God gap (cont'd.)

My main problem with Amy Sullivan's TIME article, "The Origins of the God Gap," is that it spends most of its time nibbling around the edges of its subject without ever cutting to the chase.

I'm sure Sullivan is correct to argue that Michael Dukakis might have done better with Catholic voters had he not spurned invitations to speak at Catholic institutions. But it makes no sense to ignore the larger dynamic here -- by the time Dukakis ran for office, Catholic voters were already established as "Reagan Democrats," which is to say "Republicans." (It's also odd that Sullivan would discuss the 1988 campaign as an example of Democrats' alleged hostility to faith without mentioning that, throughout most of the primaries, Dukakis was neck-and-neck with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, whose stump speech was a revival-meeting sermon.)

Sullivan also writes things like this:

Republicans relentlessly charged Democrats with waging a war on faith (or Christmas or the Bible).

Well, yeah, but why we should take such hysterical attacks as evidence of an actual Democratic "war on faith" is not clear.

All of this is, at most, tangential to the core question of why the so-called "God gap" in partisan voting exists -- why evangelical Christian and Catholic voters reliably cast their ballots for Republican presidential candidates. The answer there is very simple: Most evangelical Christians and Catholics are opposed to abortion rights and the Republican Party is opposed to abortion rights. It's the abortion, stupid.

The God gap, in other words, has little to do with religious rhetoric, or with where candidates agree to speak, or with any other symbolic effort at "faith friendliness." It has to do with an actual policy position. On this particular policy position the stance of Voting Bloc X aligns with the stance of Party Y. It should not be surprising or mysterious or puzzling to anyone, then, that the members of Voting Bloc X tend to cast their votes for the candidates of Party Y.

This gets inflated into something more confusing than it really is because this particular policy position tends, to these particular voters, to be the single-most important factor in deciding their vote. (Here, it should be noted, there is a big difference between the priorities of X and Y. The position of anti-abortion voters is shared by the Republican Party, but the party seems to hold this position mainly as a means of ensuring the continued loyalty of these voters. It is not, for the party, as urgently and pre-eminently important as it is for these voters.)

The other apparent source of confusion here is that this position is, for most of these voters, religiously motivated. The gist of Sullivan's advice about "faith friendliness" seems to be that it is possible to woo such voters with appeals to the religious beliefs that motivate their policy stance without actually endorsing the stance itself. That strikes me, frankly, as more disrespectful of the substance of their faith than anything Michael Dukakis might have said or done. It also strikes me as a bit like suggesting that Richard Nixon should have gotten the pacifist vote because he was a Quaker. These voters have taken a policy stance that arises from their understanding of their faith, but the stance itself is what determines their vote. They will side with an impious pro-lifer over a pious and devout pro-choicer every time. It's not clear that Sullivan appreciates that.

We're taking here about abortion -- a topic that seems to provoke more heat than light. One odd thing about the politics of abortion is that the possibility of persuasion seems completely off the table. It thus becomes all about rallying the already persuaded, hoping that our side outnumbers their side. Either that or candidates just change the subject, hoping that other issues will carry more weight (this seems to be Giuliani's approach in the GOP primary).

I give Sullivan credit for trying to get beyond preaching to the choir -- for trying to put persuasion back on the table and to find a way to reach out to those on the other side. But I think that if you're going to do that credibly, you can't just nibble around the edges, talking about "faith" while avoiding the conclusions voters have reached due to their faith. I think this calls for something more. I don't think candidates who support abortion rights should merely be embracing "faith friendly" rhetoric in the hopes of scoring points with people of faith who oppose abortion rights. I think those candidates should be explaining, forthrightly, why they support such rights and why they believe others should as well.

Three final points here, which I will try to state as generally as possible because, while I believe these apply to the politics of abortion, I also think they apply more generally:

1. When a disagreement involves questions of principle, a willingness to compromise, meeting your opponents half way, is not an effective approach to persuasion. Your willingness to compromise might make you seem more reasonable and appealing to some, but to many others it simply makes you seem unprincipled.

2. When rallying the troops and firing up the already persuaded it makes a certain kind of sense to focus on the worst motives demonstrated by the most egregious of your opponents. But if you're trying to persuade your opponents, then the presumption of charity isn't only a more just approach, it's also a more pragmatic one. If you want to persuade, you need to address the strongest case your opponent can make, not the weakest one, and you need to address that strongest case head on.

3. When rallying the troops and firing up the already persuaded it makes a certain kind of sense to point out inconsistencies in your opponents' views and to attack these as evidence of hypocrisy or duplicity. But if you're trying to persuade your opponents, then you need to recognize that such inconsistencies are an opportunity to raise questions they may already be half asking themselves.

Comments

[peatey]

so what are "these questions they may already be half asking themselves?" notion of personhood and ensoulement? or something else?

[Bugmaster]

I don't know, is it really as simple as "abortion vs. no abortion" ? My impression was that the Republicans champion a whole set of religiously-motivated values which align quite well with the Catholic and Evangelical voters: anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-religious-freedom, pro-war. You may argue that the true Catholics, or the true Evangelicals do not in fact espouse those values (just as no true Scotsman ever puts honey in his porridge), but, pragmatically speaking, most people who self-identify as Catholic and Evangelical do in fact believe these things. At least, that's the way things seem to me...

[Jeff]

I agree with Bug.

The answer there is very simple: Most evangelical Christians and Catholics are opposed to [gay] rights and the Republican Party is opposed to [gay] rights. It's [Teh Gay], stupid.

That addresses at least one evangelical family I know.

[Jeff]

Hijacking the thread (Fly this thread to Cuba!) to point to ReCAPTCHA, which is digitizing old books by using OCR images (along with a "control" image) as CAPTCHA text. Run by Carnegie Mellon, so it seems legit.

Fred, do you think ReCAPTCHA would work here?

[Tonio]

Like Fred, I'm certain that most evangelicals and Catholics are using abortion as a candidate litmus test. But I suspect that the number who also test for opposition to gay rights is somewhat smaller, and these would likely be fundamentalist evangelicals and conservative Catholics such as Traditionalists.

I would be interested in knowing how many Democratic voters also vote based on candidates' stances on abortion. Also, does anyone know if there's a gender divide over the abortion issue?

During college I attended an open house for the various student organizations. I noticed that the pro-choice booth was all women, while the pro-life booth was almost all men. When I asked the men why they were involved in the issue, one replied, "Because we're selfless." Whatever your view of abortion, do you think a truly selfless person would describe himself or herself that way? I believed then, and believe now, that there's something distasteful about men telling women what choices they should make when they have unwanted pregnancies. (And that runs the other way, too - I've been told that a huge percentage of girls who have abortions arrive at the clinics in the company of older men who aren't relatives, but I don't know if that's accurate.)

[pepperjackcandy]

I've been told that a huge percentage of girls who have abortions arrive at the clinics in the company of older men who aren't relatives, but I don't know if that's accurate.

I would assume that these "older men" are probably the fathers. Of the babies, not the girls.

A while back, I read a study where the average age of any pair of teenaged parents was 18. So 18-year-old girls are, on average, impregnated by 18-year-old boys; 17-year-old girls, 19-year-old boys; etc.

[hapax]

Tonio: "there's something distasteful about men telling women what choices they should make when they have unwanted pregnancies. "

So, you're okay with WOMEN telling other women what choices they should make? Or wouldn't they do that, because women are all about the empathy and understanding and whatnot? And that majority that's manning the barricades around women's health clinics, hurling epithets and waving photos of dead babies, those are just men in drag?

I'm sure that's not what you meant, but jeez, mon, watch the sexist assumptions.

[Tonio]

@Hapax,

I'm sure there are plenty of women who presume to tell other women what choices to make with unwanted pregnancies, and I object to that as well. My point was that it just FEELS more distasteful when a man does it. I'm not sure why I feel that way - perhaps it's because a man will never know what it's like to be pregnant. In any case, many men on the religious right seem to believe that women shouldn't be trusted with the decision, because of emotions or hormones or some other idiotic excuse.

[Tonio]

@Pepperjackcandy,

"A while back, I read a study where the average age of any pair of teenaged parents was 18."

For what it's worth, the statistic that I was told concerned girls in their early teens.

[straight]

This certainly fits my experience. I've spoken with lots of Evangelicals about politics, and I can't count how many times I've had someone agreeing with me about how much sense a particular Democratic position makes or how bad a particular Republican politician is, only to have them say, "Yes, but the thing is, what about abortion?"

Liberals like to make the claim that conservatives "really" want to restrict abortion because they want to tell women what to do, or "punish" women or whatever. I think that motivation is in there to some extent for some people, but it doesn't sufficiently explain why this issue should override all others. I think a large number of Evangelicals and Catholics really believe abortion is a horrible injustice like slavery and that restricting abortions is more about saving lives than taking away women's choices. There's a good argument to be made that this belief doesn't really match their actions and that they could do more good by helping babies already born, but I'm convinced the belief is sincere, if not always well-thought out.

Roman Catholics were solid Democrats until Roe v. Wade, after which a big chunk of them voted for Reagan and never came back.

Richard John Neuhaus is so conservative he will probably make the heads of most posters here explode, but he has a fascinating article here reviewing how in the 1970's, the Democratic and Republican parties basically exchanged positions on abortion, and how that subsequently changed the whole political landscape:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5395

[straight]

To be more precise, 1973 was Roe v. Wade, in 1976 Carter and the Democratic platform were wishy-washy about abortion rights, in 1980 the Democratic platform declared abortion to be "a fundamental human right," at which point a whole lot of Catholics jumped ship and voted for Reagan.

[straight]

Also interesting, Evangelical Protestants (including the Southern Baptist Convention) initially supported Roe v. Wade, viewing attempts to restrict abortion as an effort to impose Catholic beliefs on Protestants.

[Katie]

Hapax,

In a patriarchal society, the norm is men telling women what to do with their bodies. Tonio's gut reaction against that is an example of the ethical backlash against the kind of systemic injustice where men get to tell women what to do with their bodies, rich people get to tell poor people what to do with their bodies, etc. Of course the points you bring up are valid, but they really didn't seem to follow (or be directly in response to) what Tonio actually said.

[he_he]

'So, you're okay with WOMEN telling other women what choices they should make?'

No - but personally, the only people entitled to make decisions in this debate in women. ANY decision - including its dimensions.

Shame that men tend to run churches, since it means they have no place in a moral decision faced by women. Men are quite literally spectators - and that is being charitable, regardless of what a man may claim about his 'rights.'

Unless you accept the idea that men own women, of course. I don't.

Though I believe there might be a few quotes floating around those middle eastern monotheistic traditions which would support you - strangely, most (if not all - God has a few words to share, it seems) of those quotes are attributed to men.

As a matter of fact, women seem to be notably lacking from any involvement with God in those traditions, unless mediated through a man.

Seems like a feature, not a bug - if you are male.

[Rosina]

During college I attended an open house for the various student organizations. I noticed that the pro-choice booth was all women, while the pro-life booth was almost all men. When I asked the men why they were involved in the issue, one replied, "Because we're selfless." Whatever your view of abortion, do you think a truly selfless person would describe himself or herself that way? I believed then, and believe now, that there's something distasteful about men telling women what choices they should make when they have unwanted pregnancies.

Actually, this does make sense. If you are pro-choice, you are mainly (only?) interested in the rights of the woman, but if you are pro-life, you support the interests of the foetus - and that can be male or female. So there is nothing illogical about men being on the pro-life side - once they were that vulnerable foetus, and they will never be that woman with a pregnancy that could destroy her health or devastate her life. If it weren't for the obvious fact that there are actually men and women on both sides of the argument, I would say that it showed a shocking lack of ability to imagine what life is like for the other sex.

[ako]

A man who opposes abortion is absolutely never going to have to endure a forced pregnancy if abortion is outlawed. He knows this when he takes his political stance.

Some women know that if abortion is outlawed, they'll never have to endure a forced pregnancy, due to total infertility. Many women know that it's highly unlikely (women who want babies, women with little fertility, women who don't choose to sleep with men, or have sex at all) but possible under certain specific circumstances. Other women know that laws force people to carry a pregnancy to term, they stand a reasonable chance of their bodies being subjected to government control.

This doesn't invalidate the male anti-abortion stance, but it does mean that they're making the decision purely and exclusively about what they want the government to do to other people. Their bodies aren't on the line. This is basic anatomical reality.

[Jesurgislac]

Rosina: but if you are pro-life, you support the interests of the foetus

No, that's the pro-lifer cover. Pro-lifers are not actually interested in the fetus, they just regard pregnancy and childbirth as the due punishment for a woman who has sex, and that's why men are as likely (or more likely - all the major leaders in the US pro-life movement are men) to be pro-life than women. It's a convenient way of working to control women's fertility. (Pro-life women are, by the stats, more likely to have abortions than pro-choice women - but will in general argue that they're entitled, that their abortion is "different".)

[Rosina]

that's why men are as likely (or more likely - all the major leaders in the US pro-life movement are men) to be pro-life than women

I suspect that in the circles that spawn pro-lifers in large numbers, men are the major leaders in any movement. It's the way God intended communities to be. But it doesn't mean that women aren't just as numerous, and just as intent on ensuring that other women don't have the freedom they are voluntarily surrendering. The articles I have read may be wrong, but I think that it's the matriarchs who are keenest on genital mutilation for girls: women are not necessarily the best advocates for feminism.

[Jesurgislac]

But it doesn't mean that women aren't just as numerous, and just as intent on ensuring that other women don't have the freedom they are voluntarily surrendering.

The women are not surrendering the freedom to decide to terminate a pregnancy: pro-life/anti-choice women are as likely to decide to terminate as pro-choice women. (See "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion": When the Anti-Choice Choose. They merely think that other women ought not to have the right to choose.

but I think that it's the matriarchs who are keenest on genital mutilation for girls:

Yes: usually, because the matriarchs know that an unmutilated girl will be unable to get married. That is, the male power to choose and reject women based on their mutilated/unmutilated state, is sufficient that mothers and grandmothers know they must force their daughters to submit to it.

women are not necessarily the best advocates for feminism.

You are indeed a shiny example of women who choose not to advocate for feminism. But what I think you mean is: Some women are not good advocates for feminism. Not to sweep all women out of the way and say that only men can be the best advocates for feminism....

[Rosina]

You are indeed a shiny example of women who choose not to advocate for feminism.

I really think you are missing the point I was making. Women who support the calls to make abortion illegal, or who don't stand together and say genital mutilation is wrong and no girl will be mutilated just so she can marry a man who thinks that it's right (and who doubtless has other equally unpleasant notions about a woman's place), are not the best advocates for feminism. The 'necessarily' showed that I was well aware that I was writing about some women, in some situations, and that not all women advocate for female power.

[josh jasper]

For fun, try seeing how many times a Democrat says "a right to reproductive choice" and a Republican translates that to "Abortion on demand as birth control by ingrate welfare mothers who do it for fun" and then merrily goes on to ban sex ed that includes birth control, cut public funding for family planning that doesn't rely on "the rhythm method" and refuse to offer condom distribution services tot he public.

The current Democratic position is to reduce abortions by access to reliable birth control to the public for low cost or free, and educate them. The democratic apparatus, to it's shame, has been less than successful in engaging social conservatives in seeing that this is a good idea.

We should do better.

[Jesurgislac]

Rosina: Women who support the calls to make abortion illegal, or who don't stand together and say genital mutilation is wrong and no girl will be mutilated just so she can marry a man who thinks that it's right (and who doubtless has other equally unpleasant notions about a woman's place), are not the best advocates for feminism.

Ignoring for the time being that women will (and women in this culture still do) advise younger women to go along with cultural norms in order to be able to achieve their long-term goals (that is: a woman ought not to be dismissed as "not a feminist" merely because she buys her daughter high-heeled shoes and teaches her to use make-up, both of which can do long-term, permanent damage to her daughter's body), my point was actually a grammatical/logical one: when you say "Women are not necessarily the best advocates of feminism" you are, actually, saying that you think men are the best advocates of feminism. As I said in the comment to which you just responded, what you obviously meant to say was "Some women are not necessarily the best advocates of feminism". And I see that, while missing my point, you agreed with me that this was what you meant to say.

[Jesurgislac]

Which is not to say that I support FGM. I just meant that I get that where (for example) an unmarried daughter will suffer horribly, and a woman who has not been genitally mutilated will not be able to marry, a mother who inflicts FGM on her daughter is trying to do her best for her daughter. What's needed is to create a society where women don't need to be married and men feel ashamed to demand a mutilated wife: see how socialist China ended the practice of mutilating women's feet, both by independence for women and by shame for men.

[Rosina]

What's needed is to create a society where women don't need to be married and men feel ashamed to demand a mutilated wife

But since you accept that women will continue to inflict FGM on their daughters and granddaughters for their own good, and to appear as advocates for the current system, presumably you expect men to 'create' this new society, not for women to do so by refusing to support FGM, both in the individual cases of their female relatives, and in demanding changes in law and opinions.

A lot of people find themselves in a culture where they are under pressure to act in a way that we would disapprove of. Some do fight to change that culture - others go along with it in deed and in word. But only some get Jesurgislac's understanding.

[Tonio]

@Jesurgislac,

My perception that the pro-lifers who "want to control women's fertility" are mostly fundamentalists and other reactionaries within Christianity. But why do they seek that control? While they certainly believe in a subservient role for women, I believe that's not the whole story. These reactionaries are fanatically opposed to homosexuality and pornography, and are obsessive about promoting abstinence. This strongly suggests a belief that sex is ONLY for procreation and that sex for pleasure is fundamentally immoral. Their opposition to abortion would definitely fit that belief. This stance on sex doesn't seem to be the same as the Catholic stance, but I'm not sure of the exact difference.

[Scott]

No, that's the pro-lifer cover. Pro-lifers are not actually interested in the fetus, they just regard pregnancy and childbirth as the due punishment for a woman who has sex

I guess it's lucky for Jesurgislac that you can't get preggers from a rolled up copy of The Nation, then.

[Tonio]

"a mother who inflicts FGM on her daughter is trying to do her best for her daughter"

Some women in those cultures claim that FGM is necessary to prevent the daughters from becoming "harlots." Perhaps these women feel terrified of their own sexual impulses, or their cultures teach them to feel deep shame at these impulses. I'm not an expert in these cultures, so I don't have the answer.

[Jesurgislac]

But since you accept that women will continue to inflict FGM on their daughters and granddaughters for their own good, and to appear as advocates for the current system, presumably you expect men to 'create' this new society, not for women to do so by refusing to support FGM, both in the individual cases of their female relatives, and in demanding changes in law and opinions.

And I guess that's what makes you not-a-feminist: you jump instantly to the conclusion that, as in your view women cannot create a society where women don't need to be married and men feel ashamed to demand a mutilated wife, I must have meant for men to do it.

No, Rosina, that's your prejudice against women speaking, not my conclusion.

[Francis]

*sigh*

An abortion thread. This is going to go round in the usual circles. With the normal assumptions of bad faith. And the normal result for me of feeling that the pro-life side are less callous and amoral than the pro-choice side are presenting themselves as. (It's just a pity that the majority of the pro-life side (i.e. those that aren't also pro-contraception) have a morality that I would say is very close to pure evil). I'll take amoral over evil.

However, one thing that I constantly see is that the frames each side uses to think about abortion are incompatable.

The pro-choice lobby think of abortion in much the same way as prohibition. I don't think I need to explain this.

On the other hand, the pro-life lobby make the comparison between abortion and slavery (of the foetus rather than the mother). Which means that statements such as "the only people entitled to make decisions in this debate [are] women" get translated as "the only people entitled to make decisions for their n*gg**s are slaveowners". (Dobson in particular is keen on comparing himself with Wilberforce). And if you look at much of the pro-choice rhetoric from the perspective that the foetus should have some rights (even if inferior to those of the mother - no right of any sort to self-determination and the mother wins on direct life to life battles), much of the pro-choice side appears to make Ayn Rand sound caring and benevolent.

[Jesurgislac]

Francis: And the normal result for me of feeling that the pro-life side are less callous and amoral than the pro-choice side are presenting themselves as.

Because it's less callous and amoral to want women to die or become sterile? Funny: that's why I think of pro-lifers as callous and amoral, because of their absolute indifference to the health, life, and welfare of half the human race.

[Dave Lartigue]

The thing is, the Democrats COULD EASILY have an anti-abortion stand, if they would just figure out that they already do. When I hear about why abortion should be a legal choice, I hear about low wages, lack of health care, lack of child care, and so forth. These are social issues. I'm told that abortion should be legal because, for example, a young woman who finds herself pregnant may not be able to afford and care for a child. Instead of asking, "Well, why is this so hard? A child is an important resource to a government and said government should take a vital interest in ensuring it becomes a productive, useful citizen." we're then told that therefore she should be able to get an abortion. That's a nice choice because then it eliminates the need to actually address the sociopolitical problems that make an unplanned pregnancy so difficult to begin with.

If the Democrats were smart -- and they're not -- the few that are actually interested in addressing these problems instead of just being Republicans who sometimes don't just do whatever corporations want them to would say, "Hey. If we fix these things, we could work towards eliminating abortion simply through the action of there being no longer a need for it."

I know that's a pipe dream for a lot of reasons, but it's still one I have.

[Francis]

Because it's less callous and amoral to want women to die or become sterile?

If one woman has to die and another three have to become sterile in order to save 100 babies, a utilitarian would ask why you were trying to save one woman's life and four women's health by sacrificing fifty female infants.

Funny: that's why I think of pro-lifers as callous and amoral, because of their absolute indifference to the health, life, and welfare of half the human race.

Hmm... 50% of the human race are women. Not all women will be pregnant. Not all those will want an abortion (hopefully very few will). Yet 100% of the human race were foetusses. Playing by these numbers and your extrapolations, I wonder why you have absolute indifference to the life of the whole human race.

[hapax]

Francis, give it up. It is a Truth Universally Acknowledged that anyone who does not stand gape-jawed in wonder at the intrinsic wisdom and rightness of Jesurgislac's position on abortion just hateshateshates sex and women and all that is good and wants women and babies to diediedie horribly, jumping up and down on their mutilated bodies, cackling and masturbating.

(I mean, look at me. It's what I live for, after all.)

Any attempt to have a reasonable discussion on this topic will just leave you banging your head on your desk in frustration. Just accept it. By even entertaining the possibility that reasonable people may differ on this topic, you've already joined the haters.

[Tonio]

I propose this compromise - pro-choicers agree to a limited ban on abortion, with exceptions for rape, incest, or to preserve the life or health of the mother. In return, pro-lifers agree to firm protections for birth control. This would include requiring pharmacists to provide Plan B regardless of their own moral beliefs. Pharmacists' personal views about contraception apply to only their own personal lives, not to the lives of others.

I suspect that most pro-lifers would not want to outlaw contraception, whatever their own beliefs about it. My concern is that the extremists among pro-lifers seem to have more influence than the moderates, at least in places like South Dakota. If I read Bill Napoli correctly, he seriously wants a return to shotgun weddings:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/07/ivins.abortion/index.html

[Rosina]

And I guess that's what makes you not-a-feminist: you jump instantly to the conclusion that, as in your view women cannot create a society where women don't need to be married and men feel ashamed to demand a mutilated wife, I must have meant for men to do it.

No, Rosina, that's your prejudice against women speaking, not my conclusion.

No, Jesurgislac, my view is that women can change society - and if they want a society without FMG then they should start by opposing it, not by advocating it and ensuring that their daughters and granddaughters are mutilated. You seem to be saying that they can keep on encouraging FMS so that their daughters can marry, because the matriarchs know that an unmutilated girl will be unable to get married. That is, the male power to choose and reject women based on their mutilated/unmutilated state, is sufficient that mothers and grandmothers know they must force their daughters to submit to it. I think they can and should work towards challenging that male power - you are the one excusing them.

So who is going to change the way men think in those cultures? Western-raised feminists? Or their own mothers and sisters and future brides?

[straight]

No, that's the pro-lifer cover. Pro-lifers are not actually interested in the fetus, they just regard pregnancy and childbirth as the due punishment for a woman who has sex, and that's why men are as likely (or more likely - all the major leaders in the US pro-life movement are men) to be pro-life than women. It's a convenient way of working to control women's fertility.

I'm sorry, but this position is not credible. It doesn't explain the phenomenon Fred is documenting in this post.

Some pro-lifers might think this way, but claiming that millions of pro-life voters would make punishing "loose women" their number one priority in deciding who to vote for is ridiculous. Besides, there must be a lot easier ways to punish women for having sex than outlawing abortion. Outlawing abortion only "punishes" women who didn't use birth control, so if "punishing sex" is the real motive here, the pro-lifers are missing a whole lot of people.

[cjmr's husband]

No deal, Tonio. The left won't like that compromise because it will just increase the number of illegal abortions (it does nothing to eliminate the primary economic causes), and the right won't like it because they've been throughly convinced that Plan B is an abortion (it isn't) and OMG the Pill is abortion too.

Nothing can be done about abortion in this country but fight about it. Not until the primary economic causes are solved (universal child health care, free OB checkups, and day care are the simple ones; easy access to adoption would help; but the big ones are overhauling the education system and fixing the corporate Mommy Track, and that's just not going to happen)

[kcs_hiker]

Jesu sez:"Pro-life women are, by the stats, more likely to have abortions than pro-choice women - but will in general argue that they're entitled, that their abortion is "different".)"

I would like to see your statistics source for that info.

[Jesurgislac]

Francis: If one woman has to die and another three have to become sterile in order to save 100 babies, a utilitarian would ask why you were trying to save one woman's life and four women's health by sacrificing fifty female infants.

Ah, the familiar faked-up fantasy, ignoring the reality of pregnancy and women's health worldwide.

A utilitarian would ask, why do these pro-lifers want tens of thousands of women round the world to die, and hundreds of thousands more to be made sterile, when forcing women to illegal abortion or through unwanted pregnancy and childbirth won't, statistically, ensure that any more babies and children are born that live to grow up?

A utilitarian would ask, why do these people who claim they're pro-life not support policies that are proven to ensure that more women and babies live, and live healthy, long lives, than policies that only ensure that babies, pregnant woman, and the fetuses that the pro-lifers pretend to care about, will die?

But a utilitarian in the sense I believe you're using it, Francis, would say that question makes no sense: women exist only to be incubators, and the notion that women have lives that matter, and are - each, individual pregnant woman - the most capable person to decide whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy - would make no sense. A utilitarian pro-lifer would argue, as you do, that it's better for women to die as vessels for men's use than to live as independent human beings with the ability to decide how many children to have, and when.

Tonio: propose this compromise - pro-choicers agree to a limited ban on abortion, with exceptions for rape, incest, or to preserve the life or health of the mother. In return, pro-lifers agree to firm protections for birth control.

Uh, how is that a "compromise"? And how can you expect people who believe in a woman's right to choose to agree to force women through pregnancy and childbirth against their wills?

[Jesurgislac]

straight: Some pro-lifers might think this way, but claiming that millions of pro-life voters would make punishing "loose women" their number one priority in deciding who to vote for is ridiculous.

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? Yet Republican politicians in the US routinely stand on a platform that has planks in it arguing that "loose women" ought to be punished for having sex.

[Lucia]

I would be interested in knowing how many Democratic voters also vote based on candidates' stances on abortion.
I would too. My impression is that many more Republican voters than Democratic ones (by Republican or Democratic voter I mean a person who usually votes for one party or the other, not necessarily a party enrollee) are single-issue voters, at least on this particular issue.

Republicans champion a whole set of religiously-motivated values which align quite well with the Catholic and Evangelical voters: anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-religious-freedom, pro-war.
Yes, but here again I get the impression that these voters would be willing to give up all or most of these except abortion.

[Tonio]

@Cjmr's Husband

Really dumb question - how do those "primary economic causes" lead to unwanted pregnancies? I support all the measures you suggest, but these are after the babies have been born. Do you have any ides for reducing unwanted pregnancies? The cause offered by some extremists pro-lifers - that these women were simply being irresponsible - is not only inaccurate but insulting.

[Jesurgislac]

Rosina: No, Jesurgislac, my view is that women can change society - and if they want a society without FMG then they should start by opposing it, not by advocating it and ensuring that their daughters and granddaughters are mutilated.

You sound exactly like a pro-lifer who is *sure* that if only women would stop being wicked enough to want to have abortions, or knew they'd be punished if they did, abortions would just... stop.

Nope.

To change societal patterns, the best way to do it is not to hector the individual women who are making that choice, and blame them for their wickedness.

It's to set up a society where there are more choices open to women.

The reason we know pro-lifers are not serious about attempting to end abortion, or even minimize abortion numbers, is because their tactics are always on the strategy of hectoring, blaming, and punishing individual women for having sex, getting pregnant, and deciding to have and keep a baby they can't afford to raise without welfare support, or deciding to terminate because they're not ready to have a baby. Similarly, someone whose strategy consists of hectoring, blaming, and punishing the women who are at the sharp end of deciding whether to mutilate a baby daughter's genitals, or risk her death in 20 years from starvation or HIV because she cannot get married and there is no other option open to women for survival but marriage or prostitution, is clearly not that serious about ending FGM: only about feeling morally superior to these women.

[cjmr's husband]

Economic causes do not lead to pregnancy.

Economic causes lead to pregnancy being unwanted.

[Tonio]

An idea that relates to the abortion issue:

Meghan O'Rourke in Slate wrote, "From at least the 1920s (when everyone thought flappers were destroying manners) on through the 1980s (when teen pregnancy rates had everyone alarmed), girls have been hearing that THEIR sex lives are the symbol of generational decadence." Why do you think that is? Why do so many cultures have a double standard regarding sexuality, with sexual freedom tolerated or encouraged for men but forbidden for women?

I think I have a possible answer, although an asinine one. I found the quote below on the Post/Newsweek OnFaith site. My stomach turned when I read this:

"n a highly significant way, women are naturally not equal but superior to men: every natural birth consists of a neonate and one known parent, to whom the infant is physically connected. By DNA, the other parent can be known--but is the husband the father or a cuckold? Societies vary in arrangements intended to prevent cuckoldry, reducing female freedom so that husband and wife both can know themselves to be parents of the children in their charge...To cuckolds, (radical feminists) say 'Get used to it; don't make such a big deal of it.' How little some women understand men's hearts! Women have no fear of cuckoldry, so marriage for them is nesting: men are fearful of providing nests for other men's children."

@Jesurgislac,

"Uh, how is that a 'compromise'? And how can you expect people who believe in a woman's right to choose to agree to force women through pregnancy and childbirth against their wills?"

It would be a compromise in the strictest sense of the word, since both sides would be giving up something in return for getting something else.

I personally don't favor the compromise. However, I might accept it if was the only way to prevent a bloody civil war over the issue. I would hope that guaranteeing access to birth control, including Plan B, would dramatically reduce the number the abortions.

[Francis]

I'd forgotten just what an advert for the benevolence of the patriarchy as compared to a feminist alternative you were Jesu.

You appear to be pulling out the "illegal abortion" canard - that every single abortion that happens now would happen were abortion to be legal and contraception to be freely available to all. A woman should have the right to choose whether to become pregnant in the first place (and as far as I am concerned, anyone opposing that is every bit as much a mysogenist as you claim they are). And a utilitarian philosophy would not necessarily alter this (the foetus does not exist prior to this point).

However, you appear to want the right to kill another human being when you make a mistake. If you believe that the foetus is every bit as human as the mother (I don't - it isn't sapient or even sentient), that attitude can only be described as that of a sociopath.

There is a world of difference between desiring to punish the mother and desiring to protect the baby. (I fully agree that a depressing proportion of the pro-life movement wants to punish the mother).

[straight]

I think I have a possible answer, although an asinine one. I found the quote below on the Post/Newsweek OnFaith site. My stomach turned when I read this:

Tonio, that would fall under #2 in Fred's list of "Three final points".

[McJulie]

It's interesting to me -- when you look at the thundering anti-homosexual, anti-abortion rhetoric of the right wing, and the number of those among them who actually have abortions, or routine homosexual encounters -- I start to suspect that the thing they really can't tolerate in liberal society is the lack of sexual shame. They have no problem with breaking sexual taboos*, and do it routinely. What they can't stand is the idea of admitting those taboos have no purpose -- that we can just chuck them out and define our lives some other way.

Further, the thing they really can't stand is that the world without those ancient taboos might actually be kinder, better-behaved, more prosperous, and civilized -- a better world by any objective measure.

*I've argued before that, no matter what people say they think about abortion, what people really think is that it's a sexual sin roughly on par with adultery. So I won't re-argue that here.

[Jesurgislac]

Francis: However, you appear to want the right to kill another human being when you make a mistake.

Whereas you just want to treat the mass death of human beings round the world as an opportunity for self-righteous condemnation of their wickedness.

Hm. Francis, would you like to be a character in Left Behind? You'd fit right in.

There is a world of difference between desiring to punish the mother and desiring to protect the baby.

Not if you're using "protect the baby" as a euphemism for "force another human being through pregnancy and childbirth against her will".

[Rosina]

To change societal patterns, the best way to do it is not to hector the individual women who are making that choice, and blame them for their wickedness.

It's to set up a society where there are more choices open to women.

I think I agree with you. But could you please provide the 'agent' for the sentence "It's to set up a society..." As it stands, I am not sure who is going to do that in countries where there is female genital mutilation. And also how they are going to do it without criticising those who currently support the practice. We are ruling out invasion and regime change by the West, I assume.