In the course of human events, the hot blood of our body politic boils over into catcalls and caterwauling on the way to greater truths. That’s another way of saying the great thing about a democracy, democratically speaking, is that we have a way of resolving issues over time—and sometimes even for the better.
Exhibit A: gun control and the killings at Virginia Tech.
Exhibit B: our Supreme Court’s decision to ban partial-birth abortion.
Absolutists—and you know who you are—will abhor the politics of both gun control and abortion, but I would argue that both issues are being resolved in a wrestling match that actually leans to the center and away from absolutism—and for the greater good.
Guns were banned from the Virginia Tech campus. The student who took 33 lives, including his own, was a South Korean citizen who had obtained his guns legally, according to press reports. He literally went ballistic and no law of the land was going to stop him.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) and many conservatives believe the rights delineated in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution are absolute, and that the government has no right to restrict a citizen’s right to bear arms.
But a South Korean citizen? A person with a green card? An illegal immigrant?
The gun lobby will find it difficult to find much sympathy for allowing those who are not citizens to have the right to bear arms, much as they have been hard-pressed to explain why a man in a blind needs an AK-47 to hunt for game.
Nonetheless, the NRA and the gun lobby have effectively won this fight on many, many levels. There are some 200 million guns in circulation in the United States, according to one account, and hunting licenses are not exactly hard to come by. Before the Virginia Tech massacres, liberal politicians mentioned guns at the risk of their own political lives.
Remember the folly of John Kerry in an orange hunting jacket? Or Mitt Romney’s insistence against all odds that he was a hunter—before saying he was nothing of the sort?
The right to own guns is far from absolute, but the NRA can sleep easily at night with a shotgun by the bedstand: nobody’s about to take your gun away. Ain’t going to happen.
Which brings us to the Supreme Court’s ban on partial-birth abortion. The Absolutists on the side of a women’s right to choose consider that right to be absolute—that any woman for any reason could presumably end a pregnancy with impunity at any time.
At the moment of conception and in the days afterward, the argument that what lays beneath the surface of a mother’s skin is not a human being has the force of logic because the life is in no way sustainable. As the days go by—as the clock tocks—the argument loses moral force by the day because the eyes, ears, nose, throat and perhaps even the soul of the fetus begin to take shape. At a certain point, on an uncertain day, the argument that the fetus is not a human being gets tortured to say the least.
Let’s work backwards in this argument to the moment nine months into the pregnancy, right before the labor begins that ends in a birth. Is there any question that a human being is being born? None. Now work your way backwards to eight months, seven months, six, and so on. At what point, at what moment, does the argument lose force? At what point in a pregnancy does the woman’s right to choose give way to a baby’s right to be born.
We can argue this point forever without coming to consensus, but I don’t know anyone who would argue that a mother has the absolute right to abort her child right up to the moment before birth. I think most reasonable people would agree that would be murder—and don’t confuse the issue with those inevitable discussions about saving the life of the mother, because that argument all but acknowledges two lives, and not just one, rest in the balance, thereby establishing that a mother’s right is not absolute.
Once you acknowledge that a moment comes on the continuum where we are talking about one, rather than two human beings—regardless of when that moment begins—than you are admitting a women’s right to choose is absolutely not absolute. And I would argue further that this is a good thing, that a ban on partial-birth abortions, anathema as it may be to most liberals like me, is nonetheless a welcome step away from the very human possibility of barbarity.
At the end of the day, at the end of a pregnancy, neither the right to bear arms nor the right to an abortion is absolute—and that is as it should be in a world where every life counts.
Michael,
A very thoughtful post. Thanks… Your contention,
[I would argue that both issues are being resolved in a wrestling match that actually leans to the center and away from absolutism—and for the greater good.]
suggests reason ultimately wins the day, a commendably optimistic way to characterize what’s happening with the gun control and partial-birth abortion issues. Yet, the day before you post this, Senator Barbara Boxer opens a speech on global warming with this statement:
Thank you so much for being here. I know this is a very hard and emotional week given everything that’s happened, uh, continuing violence in Iraq, the horrific, the terrible news about the accident that our good, dear friend Gov. Corzine is suffering from, the Virginia Tech tragedy that brings back in a, almost in a post traumatic stress way to many of us, uh, the violence that exists far too much in this society… and today a Supreme Court decision that I believe endangers women’s health, and of course, the global warming challenge that I want to talk to you about today.
~Senator Barbara Boxer (D. California), in a speech on Global Warming, 4/18/07
Senator Boxer equates partial birth abortion to “violence in Iraq,” Governor Corzine’s unfortunate injuries suffered in a car crash, the Virginia Tech massacre, and global warming—not on the basis of human life, but on the basis of “women’s health.” To me, the Senator’s words illustrate the placement of political agenda before any reasoned analysis, and, where most politicians are concerned, this is the rule, not the exception. If the Senator’s words are representative of the current political climate, and I believe they are, extremism—or “absolutism” if you like—is alive and well-living in the halls of Congress.
In a world where every life counts, how does this help?
Cheers,
Michael,
A very thoughtful post. Thanks… Your contention,
[I would argue that both issues are being resolved in a wrestling match that actually leans to the center and away from absolutism—and for the greater good.]
suggests reason ultimately wins the day, a commendably optimistic way to characterize what’s happening with the gun control and partial-birth abortion issues. Yet, the day before you post this, Senator Barbara Boxer opens a speech on global warming with this statement:
Thank you so much for being here. I know this is a very hard and emotional week given everything that’s happened, uh, continuing violence in Iraq, the horrific, the terrible news about the accident that our good, dear friend Gov. Corzine is suffering from, the Virginia Tech tragedy that brings back in a, almost in a post traumatic stress way to many of us, uh, the violence that exists far too much in this society… and today a Supreme Court decision that I believe endangers women’s health, and of course, the global warming challenge that I want to talk to you about today.
~Senator Barbara Boxer (D. California), in a speech on Global Warming, 4/18/07
Senator Boxer equates partial birth abortion to “violence in Iraq,” Governor Corzine’s unfortunate injuries suffered in a car crash, the Virginia Tech massacre, and global warming—not on the basis of human life, but on the basis of “women’s health.” To me, the Senator’s words illustrate the placement of political agenda before any reasoned analysis, and, where most politicians are concerned, this is the rule, not the exception. If the Senator’s words are representative of the current political climate, and I believe they are, extremism—or “absolutism” if you like—is alive and well-living in the halls of Congress.
In a world where every life counts, how does this help?
Cheers,
MIcahel, your view is not anathema to all liberals and I would argue it is more mainstream than either extreme would have you believe. I am a liberal that has been frustrated by the public comments made by my fellow liberals concerning the recent supreme court decision on “partial birth” abortion. I think pro-choice organizations like Planned Parenthood (an organization I have nothing but appreciation for) have dropped the ball entirely when it comes to this issue. Here is a chance for logical compromise, here is a chance to be the reasonable view to fall in line to what I believe (and while I can’t site the exact issue “The Economist” found in a poll) is the prevailing view of the average american. Who knows when “life” begins it’s so easy to say that it either begins A. at conception or B. at birth but anyone with any experience and wisdom can probably argree with you that maybe it is somewhere inbetween. I just had my first child in January and I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that the difference between my first trimester and my third was dramatic. I believe strongly that women have the right to decide whether to continue with a pregnancy in the initial weeks, it is a health issue. However there is no circumstance in which I could understand why a woman in her late second or third trimester should then be able to re-evaluate a decision she already made and no expert interviewed by NPR or anyone else has convinced me that legitimate health exceptions exist. There are plenty of health concerns that arise late in pregnancy that jepordize the well-being of the mother and these, as far as I know, in their extremes usually result in induced labor and life saving measures for the baby. Maybe I’m wrong but no abortion procedure could be any more safe than a c-section or labor itself.
I truly feel that in such matters, while legal wording may count, there is no such thing as a slippery slope. As a society we can agree on middle grounds. We can outlaw late term abortions while still allowing safe and legal early abortions. We can respect a citizen’s right to own a gun while still implementing intelligent restrictions on gun ownership. Gay marriage is not on the slippery slope to polygamy, environmental regulations are not on the slippery slope to socialism, and allowing legal Mexican migrants to enter the US is not a dangerous step towards and irradication of our culture. I thought the rejection of absolutes and the intellectual analysis of issues is what defined liberals more than anything else and I don’t think it is overly optomistic to assume that as a society we can eventually find the best distance between the extremes that benefits people and society and not ideas.
Thanks, Michael for voicing a liberal opinion on these issues I can get behind.
~K
MIcahel, your view is not anathema to all liberals and I would argue it is more mainstream than either extreme would have you believe. I am a liberal that has been frustrated by the public comments made by my fellow liberals concerning the recent supreme court decision on “partial birth” abortion. I think pro-choice organizations like Planned Parenthood (an organization I have nothing but appreciation for) have dropped the ball entirely when it comes to this issue. Here is a chance for logical compromise, here is a chance to be the reasonable view to fall in line to what I believe (and while I can’t site the exact issue “The Economist” found in a poll) is the prevailing view of the average american. Who knows when “life” begins it’s so easy to say that it either begins A. at conception or B. at birth but anyone with any experience and wisdom can probably argree with you that maybe it is somewhere inbetween. I just had my first child in January and I can tell you without a doubt in my mind that the difference between my first trimester and my third was dramatic. I believe strongly that women have the right to decide whether to continue with a pregnancy in the initial weeks, it is a health issue. However there is no circumstance in which I could understand why a woman in her late second or third trimester should then be able to re-evaluate a decision she already made and no expert interviewed by NPR or anyone else has convinced me that legitimate health exceptions exist. There are plenty of health concerns that arise late in pregnancy that jepordize the well-being of the mother and these, as far as I know, in their extremes usually result in induced labor and life saving measures for the baby. Maybe I’m wrong but no abortion procedure could be any more safe than a c-section or labor itself.
I truly feel that in such matters, while legal wording may count, there is no such thing as a slippery slope. As a society we can agree on middle grounds. We can outlaw late term abortions while still allowing safe and legal early abortions. We can respect a citizen’s right to own a gun while still implementing intelligent restrictions on gun ownership. Gay marriage is not on the slippery slope to polygamy, environmental regulations are not on the slippery slope to socialism, and allowing legal Mexican migrants to enter the US is not a dangerous step towards and irradication of our culture. I thought the rejection of absolutes and the intellectual analysis of issues is what defined liberals more than anything else and I don’t think it is overly optomistic to assume that as a society we can eventually find the best distance between the extremes that benefits people and society and not ideas.
Thanks, Michael for voicing a liberal opinion on these issues I can get behind.
~K
I am about as liberal as you are going to find across a broad spectrum of issues. partial birth abortions are about as barbaric and subhuman as one can get and are next to cannibalism as far as my moral philosophy goes. This to me is homocide, legally murder or not. I have grudgingly accepted very early abortions and RU486, but never anything such as this demented idea of freedom. Totally sick.
I support the second amendment but not the N.R. A.. We have a responsibitiy as citizens to make sure felons and non citizens don’t get guns from the gun lobby dealers that have hijacked the N.R.A. and perverted second amendment rights into the gundealer right to sell guns to anyone they damn well please.
I am about as liberal as you are going to find across a broad spectrum of issues. partial birth abortions are about as barbaric and subhuman as one can get and are next to cannibalism as far as my moral philosophy goes. This to me is homocide, legally murder or not. I have grudgingly accepted very early abortions and RU486, but never anything such as this demented idea of freedom. Totally sick.
I support the second amendment but not the N.R. A.. We have a responsibitiy as citizens to make sure felons and non citizens don’t get guns from the gun lobby dealers that have hijacked the N.R.A. and perverted second amendment rights into the gundealer right to sell guns to anyone they damn well please.
Geesh Ed. You and I see eye-to-eye on partial birth abortion, early abortion, and RU486.
Surely that doesn’t make me a liberal, any more than it makes you a conservative…
Cheers,
Geesh Ed. You and I see eye-to-eye on partial birth abortion, early abortion, and RU486.
Surely that doesn’t make me a liberal, any more than it makes you a conservative…
Cheers,
Interesting how people who have never had tand will never have o face the choice of whether to terminate a pregnancy, or experience the kind of desperation that might lead someone to take such drastic action as partial birth abortion, have no problem passing judgement on the issue.
Why is this a federal or even a stateconcern at all? What business does the government have legislating my womb?
Interesting how people who have never had tand will never have o face the choice of whether to terminate a pregnancy, or experience the kind of desperation that might lead someone to take such drastic action as partial birth abortion, have no problem passing judgement on the issue.
Why is this a federal or even a stateconcern at all? What business does the government have legislating my womb?
The line has to be drawn somewhere. You are not allowed to kill your baby in the days following birth regardless of how your situation might have changed or how desperate you may have become. I think, then, that many people would agree that in the final months of pregnancy when the fetus is viable outside of the womb we can extend that protection in the interest of a compassionate society. I don’t believe the government has any right to force a woman to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy and assume all the health issues that go with it but by the final trimester of pregnancy the woman has already made her decision concerning her own womb.
The line has to be drawn somewhere. You are not allowed to kill your baby in the days following birth regardless of how your situation might have changed or how desperate you may have become. I think, then, that many people would agree that in the final months of pregnancy when the fetus is viable outside of the womb we can extend that protection in the interest of a compassionate society. I don’t believe the government has any right to force a woman to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy and assume all the health issues that go with it but by the final trimester of pregnancy the woman has already made her decision concerning her own womb.
Reckless — we don’t agree on much, but we agree here. I have no qualms in laying it out there in public that I’m personally against abortion unless its a result of incest, sexual abuse, rape, etc. Thats personal. Yet, from a societal view, I’m definately pro choice. I don’t think it is the government’s business to dictate to a girl/woman what she has to choose. She has a right to choose, and she will live with the ramifications of her choice for the rest of her life and ultimately reconcile with her Maker one day in Heaven.
And Ed from Aspen, I still always agree with you. I support our 2nd Amendment right,, and I own guns, but I do not agree with alot of what NRA stands for and lets happen. I seriously don’t think they will be getting any more of my miniscule support, financially . — J
I was adopted, yet know both my biological mother and father, who are separate in separate parts of the country. I respect them for making the choices they made. I respect them for making it possible to have a pretty good, pretty well off upbringing with caring people whom I will forever consider my family, too.
Reckless — we don’t agree on much, but we agree here. I have no qualms in laying it out there in public that I’m personally against abortion unless its a result of incest, sexual abuse, rape, etc. Thats personal. Yet, from a societal view, I’m definately pro choice. I don’t think it is the government’s business to dictate to a girl/woman what she has to choose. She has a right to choose, and she will live with the ramifications of her choice for the rest of her life and ultimately reconcile with her Maker one day in Heaven.
And Ed from Aspen, I still always agree with you. I support our 2nd Amendment right,, and I own guns, but I do not agree with alot of what NRA stands for and lets happen. I seriously don’t think they will be getting any more of my miniscule support, financially . — J
I was adopted, yet know both my biological mother and father, who are separate in separate parts of the country. I respect them for making the choices they made. I respect them for making it possible to have a pretty good, pretty well off upbringing with caring people whom I will forever consider my family, too.
Having been in a position to choose whether to continue my pregnancy or choose abortion, I know the personal agony any woman in that position goes through. I chose to have my son, who is now almost 30, and I’ve never regretted it. When his girlfriend got pregnant and had to go through the same decision process, I counseled her to have the child; my granddaughter who is now 10, and the joy of all of our lives. We were lucky, neither I nor my daughter-in-law were in such dire circumstances that abortion was the better choice.
Because of my personal spiritual beliefs I am against abortion, but I still wouldn’t support a law denying a woman her right to choose, and ultimately bringing back the days of deadly back-alley abortions.
Regarding the partial birth abortion issue, as far as I’m concerned, abortion is abortion, no matter when it occurs. A human life is ended at three weeks the same as at 30 weeks. Conception is the beginning of life. Period.
Having been in a position to choose whether to continue my pregnancy or choose abortion, I know the personal agony any woman in that position goes through. I chose to have my son, who is now almost 30, and I’ve never regretted it. When his girlfriend got pregnant and had to go through the same decision process, I counseled her to have the child; my granddaughter who is now 10, and the joy of all of our lives. We were lucky, neither I nor my daughter-in-law were in such dire circumstances that abortion was the better choice.
Because of my personal spiritual beliefs I am against abortion, but I still wouldn’t support a law denying a woman her right to choose, and ultimately bringing back the days of deadly back-alley abortions.
Regarding the partial birth abortion issue, as far as I’m concerned, abortion is abortion, no matter when it occurs. A human life is ended at three weeks the same as at 30 weeks. Conception is the beginning of life. Period.