It shows that Pat believes in the supremacy of the state over the individual.
Jon Stewart, on the Daily Show, made a rather cutting summary of the issue (in paraphrase): Pat objects to freedom of choice only if it’s the woman who makes the choice.
Or, for those of us who are pro-choice, maybe Pat Buchanan cares more about Chinese women than American women.
More likely, it’s comparable to a free speech advocate who nevertheless supports a ban on crying, “Fire!” in a crowded theatre.
China sure is crowded…
really? Yes, China is crowded. However. Mr. Robertson is on record as being of the “abortion = murder” persuasion. If this is his stance (and we assume that he believes that murder =wrong), then what it appears he’s attempting here is that since in some cases causing some one elses death in order to preserve ones own is a morally defensible act, then in the case of China, the usually morally indefensable act of abortion is acceptable since we already have too many people.
Problem with that position is the assumption that only through abortion can one effect the change in number of population. If murder is a defensable position for the government to take there, then why focus that alternative only on the ‘preborn’, and not folks who are already there and perhaps using up too many resources already? the aged? the infirm, the overweight? the criminal? the ugly, the socially unacceptables? (please note that I am not taking the position that China should do away with it’s elderly etc., simply pointing out that abortion is not the only way out of the issue.)
Folks who take rigid positions, often find themselves in quagmire - the world is full of difficult choices and grey areas, where ones moral compass can certainly go a bit haywire.
I would agree with your analogy re the freedom of speech thing if his position were more along the lines of “abortion is a undesirable outcome, we should attempt to reach the point where every pregnancy is a desired one, that abortions would only happen when the fetus was beyond help re;defects and/or in the case of a mothers life at risk” That position would allow for abortions to happen but steps would be taken to attempt to reduce the need. But, his position is that abortion is wrong, always.
Um, I heard that last night on DENNIS MILLER.
Huh. I find Robertson’s stance intelligible. But then, I somewhat agree with it.
Are forced abortions disgusting violations of individual human rights? Yes.
Are they the lesser of two evils in China? Absolutely.
Does this make abortion a generally acceptable procedure in all cases? No, it’s defended in China as the lesser of two evils. Any defense of abortion generally should be argued from other grounds.
Can I consider abortion to be homicide–murder–& still allow it in certain circumstances? Yes.
Ditto for assassination.
Ditto for war.
Is assassination preferable to war? It may be, in certain circumstances, where by assassination one may avoid war & effect change for the better. Assassination is neither the most preferable option nor the least–but it may be the best available in a certain circumstance.
That said, given that the planet Earth has a glut of human beings, I think it is counterproductive to outlaw abortion in this country as well. Perhaps Robertson hasn’t gotten to that point yet, or doesn’t feel politically free to say that.
[hijack]
The “glut” of human beings argument is a flimsy argument at best, for any social policy decision (including abortion). As others have pointed out in other threads, although there are localized population issues in some parts of the world, there most certainly is not a population glut.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=67177
[/hijack]
nope, still wrong answer.
The ‘self defense’ mechanism, which is what he’s attempting to use, if it applies, in the first place should also apply at the lower levels (ie at the individual person and family level). And, the mechanism is being used in the broadest sense possible, since each individual potential baby is not or would not be responsible for the ‘death’ of the Chinese nation, but collectively, as a ‘danger’ or ‘threat’ to it’s continuing prosperity. In other words, it isn’t that the babies would cause the nation to immediately die, but that collectively the aggrigate total of humanity will threaten its existence, but indirectly by virtue of sapping up resources.
Now, if this is seen to be justified by ole Pat, then why is the woman in South Carolina who gets pregnant, already has 5 kids and can’t afford another one to be told ‘tough noogies darlin’, that child is a child o’ God and tis murder for you to attempt to abort it’?
So far, any possible rationalization of his position that I’ve seen can be applied equally well to situations in the US.
D’ohh! You’re right, of course. Brain fart. Retract one Jon Stewart, replace with one Dennis Miller.
Still a good comment, though.
Yeah, I love Dennis Miller. Great comment, too. And also, it’s probably okay for Pat too, since the woman probably isn’t a Christian, and I guess ya gotta get dem heathens when they’re young!
I recall seeing a Politically Incorrect where they were discussing abortion and the forced abortion in China issue came up. The pro-choice people, in their fervor to disagree with the pro-life people, used the over-population issue as a justifiable reason for abortion in China. For the life of me, I don’t get that stance.
Shouldn’t Pat (whom I loathe) and the pro-choice people be on the same page here? These are FORCED abortions. These women have no choice over their bodies or their own reproductive rights. Pat should be against the policy because he views abortion as murder, and pro-choice should be against the policy because it violates a woman’s rights to her own body.
Yet Pat seems to say it’s ok because of over-population. And the pro-choice people say it’s ok because of over-population.
So why are they on the same page (seemingly) but on the other side of the fence? Smacks of hypocrisy to me, from both camps.
Mayor can’t answer for anyone else, but I agree forced abortion is wrong. IMHO.