« Lindsay Lohan supports Mitt Romney | Main | The aging of Brigitte Bardot »

October 12, 2012

Comments

What have Republicans actually done to limit or restrict abortion? I mean, they talk about it a lot, but what do they actually do?

But historically, didn't abortion bring in more voters to Republicans than scared them off? Would the Southern whites, and Northern working class Catholics voted Republican if it weren't for this issue? I know some Catholics and that's it for them, they are Repubs because of abortion.
I do think that will change at some time though, maybe it's time to jettison the issue.

I posted this back when you were seemingly infatuated with Ryan:

*****

2. Why would he need a shtick to try and garner votes with people who are already going to vote for him anyway? If anything his religiosity hurts him. Planned Parenthood and the feminist left are doing a bang up job portraying him as a nutball.

2b. He's an extreme abortion and government funded contraception opponent,which is an incredibly stupid position from a HBD point of view. That's not shtick. It's dangerous and idiotic Christian nutball ideology.

Posted by: James McKeane | August 11, 2012 at 09:01 PM

1. Hold up, you think being outright anti-casual sex (as opposed to being anti-abortion, which is a proxy for being anti-casual sex) is going to be a winner for the GOP among young women? Um...

2. Jews are not a key voter constituency. They are important because of their totally undeserved media/academic/financial heft, but not their votes. They're a -tiny- % of the population and mostly in liberal strongholds anyway.

I_Affe, is that a serious question? They may not have done anything federally, but that's only because they don't have the votes to do so. Look at the restrictive laws different states have put in place. For example, Virginia:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/existing-va-abortion-clinics-now-wont-be-exempt-from-strict-building-rules/2012/09/14/e7420700-fe9c-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html

http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/22/the-complicated-politics-of-abortion/

2012 Pew Poll:

"Which party could do a better job representing your views on abortion"?

D: 49%
R: 33%

"Which candidate could do a better job representing your views on abortion"?

Obama: 50%
Romney: 36%

Toxic.

I quote my wife on this issue:

They tried to get Ryan on the ‘choice’ thing and his answer was awesome. He talked about how he and his wife went for the sonogram when she was pregnant with their first child, a daughter, and it was a touching, moving, maternal weeper of a tale – and of course all parents know it is totally true, and he said they called their daughter ‘bean’ even after she was born, because she looked like one in that early sonogram (many parents do this).

He never really answered the question the way they wanted to, but used it as a platform to talk about how much he values life and his children and how important it is to him as a dad.

How clever to turn a pitfall question into a win with moms everywhere. At least the ones who listen.

Time and time again you (HS) want the Republicans to become more like Democrats. That is a LOSER strategy. You are focusing on the tiny number of people who might change their minds and not vote AGAINST the Republicans, while completely ignoring the massive number of people who need a reason to vote FOR the Republicans and who will defect if the Republicans go Left on the issues.

Personally I will never vote for anyone who supports the inhuman policy of murdering the unborn -- even if the dead unborn are disproportionately black.

5% of the population is against abortion because they see it as murder. 10% of the population is for abortion because they've either had an abortion or because they want to leave their options open. To the other 85% of the population they have no reasonable moral or practical basis for being for or against it. So you would think that abortion wouldn't be an issue that decides elections...

Quite the opposite. Abortion is important because of its irrelevance. The US is a post-colonial empire: a bunch of native peoples who found themselves under one government because the borders were drawn in capital cities rather than on battlefields. The US is ethnically diverse: we have New Englanders, Texans, Mormons, Midwesterners, New Yorkers, Appalachians, Southerners, Floridians, Cascadians, South-Westerners.

Like the voters in some African basket case Americans will always vote for the guy that they identify with culturally. However in Anglo-American culture thinking about culture is taboo. To the extent that we are nationalists we are expected to be American Nationalists, rather than New England Nationalists. Yet humans instinctively reject this. So what people do is they find an excuse to vote for the guy of their culture.

Thus wedge issues are born. An unimportant issue is promoted to prominence simply because people have no reason to care about it. The undecideds can take the stance of their culture, without it really affecting the bottom line. So the result is that you end up with Southerners (who have no legitimate reason to care about abortion) passionately demanding that it be abolished, and you end up with New Yorkers (who have no legitimate reason to care about abortion) passionately demanding that it be continued. The result is that you can now identify friend or foe.

Humans are social animals, and need to be able to to classify people into "us vs them". Anything that allows humans to classify people will be latched onto.

If the US were divided up into 10-20 culturally homogenous nations we would see wedge issues fade into obscurity.

Ryan is simply too young and idealistic to sell out his religion as quickly as Biden does, even though I'm sure they're both able to keep religion and government bifurcated in their minds.

And I think the evang prolifers use this issue as a gotcha to keep from having to contemplate the complexities of all the other issues.

But it's a handy gotcha either way.

"What have Republicans actually done to limit or restrict abortion?"

This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act Which made sense politically, and morally. Most Americans oppose late term abortions. But that's about as far as Republicans will go in limiting abortion at the federal level.

This is silly.

The GOP has long used abortion as a wedge issue to their own advantage. Though in recent years the gun lobby has decisively won the political argument, for a long time, most people supported stricter gun laws. They would lose or draw because of the logic of collective action: small, but intensely motivated groups win under our system.

Many pro-lifers are single issue voters who would otherwise side with Democrats. It gives the GOP church-going Catholics (who vote), and some older people. I recall a Republican staffer quoted in THE NEW REPUBLIC saying his party would NEVER ban abortion given the opportunity.

Jews are a vital source of funding for the Democratic Party, but for the last thirty or so years Republicans have made a concerted effort to court the Jewish vote by saying Israel can do no wrong. The biggest player this election cycle is mogul Sheldon Adelson, who has donated far more than anyone else.

Amen, JP. Oops, there's my inner Jesus freak again.

The Republicans have been successful increasing the number of pro-life Supreme Court Justices. You can't do a lot with abortion without getting rid of Roe vs. Wade first.

Republicans also think that by giving amnesty they'll suddenly start winning the latino vote. Pretty much every idea they have is stupid.

Well, you got that last part wrong. The while reason libs became stridently anti-anti-abortion in the first place was to protect their sacred right to casual sex. You're too young to remember, but in 1969 having casual sex was the sine qua non of 'sophistication'. Needless to say, those people are still voting (mostly for Barbara Boxer).

Last time I checked nearly 75% of Americans were Christians.

So it does make some sense to paint Liberals as amoral, atheist, multi-bastard saddled hedonistic pinko anti-Americans.

Republicans definitely need to pick either supporting abortion or immigration, so that they can attract more minorities by being progressive.

Progressive Republicans would be unstoppable if they actually existed.

Stephen Levitt of "Freakonomics" says that abortion in the US is eugenic, though he does not use those words.

Steve Sailer argued that abortion is dysgenic.

Which one is right?

[HS: Steve Sailer is very wrong on that. Smart people are very good at avoiding accidental pregnancy. It's the stupid people who get accidentally pregnant.]

Abortion is not a trivial issue that a party should change positions on just to win votes.

Let's face it, abortion is saying that it's okay for a woman to have a developing baby inside of her killed. It's a profound moral question regarding whether this should be legal. Killing a well-developed baby in the womb is not much different than killing a baby just after birth.

[HS: 1. There's a HUGE different in that the former hasn't been born yet. Do you think of yourself as having existed before you were born? I certainly don't. 2. Many societies didn't make a big deal about infanticide; it was accepted in ancient Greek and Rome.]

Don't forget: Sebelius and Obama support killing a third trimester child who has been born because the abortion was botched. It has happened a few times and Sebelius when she was governor supported it and so does Obama. I'm not for outlawing abortion simply because I know that won't stop abortions, but let's face it, Romney and Ryan could cream Obama and Ryan with details of those "abortions" and Obama's voting record in Illinois on that and his promotion of Sebelius' since, but that would take the campaign out of the realm of the economy and that's a loser overall for R&R even if the rest of America are disgusted by (and they would be with the details) the Obama/Sebelius position on third term abortions and in particular, the killing of a born fetus because the abortion failed.

"If the US were divided up into 10-20 culturally homogenous nations we would see wedge issues fade into obscurity." - T

And this is why Roe v Wade was a mistake, and I say that as a pro-choice Republican: It gave the federal gov't legitimacy in regulating the issue. What right does a state like Kansas have to tell California it can't made partial-birth abortion legal? Well apparently it does now, and that pisses people off.

Republicans can't be pro-choice in most of the country without losing though: if there is no difference between a Republican and a Democrat, the voters will choose the Democrat in most instances. But most voters choose conservative over liberal, which is why Republicans paint national races and even state-wide races in left-leaning states that way. And keep in mind I said "most" of the country. In heavily urban state, abortion is seen less negatively and opposition to it is seen as low-class. But many voters in such states are also fiscally conservative and anti-welfare. That's why a pro-choice Republican can and will win over a Democrat so long as he doesn't cave to Democrats on economic issues: Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Pete Wilson (Gov of California in the 90's), and Arnold Schwarzenegger were all pro-choice as governors and mayors. They won because the voters in their states could focus on other issues because abortion was simply off the table.

A lot of religious voters are lukewarm on capitalism. Hell, even trad conservative stalwarts like Russell Kirk were lukewarm on capitalism. Like it or not something has to be done to keep the social conservatives in the fold. If the R's jettison abortion they lose their grip on their most committed voters.

The reason (genuine) religious conservatives (NOT Churchians and half-feminists like that idiotic Palin) are against abortion is because they don't believe in the purity of women as the Feminist + White Knight + Mangina constituency and that every single woman that goes to an abortion clinic tells the truth. Feminists want to be treated like Victorian Princesses. They want entitlement with no consequences and for commoners to bow down to their every will. That is not right.

There's a HUGE industry with false rape allegations, divorce rape, etc. All of these illegal/false things are used as a justification for the majority of abortions (which is about 80%). Most abortions are just back-up plans after having rounds of promiscuous sex. Heck we have an entire blogosphere (the Manosphere) which shows this truth.

Feminists, Manginas and White Knights want women to have ZERO accountability and to be immoral/amoral.

Until the pathetic left acknowledges that "Legitimate Rape" is real, and the left stops itself masquering as a centrist (e.g. "I'm such a moderate! Hey I'm a fiscal conservative/social liberal! Look at me!"), the genuine Religious Right (composed of Todd Akin, Rick Santorum) should be clinging to its guns and religion.

Bitches, please.

"There's a HUGE different in that the former hasn't been born yet. Do you think of yourself as having existed before you were born? I certainly don't."

Do you have any specific memories of being age 0 to 18 months? Of being in the delivery room? If not, why do you think of yourself as having existed then? You definitely existed both in utero and post utero, but you have forgotten your in utero memories just as you have forgotten your immediate post utero memories.

The difference between a child in the womb and afterward is not "huge". Just look at a 3D ultrasound.

"Many societies didn't make a big deal about infanticide; it was accepted in ancient Greek and Rome."

Um, ancient Greece and Rome didn't make a big deal about slavery, either... or blood sports... or torturing people to death... or men having total authority over their womenfolk. Can we have those policies along with the infanticide?

H.S.,

Your understanding of how social issues play out in the political environment is unfortunately overly crude.

First of all, "upper middle class" people are not all the same. And they do not all live in the North East or West Coast. (Suburban Dallas, anyone?) Upper income people living in the "Red States" are only marginally more socially liberal than lower income people, and way more socially conservative than any "Blue State" or "Purple State" resident (even low-income). Income makes people slightly more socially liberal, but culture (region) makes far more difference. (See Andrew Gelman's excellent book Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State and its related graphs on this point)

Secondly, unlike most "social issues" like gay marriage, the environment, and attitudes about sex in general, there is no trend or change on support for abortion. (The population supports, not by overly huge amounts, abortion being legal in the first three months). Younger voters may be more pro gay-marriage than the rest, but they are not more pro-choice.

Blaming social cons is a typical response some people have rather than confronting more difficult structural changes to the political environment. But the fact remains that as demographic changes continue, lower income voters prefer Democrats over Republicans (regardless of social issues) and single women do in fact care far more about economic issues (welfare and related programs) when supporting Democrats than abortion.

A stronger stand (if it can be done intelligently and responsibly) on trade issues (not to mention immigration) would do wonders for the Republican party's prospects. There is no evidence that swing voters elevate abortion over economic issues when they vote.

Some great comments. As usual, I enjoy the diversity (ha!) of perspectives represented among Sigma's readers.

I second the idea that were it nor for abortion and other social issues, many of us would lack a reason to endorse the GOP. In fact I'm a lukewarm supporter of our Canadian conservative party *because* they haven't been very strong on those issues.

@JP:

****– and of course all parents know it is totally true****

Best comment in the thread. Every pregnant woman that I have ever seen in the clinic gets tears in her eyes the first time she hears her baby's heartbeat.

****How clever to turn a pitfall question into a win with moms everywhere. At least the ones who listen.****

Yes. As everyone on every side should know, the best way to "win" is with heartfelt, tear-jerker stories, not with actual boring arguments. If that is Ryan's strategy, he'll do well.

As several states are considering legalizing marijuana, the Republican Party might be able to gain big by taking up this issue in FAVOR of legalization. It may sound crazy, but actually its not too idealogically different from the old school personal freedom principles of the party, plus Obama has said he will not support it. So, the Reps could beat the Dems to the punch by supporting this issue enthusiastically and it just might pull back some of the same voters who got pushed away on abortion. Also, the Reps could spin a nice story about the Dems just further wanting to control people, down to the very food and "herbs" they consume. Just as marijuana is a gateway drug, so it could be a gateway policy to get former hipsters and liberals to start voting red.

"HS: Steve Sailer is very wrong on that. Smart people are very good at avoiding accidental pregnancy. It's the stupid people who get accidentally pregnant."

Exactly. Without abortion, there would be lots more blacks born each year.

I don't know how someone who supports HBD can be "pro-life."

Religious nuts are why the GOP needs to support abortion so much.

I don't know why you are supporting Romney. He has the same immigration policies as Obama and Bush before them: more of it + amnesty.

Assuming both individuals are of a high IQ (and not seriously whacked in some other way) what's wrong with casual sex?

Now, casual sex amongst the poor and stupid, that's an obvious problem. Which goes back to why abortion needs to be safe, legal, and more common.

At least Ryan answered the abortion question honestly. He said the life or health of the mother wasn't worth beans.

Matthew Wolfinbarger, casual sex weakens a woman's ability to successfully create and maintain a family. It is incompatible with civilization.

"the Republican Party might be able to gain big by taking up this issue in FAVOR of [marijuana] legalization. It may sound crazy, but actually its not too idealogically different from the old school personal freedom principles of the party"

That's precisely how pro-choice is framed-- freedom from government intrusion into one's personal life. Nearly everyone is in favor of personal freedom, except for the things that they deem evil. How and what gets defined as morally unacceptable is the issue.

Although the abortion issue has hurt Republicans in the past, it seems to be getting less toxic, not more toxic, as sonogram technology shows parents what their child looks like after a couple of weeks and months.

It's apparently making small changes in the percentage of Americans who disapprove of abortion.

It's a dumb issue, but it was totally predictable that Ryan would be asked that by a female moderator. For super feminists, its THE number one issue regardless of how old and covered with cobwebs their eggs are. The chances are greater that I develop magical powers than Martha Radditz has an accidental pregnancy, but I'm sure her vote largely swings on that issue.

"[higher] Income makes people slightly more socially liberal"

Um no.

In the abstract if you ask them some question, they will answer as slightly socially liberal. However in practice, they are more likely to be married, have no illegitimate kids, never had an abortion, etc.

So, no, they aren't degenerate themselves

If you are reading this, go out and get laid. The night is young. Remember to bring protection!

"Yes. As everyone on every side should know, the best way to "win" is with heartfelt, tear-jerker stories, not with actual boring arguments. If that is Ryan's strategy, he'll do well."

Yeah, most people can grasp an appeal to emotion, but they do not possess enough g to comprehend well-reasoned and consistent ethical arguments for abortion from philosophers such as Peter Singer. They simply cannot hit Singer's intellectual 95+ mph fastballs.

I am actually a Catholic and philosophically pro-life (although being politically pro-life would make appear prolish and I don't believe in the efficacy of contemporary bourgeois democracy to enact the will of the people), but I still retain my reverence for Singer's formidable intellect that enables him to expound elegantly on the implications of utilitarianism.

--If you are reading this, go out and get laid. The night is young. Remember to bring protection!--

Already got some snatch, a cougar coworker. Drinking a beer as I type this comment and am going out for a Nat Sherman Naturals smoke in 3..2..1...And good morning.

HS

I can't be bothered to actually read comments right now. But polling shows 25% pro choice, 25% pro life with the remainder leaning towards legal with some restrictions.

My take is that most want the option in case of rape, deformity, etc. But they don't like the idea of teens getting one without parental consent. And most are sickened by partial birth abortion. If one is going to get one then the least they can do is get one early rather than waiting until 36 weeks and killing a viable baby.

I see no reason for the issue to influence one's vote unless one side gains the upper hand. But you're right that abortion influences some voters. Mostly young women too stupid to realize the issue is irrelevant. They want to screw with impunity. That's why the gender gap is really a marriage gap. Married women generally become more republican because they're no longer worried about getting knocked up.

"they do not possess enough g to comprehend well-reasoned and consistent ethical arguments for abortion from philosophers such as Peter Singer. They simply cannot hit Singer's intellectual 95+ mph fastballs."

This is sarcasm, right?

The "Professor of Ethics" who says "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person" is disgraceful and repulsive.

"Matthew Wolfinbarger, casual sex weakens a woman's ability to successfully create and maintain a family. It is incompatible with civilization."

That has a lot of truth to it; however, I think there are a couple of factors today that make that less relevant.

First, it is not necessary for women to have tons of kids. Two, certainly three is plenty.

Second, smart, educated women tend to stay young and healthy into later ages. So even if a woman messes around in her late teens and twenties she is still up to have kids well into her thirties--assuming she does not become thoroughly addicted to the sleeparound lifestyle...in any case, even the hottest, best-aging women lose their luster (and therefore ability to constantly acquire new partners) in their mid-30s, even if they are still relatively youthful-looking well into their 40s or even, esp. for the Asian women I like, into their early 50s. Also, people just tend to become more practical starting in their late 20s. Even at 28 I have considerably less desire to be reckless and stupid than at say, 22, when I got seriously drunk almost every day.

Parental consent laws are consistently voted down in California. The fact is almost 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester, and most people want to keep that option available. Incredibly, there *are* married couples who continue to have sex despite being old and ugly with college age children. Statistical deviants, they sometimes slip one past the goalie, and can't fathom having another kid (Hollywood movies excepted).

There's also a strong status-quo bias against over-turning Roe v. Wade. Look at the polling: it's supported 2-1.

From what I read, Biden's response was rather well-constructed. He said that he is personally against abortion, but does not want to impose his religion on anyone else (whereas Ryan is perfectly willing to do so). If abortion is actually murder, then I wouldn't mind if someone "imposed" their beliefs on me and everyone else. I just don't think a blob of tissue is a person with rights.

Americans are fond of creating all sorts of issues that are near non-issues most everywhere else.

"Your understanding of how social issues play out in the political environment is unfortunately overly crude."

When HS decides to actually learn about Flyover Country without his East Coast reality filter, he'll be worth taking more seriously. He's got some excellent insights here and there, in a Whiskey kind of way, but he vibrates to a narrow range of stimuli. Of course, it's mostly ooga booga proleland to him, and probably not worth his time.

Quote: "The Republican anti-abortion platform is toxic to key voter constituencies such as the upper middle class, Jews, and most non-evangelical women"

Republicans will NEVER get the Jewish vote so it is pointless going after it. Unmarried women also tend to be Lefties so it is pointless going after their votes as well. The GOP would probably lose more votes by abandoning its pro-life position particularly among evangelical and working class voters. In my experience, people who are pro-abortion tend to be leftwing on a host of other political issues as well.

"What have Republicans actually done to limit or restrict abortion? I mean, they talk about it a lot, but what do they actually do?"

Sometimes I wonder whether the commentators here actually pay attention to the news or get all their news from either HS or Sailer. Republicans have been more likely to do something on abortion than they have on anything else. Mississippi came damn close to shutting down the only abortion clinic in the state. Here's a story from South Dakota from a few years ago

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-03-06/politics/sd.abortion_1_abortion-bans-mike-rounds-incest-case?_s=PM:POLITICS

The only thing stopping most of this stuff from becoming law is the courts. But enough Republican election victories, and that'll change.

"Parental consent laws are consistently voted down in California"

Great, and if California wasn't one of the few most liberal states in the country, this would matter.

Paul Ryan's abortion answer was the best of the debate for him. It was intelligent, heartfelt, and reasonable. He adopts Romney's slightly less right wing exceptions for rape and incest. He spoke about the birth of his daughter. He brought up Obama's war on Catholic Church Obamacare plan. And most importantly, he brought up Obama's radical view on this issue. Obama is so far left on abortion he basically voted for newborn babies to die without care.

Obama seems to want to keep pushing a fight on abortion, for some reason. Romney and Ryan should welcome that fight at any moment. Obama's position of taxpayer-paid abortion with no restrictions is a tiny minority position, while the general but not extreme pro-life position by Romney is fairly popular. I guarantee Romney rose a bit among Midwestern Catholics Thursday night.

"Parental consent laws are consistently voted down in California. " -- The Real Vince

Which only shows how ridiculous Californians are. Any other medical procedure requires parental consent -- including tattoos and piercings. Yet abortion is somehow different? Fortunately, 2/3 of Americans support parental consent.

***

"When HS decides to actually learn about Flyover Country without his East Coast reality filter" -- Mr. Wild

No disrespect to Sig but I've noticed that, too. Not that I don't agree with most of his views. But I think he would be better served to pop his East Coast bubble.

Very true HS. Very true. It may be tricky for them to back away from it because of their coalition, but pro-life is a loony and loser position.

From what I've observed, the majority view on abortion is this - If one of Bush's daughters got knocked up in high school or something, she'd be getting an abortion no matter how illegal it is. Those of us who aren't in the top out of sight class want our daughters to have a life too.

Of course, Palin's daughter went the other way. But that kind of proves the point too. The idea of your family ending up like them makes every middle class white moderate throw up in their mouth.

Matthew Wolfinbarger

It's got less to do with fertility, than that few partners interested in a late 20s/early 30s posses enough attractiveness to compete with the woman's former lovers (who she could never have kept, but that is something difficult for her to understand).

EdAnger Jr - Getting "knocked up" is a promiscuous/casual sex/pre-marital sex phenomenon. Ask all of the chicks that sleep around and then "Opps! I had an accident!"

Good job on protecting the lack of accountability given to women. Women are oh sooooo precious. Not!

What's really needed is an end to the two party system. I hate flyover country, and hate having to chose between the Democrats and a party that represents those people. Socially conservative upper-middle class whites are even more irritating than low-IQ Bible thumpers, because they should know better. In any case, given the dominance of WASPs and Celts in Middle American whites, it's small wonder that they're mentally diseased. Pale-skinned animals tend to be nuts too--given the biological link between melanin and dopamine, it should not be surprising that grossly melanin-deprived people are guilt-ridden and often hateful too. Being somewhat pale-skinned myself, I am quite thankful for pharmaceutical narcotics, they keep all that stupid guilt at bay (as well as the stereotypical Irish laziness). Having some really pretty Asian babysitters who introduced me to sexuality and drugs (OTC cough syrup, pot brownies, and various pills) when I was 4-6 years old helped a lot too.

Oh yeah, I forgot, more abortion, more abortion, more abortion! Taxpayer funded abortions,abortions for teenagers without parent's knowledge (having parents know about their kids abortions helps HOW, exactly?), forced payments for contraceptives by faith-based healthcare providers, I'm all for it. Religious fundamentalism is a disease.

If I'm Romney, I turn this around and point out the extreme position of Obama's "kill born babies" position.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/10/13/New-Ad-Exposes-Obamas-Support-for-Murder-of-Babies-Born-Alive-After-Failed-Abortions

"Great, and if California wasn't one of the few most liberal states in the country, this would matter." -- Jeff

"Which only shows how ridiculous Californians are. Any other medical procedure requires parental consent -- including tattoos and piercings. Yet abortion is somehow different? Fortunately, 2/3 of Americans support parental consent." -- destructure

Yeah, the same "liberal" state that consistently votes against marriage equality.

The tired and familiar arguments about ear piercings and tattoos don't hold as the decision to produce offspring imposes far greater burdens on the potential mother than the potential grandparents (who might be religious nutcases). Pregnancy will impact schooling (secondary and post-secondary), marriage options, employment (a kid's a geographical anchor), and so on and on.

Now before anybody says the girl should've thought of all that BEFORE getting raped (or deciding to have sex), keep in mind the very counter-argument you're too ready to pull: she's a minor. Her offspring are also at even greater risk to replicate the same shitty decisions.

I agree with Matthew above: subsidized birth control, abortions, all of it -- anything to reduce all this unnecessary breeding. If the argument from basic individual liberty is not compelling enough, then consider the added taxes and redistribution.

"EdAnger Jr - Getting "knocked up" is a promiscuous/casual sex/pre-marital sex phenomenon. Ask all of the chicks that sleep around and then "Opps! I had an accident!"

Good job on protecting the lack of accountability given to women. Women are oh sooooo precious. Not!"

Shunkm, a world without casual sex is not a world I want to live in. Abortion is as much a boon for men as it is for women.

Also, women have the vote. The thinking I outlined is not uncommon among them. Any sensible candidate should take this perspective into account.

"Shunkm, a world without casual sex is not a world I want to live in. Abortion is as much a boon for men as it is for women."

Casual sex is only a boon for the 20% (at most) of men who have most of the casual sex. For the rest of us, it creates sluttier, flakier, much less marriageable women.

"If one of Bush's daughters got knocked up in high school or something, she'd be getting an abortion no matter how illegal it is. Those of us who aren't in the top out of sight class want our daughters to have a life too."


Has it ever occurred to you that you should keep your little ho in the house? Why is it your job to send your daughter out to spread her legs to entertain and amuse the neighborhood? Don't some of you who aren't in the top out of sight class want your daughters to have any dignity.

Feh. What's best and what'll get elected are two different things.

Most Americans are ambivalent about abortion. And the Republicans need evangelical votes. So they should stay where they are.

Personally I'm in favor of abortion. Fewer Shaniquas on welfare. Yeah, rich and smart people get abortions, but if those people couldn't get abortions legally here, they'd just fly to Canada and get them. Or become really obsessive about contraception. Or get prescriptions for Plan B.

@Jack - "Casual sex is only a boon for the 20% (at most) of men who have most of the casual sex. For the rest of us, it creates sluttier, flakier, much less marriageable women."

Do you think outlawing abortion would make women less flaky and more likely to marry beta like you? How? You knock some chick up and then she'll have to stick with you? Pal, if that's what you consider a good outcome, I got nothing to say to you.

@not to late - "Has it ever occurred to you that you should keep your little ho in the house? Why is it your job to send your daughter out to spread her legs to entertain and amuse the neighborhood?" Let you in on a little secret here bud - this was a rhetorical argument. Don't actually have daughters. But if i did, I'd definitely want them having abortions over giving over not graduating college.

The reason prole classes are prole is because they are unable to make calculations like this.
(Like I mentioned, this is why Sarah Palin and her dumb kids horrify everyone with any sense.)

"Yeah, the same 'liberal' state that consistently votes against marriage equality." -- The Real Vince

And where do you stand on that issue, cupcake? Rhetorical question. I already know. But its interesting you chose an example with which you disagree to demonstrate that Californians aren't ridiculous. Should I assume, then, that you are among a minority of ridiculous Californians? I think not. I've lived in California and know better.

"The tired and familiar arguments" -- The Real Vince

Even if reproduction posed a greater future burden on minors they still wouldn't be competent to make the decision for themselves. Therefore, your objection to parental consent is based on the assumption that a minor's decision is the correct one if it's the one that you would support. Your circular reasoning is obvious.

"I agree with Matthew above" -- The Real Vince

Regarding Wolfinbarger's comment, I was embarrassed for him. That you've supported it makes me embarrassed for you. Though I'm not sure you actually did support it since what you claim Wolfinbarger said bears no resemblance to what he actually did say. Regardless, the two of you are doing an excellent job of making my earlier point on the ridiculousness of Californians.

" a world without casual sex is not a world I want to live in"

Because pre-1965 America was such a hell-hole!

" Don't actually have daughters. But if i did, I'd definitely want them having abortions over giving over not graduating college."

What exactly is the point of women going to college?

Either they get worthless degrees or they get degrees that lead them to compete with men making more men less marriageable.

Lose lose proposition.

Smart women can read literature just fine without a professor.

[HS: Women at college meet marriageable men, and ensure they are upper middle class. No quality man would want to marry some bimbo without a college degree.]

Let's impose some radical liberal order around here, Half Sigma, because we know that radical liberation isn't suicidal.

Could you imagine opining that a platform AGAINST self-annihilation IS suicidal?

I thought you were smart, Half Sigma?

It seems like you aren't willing to confront your own self-annihilating liberalism?


[HS: Women at college meet marriageable men, and ensure they are upper middle class. No quality man would want to marry some bimbo without a college degree.]

Is a 17 year old beautiful virgin with, say a 2200 SAT score, from a good family a bimbo?

Why or why not?

Are you saying you would not consider marrying such a woman just because she doesn't have a college degree?

Exactly what could a college degree add to that profile?

Let's see, she will be older, fatter, meaner and more demanding after college, and she won't be as enamored of you because she has had her heart broken riding the carousel. So how is that an improvement over where she was at 17?

Seriously, man.

Here is a picture of little bimbo, Natalie Portman, at 17.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1023836928/tt0120915

But of course, now that she has a degree from Harvard, she is so much better!

Here she is still lovely 13 years later.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm437629952/nm0000204

Of course, only an idiot would have wanted to be married to her from age 17 to 30.

HS: Women at college meet marriageable men, and ensure they are upper middle class. No quality man would want to marry some bimbo without a college degree

Three problems you have there:

1 - College is less and less the road to status whoring.
2 - College-educated men are not quality men anymore.
3 - College is a waste of time.

This college route to upper-middle class is becoming a thing of the past Half Sigma. Since minorities have been going to college in mass, the standards for college have fallen across the board. Even the Ivy Leagues have been saddled with morons and think without sense.

There's a lot of intelligent, religious (traditional conservative) Ann Romney type women who homeschool their children and don't go to college anymore.

They are much better than the colle-educated bimbos in my opinion.

[HS: Ann Romney graduated from BYU.]

Peter Singer's views are waaaaaaaaaay outside the mainstream. Any politician that adopted them would get crushed in the primaries. He doesn't think one is human while a newborn, and killing your disabled parent is ok:
"Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—'rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness'—and therefore 'killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.'"

And:
"He explained that his sister shares the responsibility of making decisions about his mother [who has alzhemers]. He did say that, if he were solely responsible, his mother might not continue to live."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide

Now watch me do a 180. Singer's a committed leftist, but he acknowledges HBD and thinks the Left *needs* to adopt evo-bio/psych because it's accurate and compatible with leftist thought:

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1999----02.htm
"A Darwinian left would not:
• Deny the existence of a human nature, nor insist that human nature is inherently good, nor that it is infinitely malleable;
• Expect to end all conflict and strife between human beings, whether by political revolution, social change, or better education;
• Assume that all inequalities are due to discrimination, prejudice, oppression or social conditioning. Some will be, but this cannot be assumed in every case;

A Darwinian left would:
• Accept that there is such a thing as human nature, and seek to find out more about it, so that policies can be grounded on the best available evidence of what human beings are like
• Stand by the traditional values of the left by being on the side of the weak, poor and oppressed, but think very carefully about what social and economic changes will really work to benefit them."

Ann Romney has a degree in French. Like she would be a bimbo without that degree? Seriously? Who she is, for good or ill, has about zero to do with that degree.

I had the misfortune of spending much of this afternoon in a line at the post office. From this experience I can extrapolate that more white trash with young kids does not a wonderful world make.

@JP - "" a world without casual sex is not a world I want to live in"

Because pre-1965 America was such a hell-hole!"

Well, for guys who didn't want to be married to the first chick they had sex with, yeah. And to the women who ended up resenting them and getting divorced as soon as it was legal.

Open your eyes. Freedom may mean betas dont get married as much, but shotgun marriages kind of sucked too.

I swear, do we have some Taliban readers here? If that's what you want, feel free to get on your camel and go.

theakinet writes: "Peter Singer's views are waaaaaaaaaay outside the mainstream. Any politician that adopted them would get crushed in the primaries. He doesn't think one is human while a newborn, and killing your disabled parent is ok"

This is a mischaracterization of his views. Singer says the newborn/fetus/embryo/zygote is human -- what other species could it be?? He argues that we're wrong to kill persons, but not wrong to kill humans. It's just that, on his view, not all persons are human and not all humans are persons.

-------------------

destructure writes: "Even if reproduction posed a greater future burden on minors they still wouldn't be competent to make the decision for themselves. Therefore, your objection to parental consent is based on the assumption that a minor's decision is the correct one if it's the one that you would support. Your circular reasoning is obvious."

Wow. You're struggling to erect a straw man. The most likely case is that she'll be relatively more content with making her own decision. There are people who decide to follow through on the pregnancy, and then never, ever regret it; indeed, they feel bad for even entertaining the idea of terminating a bundle of joy. Then there are others who decide to have an abortion and experience a good deal of relief. The point is that they are authors of their own lives. When someone robs you have the ability to decide, and you're saddled with decades of baggage, which breeds resentment. This is but one reason why it's vital women have the right to choose.

Her parents do not have the *right* to make such a decision. They can force her to have an abortion? They can force to go through with a pregnancy? Months of social shaming plus hours of painful child birth? Fuck that.

As for what little else you have to say, it's not even disguised as an argument.

"Wow. You're struggling to erect a straw man." -- The Real Vince

You've admitted to being one of those "over population" nuts. You've stated a preference for abortion. And you've argued that minors should have abortions without parental consent. It's not hard to connect the dots.

*

"When someone robs you have the ability to decide, and you're saddled with decades of baggage"

Assuming the parents make the "wrong" choice. Which is the one YOU disagree with, right?

*

"Her parents do not have the *right* to make such a decision."

So now you're a libertarian eh? "Rights" are whatever people agree they are.

*

"They can force her to have an abortion? They can force to go through with a pregnancy? Months of social shaming plus hours of painful child birth? Fuck that."

Absolutely. Shame the hell out of her. Make an example. Make it so all the other kids think, "Holy Shit! I better keep my panties on!" That's one of the reasons the teen pregnancy rate is so high -- Lack of shame.

" That's one of the reasons the teen pregnancy rate is so high -- Lack of shame."

Lack of shame? or lack of fathers?

What % of knocked up teens have a father in the home?

Shame works.

It is what makes women go to college, else they will be shamed.

Women are highly conforming. You tell them what to do, and they do it.

Try it sometime.

destructure writes: "You've admitted to being one of those "over population" nuts. You've stated a preference for abortion."

No, I think abortion is stupid; not remotely immoral, just dumb; inefficient. There's literally a pill women can take to prevent pregnancy. And I make no apologies about wanting to prevent or terminate unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.

"Assuming the parents make the 'wrong' choice. Which is the one YOU disagree with, right?"

There's no law stopping the pregnant teen from discussing the matter with her parents, but ultimately it should be her choice. That she does not have a strong relationship with her potentially crazy Catholic/Muslim/Evangelical parents only further strengthens the view that she should be allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

"'Rights'are whatever people agree they are."

You're speaking in half-truths.

"Absolutely. Shame the hell out of her. Make an example. Make it so all the other kids think, "Holy Shit! I better keep my panties on!" That's one of the reasons the teen pregnancy rate is so high -- Lack of shame."

You have this all wrong. The more common something becomes, the less shame associated with it. Teenagers will continue to have babies. Fact. However, if more had abortions, then the shame-factor rises. What social science keeps finding is that behaviors are almost contagious -- whether we're talking about divorce or weight gain.

"Teenagers will continue to have babies."

Yes, of course, but at what rate?

American teens have half as many as they did in 1960.

Of course in 1960, >90% were married. Now 90% are unmarried NAMs.

We changed from shaming illegitimacy to shaming early marriage and motherhood. Honestly, I think we were better off in 1960.

"The more common something becomes, the less shame associated with it."

Doesn't the arrow of causation point in the opposite direction?

"No, I think abortion is stupid; not remotely immoral, just dumb; inefficient." -- The Real Vince

Agreed. At least for the first trimester.

*

"There's no law stopping the pregnant teen from discussing the matter with her parents, but ultimately it should be her choice." -- The Real Vince

Parents are responsible for minors for a reason. It's widely recognized that minors aren't competent to make their own decisions. Your refusal to grant that is willfully ignorant.

*

"You have this all wrong. The more common something becomes, the less shame associated with it." -- The Real Vince

Yes. And the more shame associated with something the less common it becomes.

***

@ not too late

I've skimmed your comments and agree.

Re: lack of shame vs lack of fathers. I suspect the lack of fathers provides a positive feedback loop. So it's probably a cause as well as a result.

A couple of graphs that might interest you. First graph shows teen birth rate dropping 50% while unmarried teen births increases 800% since 1960.

http://destructure.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/gr050107f11.gif

Second graph shows the divorce rate increase 240% beginning in the mid 1960s.

http://destructure.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/divorce.jpg

The Real Vince is an IDIOT.

Teenage pregnant girls don't have Rick Santorum type families. They have Sarah Palin type families. Their mothers are feminists and like being independent. Like rural feminists or something.

@not to late - "We changed from shaming illegitimacy to shaming early marriage and motherhood. Honestly, I think we were better off in 1960. "

You should change youre name. It *IS* too late. Changing the abortion laws won't take us back to 1960. It's not gonna happen. You may be naive, but the rest of us are not. Please grow up.

The comments to this entry are closed.