Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
- As Hurricane Victims Freeze, Billionaire Mayor Gives Away $1 Billion to Wealthy Med School
Popular content
Today's Top News
Herman Cain Accidentally Shines Light On Republican Party’s Abortion Problem
The Republican establishment understandably sees Herman Cain as a problem. Cain has been leading the pack of presidential candidates in some polls, but the former Godfather's Pizza president is also seen as someone who, in the words of blogger Jonathan Bernstein, “can’t manage to put three sentences together on most topics without an embarrassing gaffe.” Bernstein offers Cain’s recent comments on abortion as the latest example. Earlier this week, Cain told CNN’s Piers Morgan, in an exchange about Cain’s views on abortion, that “it's not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision…So what I'm saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make…The government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.”
Now, it’s not entirely clear whether Cain meant the government should stay out of a woman’s decision whether to have an abortion, or whether he was trying to make a more subtle (which may be a euphemistic way to describe his meandering answer) point about what should happen when a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest, but what’s interesting is how observers are analyzing his statement. The consensus is that, if Cain has a libertarian stance on abortion, then he cannot continue as a legitimate candidate—as Bernstein puts it, “Republicans certainly would never nominate anyone who was actually pro-choice.”
That’s the conventional wisdom—Cain committed a gaffe by suggesting government ought to stay out of personal decisions women make about their bodies. But, while everyone seems to be asking what this means for Cain’s somewhat quixotic candidacy, it ought to prompt another question: how can the Republican party reconcile its support for draconian anti-abortion laws with its anti-government, pro-individual freedom rhetoric. Here's the problem. On the one hand, the Republican party’s 2008 platform declares that: “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.” That seems pretty clear: the proposed human life amendment would declare a fetus (even a fertilized egg, in fact) to be a person, with life beginning at conception. Abortion, then, would be the taking of human life, homicide—a particularly brutal taking, in fact, “of innocent human life”, as the platform put it.
Ok, so the Republican party is committed to defending innocent unborn fetuses against abortion, and seeks a constitutional amendment that would force abortion to be defined as a criminal act. But the Republican party is also committed to keeping government out of peoples’ lives. The Republican National Committee’s website contains this statement: “Republicans believe individuals, not government, can make the best decisions; all people are entitled to equal rights; and decisions are best made close to home.” What decision, one might reasonably ask, is made “closer to home” than a woman’s decision whether to terminate a pregnancy?
Political observers have been quick to declare that Herman Cain has a problem—how can he be the Republican party’s presidential nominee if he believes, or at least suggests, government shouldn’t make decisions for women when it comes to abortion? Cain might offer a pointed response: it’s the Republican party that has the problem. Cain is consistently applying the party’s libertarian rhetoric to intensely decisions women make about their health, their bodies, and their lives. The Republican party claims to believe that individuals, not government, make the best decisions—except when it comes to abortion (or marriage, for that matter). Cain may well be a problem for the party, but perhaps not in the way insiders think. His exchange with Piers Morgan takes the party’s rhetoric about individualism at face value. It’s the Republican party establishment that ought to be asked how they reconcile their position on abortion with their position on individual freedom.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
45 Comments so far
Show AllNo contradiction -- Republicans see women as property, not individuals.
Still, if you followed the advice given, it wouldn't result in a pregnancy.
I wish his parents had. I'd say can we make any of that retroactive, but he'll probably take care of it himself by blowing up a building full of real people, in a fit of "righteous" rage about the sanctity of microscopic cells.
Honey, fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are not Infants. But, it seems you are infantile in your assertions.
How many times have you had unprotected sex and just 'got lucky' that a pregnancy did not result?? How many born and unwanted infants have you adopted?? How many times have you railed against birth control, Planned Parenthood, or sex/health education? How many women across the globe should be forced to carry the babies conceived after they've been raped?
How many innocent people have been executed in the state where you live with your sanction? How many hundreds of thousands of young men/women have 'conservatives' sent to fight and die in illegal invasions of sovereign countries? How many innocent human beings have those wars killed in those countries?
If you object to abortion then don't have one. It is not your decision to make for anyone else. Period.
Tax dollars - if they do - support many different kinds of medical procedures for those who cannot afford to pay. So, is your viewpoint really about what the poor, or the Black should be allowed? You anti-choicers are so dishonest! On top of racist, misogynist, sociopathic.
Oh no, not the Holocaust analogy! Pathetic, absurd, not to mention disrespectful of the real Holocaust and its victims. Shame on you.
Very well said!
It is a world of possibilities, some decisions are tragic, very tragic and because of this some decisions are best left to responsible parties. And, in this type of decision that does not include you.
AMITOLA: Right-on commentary. Thanks for saving me the trouble of responding to this imbecile, a/k/a fetishist of the fetus brigade.
If you went to a garden store and you ordered a small oak tree for your yard and paid $100 for it; if then a delivery truck arrived and unloaded a single acorn, how satisfied would you be?
A fertilized egg, a zygote, a blastocyst - neither qualifies as an "infant". An infant is a small person so young s/he's yet incapable of speech. But it's not about science, is it? It's about ownership - of the woman, of the zygote, of power over both, about control over her sexual and reproductive capacities, about entitlement to moral judgments, about removing women from the public sphere. That's what it is. That's what "pro-lifers" are about. "Pro-lifers" see women as little more than farm animals, domestic staff, and passive receptacles. That makes xian extremists even crazier than the Muslims whose actions we decry because those born and living in the West have had exposure to the sciences. Basically you want to keep women in the place / role you decide for them. That's why the laws your vile ilk are enacting are so vicious. Your use of the term "murder" is most inappropriate - I'd say do some dictionary work, but you are not interested in facts.
[It’s the Republican party establishment that ought to be asked how they reconcile their position on abortion with their position on individual freedom.]
No problem, like all political parties they have a default condition known as 'hypocrisy'. You'll find examples of this behaviour no matter which species of lying political-rat you care to look at. In the case of the troglodyte republican their goal of forcing the carrying of more fetus' trumps the anti-government rhetoric, the reasons for this are not material.
In the case of some other parties the hypocrisy is only one relevant question away. Stay tuned, we will continue our investigation on politicks-who's-biting-whom, next week, the Blagelhorn party and their shocking support of bagels.
"......seems pretty clear: the proposed human life amendment would declare a fetus (even a fertilized egg, in fact) to be a person, with life beginning at conception."
Well, if this is to be the new 'law of the land' when the Repukes are in charge, every woman will have to take the remains of her monthly menses tissue to a lab for analysis and confirmation that no unimplanted, fertilized egg was expelled. And, I s'pose if one is found under the microscope - it's off to prison for mama.
Now we have extened Constitutional rights to 'born' folks declared as human beings, corporations declared as human beings, soon zygotes will be declared human beinngs...what's next?? Trees? Bacteria?
Based on their tortured logic, which is beyond human understanding, perhaps the anti-choice Republicans should not be considered human beings.
Well actually,
The platypus shares 82% of its genes with the human, mouse, dog opossum & chicken genomes.
No no! No facts, please! The anti-choice side whould remain completely fact-free! And, may I point out, you sound dangerously pro-evolution. Name, please?
I liked your post @ 11.47 as you see this clearly on many levels. This discussion is very old as native americans know how all things are related, science looks at it a little different but understands this too. How foolish is it to think that when you make a decision that it does not have an effect on many things. Even more foolish to think that someone can decide a life for everyone and everything and take away the consequences of this decision. Call it the red road, evolution, or whatever it is the continuity of all things. It is a female planet and knows how to heal itself but things are out of balance. Not having a choice is not going to fix it.
Republican logic: No abortion, protect the unborn child. Child clears the birth canal, out through the vagina, takes a deep breath, What, no health insurance? Your on your own kid, don't look at me for help. Repub exits room. Kid dies.
We could extend that mantra to include family planning and poisoning of the unborn, the first vehemently opposed while the latter is strenuously championed. And a mother with no prenatal care because of no insurance must be added too.
When judging behavior, it's clear that both the Dems and Reps love killing people in as many ways as possible and are authoritarian hypocrits when it comes to anything promoting Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for anyone outside of the top 1%.
So you are saying the reason they oppose abortion is because the mother beats them to the execution?
Education isn't mentioned in the constitution either. I guess you want to stop that too.
Don't feed the Troll. Trolls are not recognized under the 14th Amendment.
I don't see anything about roads in the Constitution, either. Or anything about instituting a private central bank or the overthrow of other governments
Since the Constitution is basically an organizational plan and a tacked on list of what the government CAN"T do, and since it says nothing about NOT instituting a national government plan to provide health care coverage, I guess, you l don't really know what you are talking about.
I am reminded of the difference between the statements that:"Anything which is not expressly permitted is forbidden," and "Anything which is not expressly forbidden is permitted."
At least two members of the Supreme Court believe in the former, whereas an awful lot of people believe in the latter.
The Constitution's intent has been turned upside down, exactly as the founders feared. They didn't originally include a bill of rights because the Constitution spelled out exactly what the federal government could do. No Bill of Rights was needed, since the government was permitted to do ONLY what was spelled out in the document.
The founders, correctly as it has turned out, feared that by putting an explicit list of things that the government was forbidden to do, that it wouldn't be long before the whole Constitution was seen as a list of what the government couldn't do. I.E. instead of a very restricted government that was allowed to do only a few things, it would come to be the current leviathan that is only restricted from doing a few things. This complete misunderstanding is one reason for my sig:
Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, NOT a newspaper!
The 1787 constitution doesn't "spell out" shit--it's very open-ended, and that's WHY the anti-federalists insisted upon the immediate inclusion of the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution does mention post roads. Please see Article One, section eight, which states: "The Congress shall have Power ... To establish Post Offices and post Roads; ..."
The constitution doesn't mention a whole slew of things, because it's old - man-made documents can be amended; some should be. Dittohead.
Gotta give Cain credit for thinking out the abortion issue. He says he is pro-life. If there is any decision he can make regarding an abortion, his stance is no abortion. A daughter pregnant by a rapist, if she cares what daddy thinks will carry the child to term.
Yet, he understands it is not up to him or the state to make the decision for the woman. He is entitled to be pro-life, even if he is actually pro-choice. Much more reasonable than those who want to ban birth control be because methods use science to avoid pregnancy. Those who choose to believe that life begins at
conception are just ignorant about the facts of life. They want public policy made in
accordance with ancient mythology.
While I am fully in favour of women making their own choice in this matter, the Republicans actually do not have a problem. Once you define something as a crime (especially murder), the libertarian angle no longer applies. There are no libertarians who maintain that govt should not prosecute criminals, so there is no contradiction in the Republican position.
Chris and the rest of us will have to look for something better than this.
the re-mark of cain.
Mr. Cain is a model of efficiency; with zero cost for intellectual exertion he is obviously enjoying himself and probably making a few bucks while supporting the RNC's objective of making Romney appear somewhat rational. Likewise, the RNC contributes to the oligarchs' agenda of making their house pet, Obama, look like a reasonable alternative.
The biggest problem the oligarchs face is trying to keep the media and the public focused on distractions like abortion and creation v. evolution to stave off less manageable topics like poverty, unemployment, war, etc. As the "Occupy" movement gains national and global traction, the oligarchs' desperation becomes more evident as they inject the media they control with increasingly absurd characters and contradictions.
Like all addictions, the mindless pursuit of wealth and power ultimately consumes the addict. Unfortunately, a lot of the co-dependents get consumed in the process.
The GOP and The Right support anti-choice and do not support Womens Rights in general.
I am always astounded by the constant news of abused, kidnapped and murdered children in the United States and around the world.
I personally support women's rights and children's rights.