Thursday, April 19, 2007

Conservatives on Abortion Decision

Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Conservatives Celebrate Ban on Abortion Procedure
Posted by: Matt Lewis at 5:16 PM

It's fair for the conservative movement deserves a lot of credit for today's Supreme Court decision to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion. We worked to elect a president who would make good Supreme Court picks -- and he did.

Here's what the Washington Post has to say:

The dramatic decision delivered to abortion opponents the promise of a more conservative court as reconstituted by Bush, who praised the majority's rejection of what he called an "abhorrent procedure" and suggested that he would continue working for greater restrictions on abortion.

The ruling marked the first time that the court has upheld a ban on a specific abortion procedure. It also marked a departure from the Supreme Court's past practice of requiring a "health exception" in laws governing abortion to allow the procedure when a woman's health would otherwise be at risk.

Granted, he needed our help to avoid Harriet Miers (yes, I opposed her nomination from the beginning). Of course, we cannot say, for sure, how she would have voted on upholding the partial-birth abortion ban. But I, for one, feel a lot safer with Roberts and Alito -- don't you?

And we can definitely use something positive to celebrate right now. Here's what Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council wrote today:

After three very dark days for our nation, those who cherish life rejoice in the news that the Supreme Court no longer endorses the senseless killing of innocent, partially-born babies.

In a week where the effects of violence have been so keenly felt, we applaud the U.S. Supreme Court's decision today upholding Congress's statute that ends the bloodshed of the unborn by the horrific partial-birth abortion procedure.

I've been saying for a long time now, that conservative bloggers and activists deserve credit for our current Supreme Court. Here's what a liberal blog, Save the Court, wrote back in January of '06:

In what he calls an underreported story, Matt Lewis, author of a guidebook for effectively communicating with GOP voters, writes in Human Events that “Conservative bloggers, pundits, and activists stopped the Harriet Meirs nomination,” and if Alito is confirmed “much of the credit will rightfully belong to the conservative movement.” Calling this “truly an historic accomplishment,” Lewis also claims credit for doing “the President a huge favor by saving him the embarrassment of a disastrous confirmation hearing” by opposing Harriet Miers.

Tonight, we rightly celebrate the ruling. After all, imagine what would have happened today if we hadn't worked hard to get good judges on the bench ...


retro_liberal said...

Why is it exactly that conservatives try to take some sort of “moral high ground” on issues like abortion, homosexuality, and even gun control? It seems to me that the entire conservative movement is based on some faulty sense of being “holier/more moral than thou.” Yet, when conservatives attack liberals they accuse them of “knowing it all.”

For instance “those who cherish life” is clearly a moral high ground statement. Why, if the conservatives cherish life, then of course the liberals are immoral mongrels who want to eat babies in a nice stew. And let me tell you, baby stew is scrumptious! I had a helping just the other day, mmmm good!

Conservatives have no other alternative but to make either “moral high ground” arguments, or emotional appeals. They’re arguments generally fall apart closer inspection, or when being compared to liberal arguments. That is not to say anything bad of the emotional appeal; emotions should certainly be taken into context. However who one bases their entire philosophy on some sort of broken moral code or and emotional appeal, then one never makes a rational choice.

Further evidence is the emotional appeal by Justice Kennedy in the post below. Instead of making a rational argument he attempts to gross us into submission by explaining the partial birth procedure. Yet, I’m sure conservatives would never explain the procedure involved—in all its gruesome glory---with capital punishment. They only promote the humane the procedure is. Yet, a life was taken, and in some cases those lives that were taken were innocent. Yet, they would never dream of doing away with capital punishment.

Anonymous said...

DancingChef says. . . .
Why is it now in the United States that it is becoming the American-way to force you views, your religions, and your opinions on to other people? Conservatives in America, having been against abortion since it has been around. Please do not mistake what I am saying; I don’t think it is right to kill another human being. But it is also not right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body. Conservatives say that they are fighting for man-kind but what they don’t realize that with this fight for having the Government ban abortion, they are giving the Government an unstoppable power over its people. Like Matt Lewis writes, calling this “truly an historic accomplishment,” but for what. So that the American Government now has made laws putting regulations on what a female may do with her own body, when this law really does not protect anyone; it only protect what other people believe is right for a women to decide to do to her body. Once again I am not saying it is right to kill someone but if there can’t be partial-birth abortion, then tell me why it is fine to have capital-punishment and whatever happened to that little saying “America. . . . the land of the free.”

MaxTurmoil said...

I am in agreement with retro_liberal about the moral high ground. If anyone wants to talk about morals then let’s do it. In order to be moral you have to be able to make moral decisions. If you cannot make moral decisions then you can immoral nor moral. This is why we do not extend moral rightness or wrongness to animals when they kill another animal for meat. Nevertheless, does a baby get more rights than the mother bearing it? I say no because if the woman health is in danger, I cannot think of the case now but the woman who needed the abortion was not allowed it and she was subsequently blind. How is she going to take care of a baby? It is not as if she was always blind and thus capable of taking care of herself. Now she is going to be dependent on the government for assistance in living. If the woman’s health is in danger then I feel it is completely up to the woman to decide whether to go through with it. Because those “those who cherish life” can also appreciate the finer aspects of like that make it worthwhile to live, such as sight, sense, feel, touch, thought processes and the like. How is going blind cherishing her life?

GreatAmerican said...

I want to make a few comments on the issue of abortion. First of all I am very happy of the Supreme Courts decision to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion. I do not believe that conservatives feel that they are morally superior they just believe that taking a life is murder and everyone should have the chance to live. I am conservative but I do not think I am morally better than a liberal. I think that I am right because everyone should get a chance at life. As far as the Supreme Court ruling I think that the correct call was made. I believe that this ruling is keeping our country on track. I feel strongly about this issue and I want every conservative to feel proud that this ruling was upheld. We fight hard to keep America on the right track and this is a big win in that aspect.

viper10 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
viper10 said...

Congrats! I am happy that the ban of partial birth abortion was held up. I don't think that we should be killing people when they are half way out the birth canal. The way I see it, when your that far you better keep the baby or let a family that can't have one of their own adopt it. While I can argue that; if you don't want a child don't have sex, or at least use protection. However, someone else could argue, what if the woman was the victim of rape? My answer to this would be simple, don't put yourself in these situations by walking down dark alleys alone, or dressing like a hooker. Both of which could get you raped. So my final words are; don't put yourself in these situations and you won't have anything to worry about. Also be smart and know who you sleep with, and be prepared to either have a child or let someone adopt them if you feel there is no way you can raise them.

nbk01 said...

I can’t help but laugh when listening to this author’s viewpoint. I’m not saying that it really represents the entire conservative attitude but it is a good sample from what I’ve come to know in my experiences. So the Supreme Court has made the decision to uphold life? Instead of what, purposely allowing women to barbarically slaughter their unborn children in the worst and most gruesome way possible? I’m not at all arguing that the ruling was not a good one and the right one to make, because it most definitely was. All I’m saying is that it’s hard to see the language used to celebrate this victory in this article in a way that doesn’t point the finger at somebody. Instead, we are implored to thank George Bush for this victory, a man responsible for the death of thousands of American soldiers since 2003. Please don’t give me the moral high ground argument because I honestly can’t help but point fingers and yell hypocrite at those who do. Why should I thank a man for this decision and somehow connect him to such a just cause when looking at his past actions. We talked in class about the idea that no one should ever take the life of another outside of the state of nature. The way I view the current state of things, every military death in Iraq is another life taken by the President because it has been his decision to keep our troops there up to this point. Was he in a state of nature when he decided that our military needed to continue to be there? The answer is no. So in theory, he had no right to take these young men and women’s lives. Therefore I cannot thank a man who may or may not be responsible for the ending of a terrible abortion procedure because aside from God, who has the authority to deem an unborn babies life more valuable then an adult’s?

rodeo8 said...

In response to nbk01…
Yes, in class we did discuss the fact that no one should take a life outside of the state of nature under Locke’s theories, however these theories are crazy. No society can live in the state of nature, because just having one law that says treat others like self and do no harm to others, is pushing it and then saying that those who are told to act that way, are able to punish those who don’t. Well my question is what is the justification behind being able to punish someone for breaking natural law? Locke didn’t have a justification in his laws, basically he allowed for the society to be a blood bath for everyone, because treating others like self is basically meaning being perfect and no one is perfect, so people would be dropping like flies. Locke’s whole ideal of a society is just ridiculous, because it is not allowing for everyone to live their life as they please or better yet even having an option at life.
The Supreme Court has made the decision to uphold life, which is giving everyone a fair chance at life. No one’s life should be decided because some messed up and created you. As far as what they do with their life afterwards is up to them, if they choose to join the military then that is their right, because they no that they may die for this country whether they believe the right is just or not. Right now with the war on terror, yes we are still in Iraq, but we commented to making them a democracy and if we pull out now, then they will never get there. Going into Iraq has justification just because if we had not and they would have obtained weapons of mass destruction our country would have been in jeopardy, so while you say President Bush is killing innocent lives, really he is not because he is protecting our country.

Lindsay said...

A ban on partial birth abortion is truly a problem. Though many see it as a victory for unborn fetuses, it can essentially be a death sentence for so many women who have life-threatening pregnancy complications. Though many people don't realize it, banning partial birth abortions means that almost no doctors are trained to perform them. This means that if a woman's fetus dies while still in the womb, or a potentially life-threatening complication arises, she will have nearly no options for healthcare because there are hardly any trained doctors available to perform the necessary procedure that could save her life. Some may say that a fetus's life is more important than the woman carrying it, and I'm sure it is easy to say that when it's not your mother or wife or sister who may be the one dying.

You are a rape apologist. It is horribly disgusting to hear you claim that rape is a woman's fault, and that if she conforms to what you expect of her, she will "have nothing to worry about." You are severly deluded. Also, I do not feel the duty to be an incubator for those couples who cannot have children of their own. I just thought I'd put that out there. It is not my responsibility to supply infertile couples with children.

spiegelglanz said...

Wow, here I was reading the comments and it wasn't until the end that I saw someone reply to viper10's radical rapist sympathy. That's kinda sad.

As for this post, I think I might be alone in supporting partial birth abortion in many cases. The health of the woman carrying the fetus, the changes in circumstances surrounding the child's upbringing, cases of rape--all justify partial birth abortion in my book. A fetus is not an American citizen and does not have our rights, it is not yet a human and has no human rights. Defending its "life" is comparable to defending the "life" of any other cluster of cells.

You can use cliché phrases all day to defend your case, my favorite being the "I support life, I choose life, defend life, etc." rhetoric. It really closes the debate that the fetus HAS a life.

Of course, I support prevention. Sex education and safe sex, simple as that. If abortion is necessary, it's best to have it as soon as possible. But when cases arise when a partial birth abortion procedure is necessary, some umbrella ban on it for no one's sake does no one any good.

Locke also concluded that we could not live in the state of nature. He decided that we have the alternative called government, forming a society wherein we surrender our ability to carry out the state of nature and forego certain rights for the sake of organization and justice. Should this government not work in our best interest, it should be replaced. In that vein, I personally advocate the replacement of the current government.

Decrying partial birth abortion on the grounds of some invented moral superiority leaves out the warrant that the unborn or partially born fetus constitutes a life. Using its gruesome nature as a procedure is simple propaganda... I can't think of many medical procedures that AREN'T gruesome. At least I haven't seen anyone try to use religion to justify their position, since the government and this decision should be secular.

Using Locke is a new one for me, though.

rashardtae said...

These conservatives are so cocky. This conservative movement seems to me to feel as if it is so great and everything that has to do with such a prolific issue as abortion is because of the conservatives. How can they talk about those who cherish life as if liberals don’t cherish life. What is that? Conservatives are full of shit. I cherish life just as much as an conservative. But, I bet the last person who had an abortion can not be guaranteed an liberal. Maybe, this is a pawn because they know that a liberal will take office in the next presidential term to make it seem as if you feel that life is important than you have to be a conservative because no person who is a liberal feels that life is something that you should cherish. The Conservatives are trying to use bandwagon appeal to trick its readers into believing as they do. How does anyone have the right to tell some one what to do with there own person. How can you tell me what to do with something that is a part of me. If I have a part of my body that is killing me will the government pressure me to get it fixed. But, how can the government tell a woman who is carrying a baby which is technically apart of her that she can’t do what she want with it. Especially, If it couldn’t survive on its own.

nbk01 said...

rodeo8...please learn some grammar as well as what Locke's theories really are if you want to debate this. Understanding the argument youre trying to make could also help. Good luck with that.

Lokanda2 said...

I am happy with this decision by the Supreme Court. Abortion is a very sensitive topic that splits Liberals and Conservatives. I for one do not support abortion because it is killing a child/fetus or whatever you want to refer to it. A baby’s heart starts beating 6 weeks after it was conceived, if the heart beats then it is murder. So I don’t like it when people say you’re not killing a child your killing a fetus. This is untrue is most cases. The issue of abortion shouldn’t be left of to the government. It should not be an issue at all but because women decided to have an abortion and kill a child someone has to step in a do something because as long as abortion is legal it will be done by somebody somewhere. Abortion is an ethical and moral issue and to say that conservatives think they are more moral than liberals might be a true statement. If you consider this situation then yes it is true. But I don’t support there gun control laws so I think liberals are more moral in that part. The truth is both parties will fight for what they believe in because they have to or there would be nothing to talk about and the USA would be utopia.

MaxTurmoil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MaxTurmoil said...

I am so compelled to respond to viper10 comments on here.

First, I try to be nice, but you sir are a dumbass for saying the following:

How in the world can you say to women that are raped, don't put yourself in that situation, dark alleys dressing like a hooker? Do you know anything? Rape is not about how a woman dressed or looks like - it is about control. What you said is not only appalling but makes me wonder if you were in a dark alley and saw a small woman with revealing clothes would you try to rape her? Lindsey is right you are a rape apologist.

However, back on the topic of partial birth abortion, sometimes complications arise. Anyone who has carried their baby through 2 trimester of pregnancies will most likely not up and decide to have an abortion at the last minute. Most people can see the morality of this. However, complications can arise and complicate the woman's health. In addition, she has every right to abort the fetus to save her own life. It does not matter if she willing had sex to make a child. It does not matter about the rights of the fetus. It is in her body she has control. If you want to argue then you have to consider that this potential person existed in an egg, and with that mindset every women who ever had a period has killed a potential person. MURDERERS!! Alternatively, for that matter any man who only produces one baby with the millions of sperm he ejaculates. Again where is the humanity!! Oh no.

Again, viper10, if a woman is raped. If she doesn't want it, that is her choice. If she keeps it fine, if not fine, gives it up to adoption it is her choice and that is something you don't want to accept or don't understand. I think even prochoicers will realize that late term pregnancies can pose morality problems but there still needs to be looking out for the mothers health.

mckendree5454 said...

Conservatives on Abortion Decisions
With the George Bush appointed justices the Row v Wade decision is getting turned on its
head more and more. One other conservative judge and the decision might get totally
turned around. Most anti abortion activists are salivating at this most recent decision.
They know it is only due time until the case is overturned and abortion becomes illegal.
I personally do not believe in abortion I believe its wrong, and a human life is created
when the sperm and egg meet. Going with my religion I also believe that Jesus would want
no abortions either. He would want to preserve human life. The only time I think
abortion is ok is when the mom will die if the baby is not aborted I think Jesus would
agree. No getting all that on the table I think there is even a bigger issue than
abortion here. Last time I checked the judicial branch was supposed to interpret the
laws not make their own laws. This is exactly what they are doing too. Congress is
supposed to make the laws. With this abortion ruling they are making the laws and this
is crazy. Who is it for the Supreme Court judges to decide whether abortion is legal?
This matter should be up to the states and the American people. This is not a federal
government issue.

Joe Gray said...

Banning the right for an abortion is banning the right to be a fee U.S. citizen. It is the choice of the person to have an abortion or not, not the government, an unexpected baby can ruin a person’s life especially if you’re a teen or single. You’re not killing a baby, your disposing of a “thing” with no soul or feelings which is actually just a parasite. Everyday the government is taking away more and more of our rights and freedoms, when you take away abortion you take away stem cell research and then you take away the possible cure for cancer.

the procrastinator said...

Throughout the semester we have argued so much about individuality and how important it is to a society. I already have so many problems with the different parties, I don’t see why we should have a republican party and a democratic party, why not look at the issue at hand and think for yourself on what is right or wrong. When it comes to the issue of abortion, if you are pro-choice you are democratic and if you are pro-life then you are republican.
I personally do not believe abortion is right, however, I don’t believe the government should ban abortion. It should be the choice of the woman to decide if she wants to have one along with the doctor’s choice whether he wants to do abortions.
It seems as if the government and leaders of the country are trying to put their personal beliefs into law. On an issue such as abortion, it comes to a moral issue. Some see it as morally wrong to abort and some see no problem with it, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The government needs to learn to respect people’s choices and their right to a choice.

John said...

Conservatives on Abortion Decision

Conservative movements and their claim of partial birth abortion being an “abhorrent procedure” deserve credit for their hard efforts made towards having this procedure banned at the Supreme Court level. Decision banning this procedure, as well as made against partial birth abortions, claims by the president and a pat on the back to the Supreme Court justices who upheld the ban.

Morality and choices in my opinion have played a big role in the decisions made by the Supreme Court. However, does not go without saying that our individual morality and choices driven by our society obligations we were instrumental in electing those who voted on such a controversial decision. I stand with many on pro-choice issues, but disapprove of partial birth abortions, unless it is a matter of life and death on behalf of the mother. It is a plain and simple argument, abortions are necessary where the woman was raped, her health or life (or that of the fetus) is at risk, contraception was used but failed, or she feels unable to raise a child.

What I do not understand and disagree with is waiting until the second trimester to have an abortion; I feel this is wrongful and negligent (I am sure there are more arguments). Although many claims this ban on partial birth decision had to do with the election of certain Justices to the Supreme Court by the president, it clearly sends the message that the majority of the people had a hand on this decision; whether it was right or wrong, we elected them.

Anonymous said...

To the conservatives who are boasting about the ruling of upholding the ban on partial birth abortions, I have much to say. First of all I want you all to think about the seriousness of the freedom you have taken away. By no means am I saying whether or not I support the issue of abortion but I do support the issue of preserving my own individual freedoms. Today we say women do not have the right to say whether or not they want to have a being that they are providing life to, tomorrow what right will be taken away, the right to vote, or our freedom of speech? To those who think they are doing such good in the world by enforcing this judgment and decision I want to know if they have considered the welfare of the mother, whom carries the baby. If in fact the mother finds out that the birth of her unborn baby will result in the death of herself, does the potential life outweigh that of the actual life? This is something that must be addressed when considering taking away ones freedom to control whether or not their life, liberty, happiness and health are at stake.