's life.

We are weird people.