Abortion rates are irrelevant. What is the law? What has it been for the past 35 years?

What law are you talking about? There is no law allowing abortion. There is only a judicial opinion that laws restricting abortion violate the Constitution. All actual laws concerning abortion were invalidated by this decision.

To be conservative is to preserve the status quo. To be reactionary is to turn back the clock. “Conservatives” do not want to preserve the status quo on abortion. They want the clock turned back. That’s text book reactionary.

You cannot change the meaning of words just because you do not like the labels they imply.

Most people understand that judicial activism is inherently unconservative. The current status of abortion is a result of judicial activism, and is deeply offensive to conservative principle.

Conservative implies more than protecting the status quo. It implies protecting the existing principles of government. Since the right of self-determination is one of the bedrock principles of our government, and this is why we have a legislature chosen by the people to pass laws for the people, it should be obvious that anyone who defends the judicial activism that gave us abortion is being unconservative.

Conservatism is about more than defending the status quo. It is about defending what is worth defending: our principles. Such as the right to life. The right to defend life. The right to have a voice in the laws that are passed, rather than being overruled by 5 out of 9 Supreme Court judges. These principles alone establish that preserving the status quo of abortion on demand is itself the opposite of conservatism. If that resets the clock back 35 years on the abortion debate, that’s just an ironic consequence of asserting conservative principles.

P.S. No one is “pro-abortion” they are “pro-choice” You can detest abortions but recognize someone else’s right to make up their own mind to make their own choice.

tommylotto on February 15, 2008 at 5:23 PM

No one who is pro-abortion wants to be known as pro-abortion, so they generally retreat to the “pro-choice” label. Yes, it’s possible to be opposed to abortions while not willing to outlaw them. But if you think that abortion is justified anytime the mother slips up on birth control, or finds out she has a boy when she wanted a girl, or decides she can’t really afford a baby just now, then it really doesn’t help that you call yourself pro-choice. You’re still in favor of allowing abortions.

This country has officially been pro-choice for 35 years. That is almost two generations (assuming a generation to be 20 years). There have been three Supreme Court opinions upholding the right to an abortion. Right or wrong, there is a well established constitutional precedent guarantying a right to choose. Agree with it or disagree with it, the societal norm in this country for some time has been pro-choice. By wanting to turn back the clock 35 years to 1973, you are being reactionary, not conservative.

tommylotto on February 15, 2008 at 4:51 PM

Your argument that America is now “officially” pro-choice ignores several things.
1) No one ever passed a law legalizing abortion. Never.
2) The Supreme Court, in a classic case of judicial activism, declared a constitutional right to abortion that no one had ever discovered before
3) As long as the Supreme Court allows this ruling to stand, no one will be able to pass a law outlawing abortion, no matter how pro-life they are.

But I will repeat: abortion was never legalized. We have a problem with judges who went way outside of their power. The problem could be fixed easily, by Congress passing a law — no Constitutional amendment would be necessary — depriving the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over declaring laws unconstitutional. The Constitution does not actually give the Supreme Court the power to strike down ANY lawfully passed legislation. The only reason they get away with it is that they set a precedent long ago, in Marbury vs. Madison, that they had that power, and Congress accepted it.

But as a Constitutional issue, Congress has complete power to define the scope and power of the entire federal court system, including the Supreme Court.

The reason they don’t is much bigger than the single issue of abortion. It would require a fairly radical redefinition of the scope of the judicial system, and no one is willing to tackle that.

This does not constitute establishing America as a pro-choice state, officially or unofficially.

And to the point: since this “pro-choice” condition was imposed against the will of the majority of the people, and never was an official act, it cannot be labeled a “societal norm.”

If the Supreme Court had not crossed the line here, and laws permitting abortion had been passed in the proper manner by the legislature, you could speak of the “pro-choice consensus.” It didn’t, and you can’t.

Now that might be pushing it, but Fred is pro-choice. On MTP he said he was against the Life Amendment and was against criminalizing women who have abortions and doctors that perform them. He claims to be pro-life because he says Roe was wrongly decided and because of his voting record on various restrictions on abortions, but not on the issue itself. On the ultimate issue he is a pro-choice federalist as he stated in 1994 and confirmed recently on MTP. His position is not that different from Rudy’s…
tommylotto on February 15, 2008 at 3:03 PM

How long are you going to keep up this insane argument? Find pro-life politicians who will come out and say, “Sure, let’s put people in jail for abortion.” Even the strongly pro-life know it’s hard enough to overturn Roe v. Wade without giving the impression you can’t wait to throw people in jail.

You’re trying to redefine pro-choice so you can apply the label to Fred. I really have no idea why this is so important to you. But if you have to redefine the meaning of “pro-choice” to apply it to Fred, that actually proves that Fred is not pro-choice at all.

The argument that you must want a national law against abortion in order to be called pro-life just ignores that we have a federal system of government, and that many laws like this are made at the state level, not the national level.

As someone who posts a lot on the subject of abortion laws, and labels himself a lawyer, you surely can’t claim ignorance on that subject. Which makes all your posts look like sophistry.

And all this from someone who appears to believe that everyone should be pro-choice. Yet you use the “pro-choice” label, dishonestly IMO, as an attack on Fred, even if you have to redefine the word to make it fit.

My thinking on where those divisions were this year is too long to go into here and now, but perhaps I’ll do a longer post on it sometime when the opportunity arises.

Big S on February 15, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Excellent, just really excellent, post. I look forward to your longer post somewhere down the line.

SECOND LOOK AT VOTING DEMOCRAT.

Still not voting for McCain. And if he picks a horrible Veep, that just seals the deal.

Enoxo on February 15, 2008 at 5:30 PM

Enjoy your eight years of President Obama. With all the government giveaways he and his congress have planned, he should be able to pork barrel his way into a second term.

tommylotto on February 15, 2008 at 5:23 PM

At some point, your logic fails. If legal abortion is the status quo for a long time, as you maintain, doesn’t that become the reactionary position at some point? Don’t those who seek to maintain that status quo become the conservatives? If you truly want to see progressives, you might want to look at the ideas of those labeled as conservative today.

Up is down, black is white.

Fred is well-rated by the NRA, and using Obama’s gun ban and McCain opposing it could help him a lot in the South and West.

Southern. Evangelical. Strong on Guns, Border, etc. Conservative. Make mincemeat out of any Dem VP pick. Helps pick up the South.

the terms principles and values … are different; things like capitalism, respect for traditions, and the sanctity of the individual are not values, per se, since they are not definitive. Values are the set of beliefs that one holds that allows them to make sense of which principles are elevated or subverted above or below others, depending on the circumstances. It is legitimate to vote based on these values, and many people do, just as others are more interested in the theoretical principles of conservatism.

True, and I’m not exactly sure which definition self-identified “conservatives” tend to prefer. My guess is that it’s somewhere in between, depending on the context.

Big S

Interesting, and rather important, observations. I appreciate the discussion with you today.

Agreed. I am talking about what “conservative” actually means whereas you are talking about what “conservative” has come to mean in American politics.

True, and I’m not exactly sure which definition self-identified “conservatives” tend to prefer. My guess is that it’s somewhere in between, depending on the context.

Big S on February 15, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Agreed. I am talking about what “conservative” actually means whereas you are talking about what “conservative” has come to mean in American politics.

You raised an interesting issue concerning those who reach a pro-choice position from an honestly held core conservative principle of small government (”keep your government out of my womb”). That position can be, no almost must be, reached if you believe in small government and the rights of the individual. Yet anyone who uses that core conservative principle to reach that conclusion is branded a conservative apostate and must be driven from the party — Rudy.

SECOND LOOK AT STAYING HOME!

SECOND LOOK AT VOTING DEMOCRAT.

Still not voting for McCain. And if he picks a horrible Veep, that just seals the deal.

Plessy v. Ferguson? Established precedent at one time also.

JiangxiDad on February 15, 2008 at 5:01 PM

Exactly, the GOP started out as a progressive radical party seeking abolition of slavery whereas the democrats were conservative in trying to preserve the institution or sought to gradually have the institution die out. The GOP were firebrands back them, but certainly not conservative.

Perhaps the reactionary position is to be pro-abortion. The “progressive” position may be towards greater morality on this question. Abortion rates are going up or down Tommy?

JiangxiDad on February 15, 2008 at 5:01 PM

Abortion rates are irrelevant. What is the law? What has it been for the past 35 years? For those who can remember when pregnancy was not elective but a matter of chance, they are in menopause now and no longer need to worry. All those in child bearing years today have never known a world where abortion was not an option.

To be conservative is to preserve the status quo. To be reactionary is to turn back the clock. “Conservatives” do not want to preserve the status quo on abortion. They want the clock turned back. That’s text book reactionary.

You cannot change the meaning of words just because you do not like the labels they imply.

P.S. No one is “pro-abortion” they are “pro-choice” You can detest abortions but recognize someone else’s right to make up their own mind to make their own choice.

By wanting to turn back the clock 35 years to 1973, you are being reactionary, not conservative.

tommylotto on February 15, 2008 at 4:51 PM

I disagree with that, but before I explain myself, note that I’m talking about modern American conservative ideology, and not a definition of conservatism that encompasses only the desire to stick with the old ways. Many people, including those on this thread, can come to the anti-abortion position from conservative principles, such as respect for rights and responsibilities of the individual, in the case of the fetus and the mother, respectively. That’s a perfectly consistent position. On the other hand, it is possible for someone to reach the opposite, pro-choice position from conservative first principles (using the modern American ideological definition) as well, with the emphasis on limiting the role of government in individuals’ lives. In our current political terminology, the former are generally known as “social conservatives”, and the latter form a more libertarian strain of conservatives, and both groups are making exceptions to the overall mainstream American conservative ideology based on their own priorities, or values. I see a lot of blog commenters throwing around the terms principles and values a lot, often times as if they mean the same thing. I think they are different; things like capitalism, respect for traditions, and the sanctity of the individual are not values, per se, since they are not definitive. Values are the set of beliefs that one holds that allows them to make sense of which principles are elevated or subverted above or below others, depending on the circumstances. It is legitimate to vote based on these values, and many people do, just as others are more interested in the theoretical principles of conservatism. Interestingly, I think that the divide between principle-oriented conservatives and values-oriented conservatives was well-illustrated in this year’s primary, with McCain being the candidate with a foot most firmly planted in each camp, even if he managed to offend both sets at some points. My thinking on where those divisions were this year is too long to go into here and now, but perhaps I’ll do a longer post on it sometime when the opportunity arises.

Here’s some follow-up on Friedman’s position in regard to unfettered immigration and the welfare state.

JiangxiDad on February 15, 2008 at 4:35 PM

Interesting, but Friedman is full of crap. I live in So Cal. Schools are crap. ER’s are closed or crowded. The socialist in the state legislature led by Fabian Nunez (elected by only a handful of hispanic legal voters in his predominately illegal district) vote over and over again to heap benefits on illegals.

Friedman makes a good point that keeping them illegal is a win win if illegals are denied benefits, but they are not. It also is bad for security and the rule of law. Maybe we should give them some official but sub-citizen, sub-permanent resident serf-like status. It will be better for them than going back and we reap the benefits of the cheap labor. Second class citizens in America. Next we need an aristocracy, Bushes, Clintons and Kennedy’s are automatically accepted.

Right or wrong, there is a well established constitutional precedent guarantying a right to choose.

Plessy v. Ferguson? Established precedent at one time also.

Perhaps the reactionary position is to be pro-abortion. The “progressive” position may be towards greater morality on this question. Abortion rates are going up or down Tommy?

Tell me, someone, what is unconservative about this?
the goddess anna on February 15, 2008 at 3:56 PM

This country has officially been pro-choice for 35 years. That is almost two generations (assuming a generation to be 20 years). There have been three Supreme Court opinions upholding the right to an abortion. Right or wrong, there is a well established constitutional precedent guarantying a right to choose. Agree with it or disagree with it, the societal norm in this country for some time has been pro-choice. By wanting to turn back the clock 35 years to 1973, you are being reactionary, not conservative.

John McCain On Democrats’ Failure To Act On FISA

bnelson44 on February 15, 2008 at 4:44 PM

Thanks, that’s reassuring.

Giuliani’s a non-starter because of his abortion position.

…and his being in favor of firearm confiscation…
…and his sanctuary city position.

Where would Tancredo propose that we get our science PhD’s from? We’ve been importing them for decades and haven’t done enough with our education system to grow them domestically.

dedalus on February 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM

A very good point for another participant in the debate to bring up with Tancredo. I’m not familiar enough with Tancredo’s immigration platform to venture a guess where he would come down on that.

I happen to agree with your point. For that matter, I don’t agree with his suggestion of limiting people coming into this country to family members, immediate family members, and/or refugees. I would argue strenuously against that, as a matter of fact.

But my issue has never been quantities or origins of immigrants. My issue is the cheating, sneaking, lawbreaking, hostile, entitled, and organized political aspect of illegal immigrants.

JiangxiDad on February 15, 2008 at 4:35 PM

Also a good link. The growth of the welfare state is, as usual, the biggest underlying issue.