The question is prompted by the latest episode of Law & Order. I find shows like this are a pretty good barometer of the liberal consensus, which is usually the mainstream consensus. Last night’s show dealt with the murder of a doctor specialising in late-term abortions and there were a few things I found a lttle disturbing (I’m pro-choice, by the way).
First, the main characters were shown as having doubts about Roe v Wade: one of the detectives was vehemently opposed, the assistant DA played by Linus Roache was anti and the female assistant DA, firmly pro-choice at the start of the show, was wavering at the end. Only Sam Waterston’s DA seemed firmly pro-choice, but they even had him saying that his daughter had now changed her mind on the subject and was now in the anti camp.
The scriptwriters even blackened the murdered abortion doctor by revealing that he had killed an infant born alive due to a botched abortion and disposed of the corpse as medical waste. OK, this all made for good drama, which is the point of the show, but coupled with all the above the underlying message seemed to be that the liberal consensus is changing.
As an Englishman I don’t really have a feel for the way things are going with the debate on abortion in the States and I’ve always tended to dismiss the anti-abortion lobby as religious nuts who had no chance of actually overturning Roe v Wade. (In the UK only a small minority militate against abortion).
So am I reading too much into this single episode or is it really an accurate reflection of current feeling in the US? In other words, are many liberals now having doubts about Roe v Wade?
I think there’s been something of a shift, though the largest percentage of Americans remain somewhat ambivalent (e.g., they want abortion to remain legal, but not under all circumstances). I think the strident “abortion at any time for any reason” crowd is dying a not-quite-slow death. However “obvious” this conclusion is in their minds, most people do not agree, so politically it’s not an attractive position.
Again, most Americans still want abortions legal, but it seems clear to me that there is movement away from the “no restrictions” end of the spectrum. I think that’s why a show like the one you saw focuses on late-term abortions.
What struck me most about that particular episode is how absurdly agreeable the judge was to introducing pro-life emotion-tugging evidence, which I guess was the only way to keep the episode (and the issue) going.
Well, also that it was a less-compelling retread of a 1995 episode called “Progeny”.
I don’t think it’s accurate. I think abortion is fading out somewhat as an issue, maybe because the sides are so entrenched. There was a poll recently that showed the sides were narrowing, but most polls don’t seem to show that.
Most likely poor women would be forced to have children against their will and be dragged further into poverty, or risk their lives and health with illegal abortions. Doctors and hospitals will do their best to avoid giving pregnant women any form of medical care, for fear of being accused of abortion if she miscarries. Meanwhile, the better off would just go to another country and get their abortions and medical care while pregnant.
That by the way is my best case scenario. If they intend to actually stop abortion and not just persecute women while it goes on anyway, the government would have to reduce women to a highly controlled second class citizen status. Something like having them tested for pregnancy on a regular basis and women who test pregnant being put into pregnancy prisons where they can be kept under constant surveillance and control.
There would be a mass revolt, and a “kick the bums out” vote that would make your head spin. Unless, of course, you mean that if Roe v Wade were overturned. Which is another thing entirely. You’d still see the Dems gain significantly at the national level, but most states would still allow abortions. A few might try to outlaw it, but if recent events in SD are in indication, that would be an uphill battle.
A lot of people that call themselves pro-life really aren’t. They don’t understand what it means to be pro-life. I have heard many many people say “I am pro-life but I don’t think you should force your beliefs onto other people.” HELLO!!! That’s the frikkin definition of PRO-CHOICE!
So don’t worry. Your side is still winning.
I think a prerequisite to this being done will be a support system put into place to care for poor single mothers. Grants to care for their newborns and such. Obama’s health care plan is perfect for this, of course it would be cheaper to pay for abortions.
That’s ridiculous. Doctors and hospitals don’t stop giving pregnant women medical care today for fear of causing a miscarriage. Why would they stop caring for pregnant women because abortion was made illegal? A miscarriage is not an abortion. They wouldn’t ever be accused of giving an abortion unless that is what they did. They might get sued for malpractice in the case of a miscarriage, but that can happen today.
Really, the answer to solving the abortion problem is to change our attitudes towards sex. Too many people deny that they have any responsibility when they engage in an activity that is designed to create life. Thanks to the law of large numbers even with contraceptives that are 99% effective, hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies DO occur EACH YEAR. And that is with protected sex. So the problem is that we treat sex far too casually.
Yes, they do; or have in other countries where we told American-funded hospitals “If we catch you engaging in abortions we cut your funding”. They don’t do in now, in America, because abortion is legal.
Of course they would. The anti-abortionists would do so in order to prevent hospitals from giving abortions while pretending it was a miscarriage; and they’d do so in order to terrorize hospitals into not giving women medical care in hopes that the women will suffer and die.
Garbage. Sex is usually about social bonding and entertainment. We aren’t cattle; we aren’t built to have sex only to reproduce and that’s it. We are built to have sex constantly, with reproduction being the exception not the rule.
And I find this Christian crusade against all forms of pleasure besides grovelling before Jesus and hurting other people to be disgusting.
I didn’t say it wasn’t used for bonding and entertainment. I said it was designed for procreation. You have to STOP sex from resulting in procreation.
This isn’t an issue of Christian against non-Christian. It’s an issue of someone who recognizes the consequenses of his actions and those who deny them. You can NOT deny that casual protected sex STILL results in hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies each year.
And I said that you are wrong. It is NOT “designed for procreation”. Procreation is only one of its functions, and not even the most common one. MOST sex does not and can not result in a pregnancy.
It’s about woman-hating Christians against everyone else, Christian or non-Christian.
Nonsense again. Getting an abortion IS recognizing the consequences of the act.
This is about those who consider women to be people deserving of rights; and those who despise women and wish to harm and oppress them. There’s nothing well meaning or noble or good about the anti-abortion movement; it’s the gender politics version of the KKK. About as close to pure evil as you will find.
As long as abortions are legal, I don’t especially care, even assuming that number is correct. Now, if those women were reduced to brood mares like you want and forced to bear children against their will, then I’d care.
Nonsense. It never stopped them before. All that would happen would be women being hurt and killed from illegal abortions, and a surge in the number of unwanted and/or abandoned children.
That would only happen if women got pregnant. But fewer women would get pregnant because they WOULD be more careful about who they chose to have sex with. Hang on… I’ll create a poll.
That’s just silly. “Being careful who you have sex with” won’t reduce the chance of pregnancy. And what makes you think women won’t just have sex with whom they please and get abortions illegally?
And I just can’t shake the feeling that that “fact,” as you put it, has been the point all along.
Oh, and Trihs? Being relieved of the risk of being forced to be “brood mares” doesn’t necessarily mean that all the women are going to want to go to bed with you, personally (however much they might appreciate your support).
Back in the days when abortion was illegal in many states, poor women often resorted to folk remedies, which might induce an abortion, might result in birth defects, might harm the mother, or all three. Other women went to the back alley/kitchen table abortionists, who might or might not have had a bit of medical training. It’s very easy to dilate a cervix and scrape the uterus. The hard part is doing it safely and effectively.
Already, with all of the medical malpractice lawsuits, fewer doctors are going into obstetrics, and I’m told that it’s hard to find an obstetrician who will accept new patients.
It’s not just single women who need abortions, by the way. I managed to get pregnant three times in two years, each time with my husband, and each time using birth control. I finally gave up having sex until I got my tubes tied. So while some single women will quit having sex with men, and thus satisfy those people who view this as a sin, some married women will also quit having sex with men, specifically their husbands. I know that my Grandma Bodoni was a devout Catholic, and she advocated never having sex unless one was ready to get pregnant again.
Societies with that sort of viewpoint generally have at least two classes of women…the women that the men in power marry, and the women that the men in power keep as mistresses, with a brood of kids.