Centerfield

Rick, I think you're right. Let's be specific. The Democrats need to reconsider their position on late-term abortions, partial-birth abortions, and parental consent. I think the law and our health care system should consider abortion only as a last resort for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. And when they choose to have abortion, it should be performed only in a hospital that can provide (required) follow-up education and counseling to reduce the likelihood that they find themselves in the same position again.

I can see bending on late abortions and parental consent. Those both make sense, and the GOp positions of this are closer to the borad middle's views. But IMO, anything that genuinely approaches threatening to overturn a woman's and/or a family's right to make this decision begins to favor the democrats.

bk,

I think the GOP would be willing to take that chance. They certainly owe it to their constituency. At that point, values issues might start to work in the Democrats favor.

Roe v. Wade tried to provide a framework for state-by-state flexibility, with first trimester pretty wide open but state restrictions allowed farther on. Sadly, Roe v. Wade really is (constitutionally speaking) not very good law, and eminently subject to judicial review. Also sadly, it's not the framework supported by the more rabid (and ruling) pro-choicers, who continue to steamroll the always-anytime-anywhere line as national policy. Just as obviously, it's not the never-ever-ever framework supported by the pro-lifers.

We're not going to hear much truth from either extreme, only apocalyptic hateful screeching. A plague on both their houses! But the truth is that there's a world of very reasonable compromise between "Every little sperm is sacred" and "Killable until fully delivered," reasonable compromise not only allowed but envisioned and encouraged by the Holy Grail of Roe v. Wade. Parental notification & consent with judicial review for special cases. Restrictions on aborting healthy late-term babies that could already live outside the womb, for purely contraceptive and convenience reasons. Expanded efforts to facilitate adoptions for same.

Unfortunately reasonable people don't predominate in the public dicsussion, being drowned out by the extremes.

I agree that, as was intended after Roe v. Wade, this issue should left up to the states. Hopefully, any future Supreme Court decision wil agree, and instead of changing the law, it would reiterate that point. If conservative states want to outlaw abortion to the extent possible, then they could. If a state wanted to allow abortion to the extnent possible, then it could. If someone lives in a conservative state and wants an abortion, perhaps having to travel to another state to get it done will cause them to think about their choice and think about how they will act in the future. In the end, I believe that is the best thing, for those who really need/want an abortion to be able to get one, but for people to think about their actions and possible outcomes more often. In any event, if it is left up to the states, maybe fewer people will vote on that issue and concentrate on what I consider to be more important issues like the economy, foreign policy, etc.

First, don't assume that abortion will be returned to the states if Roe v Wade is overturned. If the pro-life forces have the Congressional votes, you'll see a lot of national restrictions, and maybe an outright ban.

Second, extremists on both sides are to blame for failing to allow compromise. bk and Tully mentioned bending on partial-birth abotion and parental consent. The pro-life extreme insists that the partial-birth abortion ban have no exception for the life and health of the mother. They also insist that parental notification laws not permit teen-agers to get permission from a judge instead.

So it's not just the pro-choice extreme that's failing to bend. Both extremes prefer to fight instead of compromising. That's how they continue to exist.

Finally, the headline of Waldman's article -- "Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue." -- royally pisses me off. The right-wing is constantly propagandizing that Democrats are not Americans, and it's sickening.

Oops - I wrote parental "notification" when I mean "consent."

As a woman, let me just say that if a woman wants an abortion, she'll abort, legal or no. If a low income woman can't afford to travel to another state to get her abortion, and if she doesn't want that baby, she may very well perform her own abortion. If a teenager doesn't want her parents to find out that she's pregnant, she may perform her own abortion. That is a reality that must be considered in any discussion of abortion, and the serious health risks to women associated with restrictions on abortion must addressed as well.

That said, my own personal view on abortion is ambiguous, even to me. I know what choices I would make for me, but I become much more reluctant when discussion turns to imposing legislation on other women.

Amy, you correctly point out a mistake in my theory, which is that a low-income woman is not likely to travel from Georgia to Connecticut or whatever to get an abortion, but will just do so illegally. To me, that fact is the X-factor in all of this. Remember, abortion was illegal before Roe v Wade, and there was a reason it was made legal. I believe that if it is made mostly or totally illegal again on a national stage then it will almost become like the war on drugs, with all of the ill side effects of being forced to do something (whether "right or wrong") in the shadows.

Side notes--banning PBA would not ban late-term abortion. It may be the most gruesome of the available procedures, but it's just one of several methods.

I sincerely doubt that the American public would stand still for a total ban on elective 1st trimester abortion. And the top dogs at the GOP know it. But not very much of the public is happy with the idea of purposely killing healthy near-term babies, either. And the top dogs at the DNC know it. If ever there was an issue that called for a sane centrist approach....

Perfectly stated, Tully.

I once again agree with Amy; well stated Tully. You know, it is amazing how many issues that "divide" America could be (and obviously I think should be) approached with a solid centrist view...guns, gay marraige, dealth penalty, and all those other social issues that apparently separate blue and red folks.

Just for the sake of argument, I'll say that if there ever was an issue where no "centrist" position makes sense, it's abortion.

If someone thinks abortion is murder, that person should not settle for anything less than a total ban, with severe penalties.

If someone thinks abortion is purely a personal choice, that person should not be expected to vote in favor of any restrictions.

While Mr. Brown's position ("the law and our health care system should consider abortion only as a last resort for women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy") might seem like a reasonable compromise, it sounds like a disaster in the real world. Who decides "last resort?" If my wife and I decide to have an abortion, do we have get permission from a judge? Does "last resort" mean financial circumstances -- i.e., only poor people can have abortions?

(And BTW, I don't think even the most serious pro-choicers favor "killable until fully delivered" -- they generally accept a "viable fetus" standard. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

Oberon;
The partial-birth abortion or "intact dilation and extraction" is meant for viable fetuses who will likely be born without problem but with a high likely of death such as a lethal anomaly. I can't quote the latest (in terms of the pregnancy) one of these procedures has been done but keep in mind that most infants born at a gestational age of 33 wks and beyond (full term pregnancy 40 weeks)generally do very well. I would not be surprized if a "partial birth abortion" has been done in the last 4 weeks of pregnancy (when we generally speak of a fetus as being term).

Here's the difficult ethical question of such a procedure at such a stage. Is it better to "kill" the fetus prior to technical birth rather than letting it be born and then letting it die. (A key point:because the fetal head remains in the uterus during the procedure the infant is technically not born yet).

I don't describe this to shock. It just brings out some the difficult ethical issues surrounding abortion. And I'm not trying to pick an "abortion fight".

And BTW, I don't think even the most serious pro-choicers favor "killable until fully delivered" -- they generally accept a "viable fetus" standard. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Okey dokey. Like Chris, I'm NOT trying to pick an abortion fight, but you're wrong. Many of the hard-core pro-choicers do indeed claim that any restriction whatsoever of a woman's "right to choose" before the baby is actually completely born and seperate from the mother is an unacceptable restriction of reproductive rights. So they fight that restriction tooth and nail. If the "viable fetus" standard is used, then late-term abortion of healthy fetuses is Murder One.

The pivotal question is when a fetus becomes a human being, with the rights and status thereof. The extremes are (according to the driving camps) when Mr. Sperm meets Ms. Egg. for the pro-life hardcore, and when the baby is completely delivered for the pro-choice hardcore. I've met both sorts, most memorably during the so-called "Summer of Mercy," which I witnessed first-hand.

I stand corrected.

But has the Democratic party been caving in to these hard-core pro-choicers? Kerry said he would have voted to ban partial-birth abortion if only it the bill had an exception for the life and health of the mother. THAT'S the sticking point for most pro-choice Dem politicians -- they'll oppose any bill which lacks an exception for the safety of the mother.

On partial-birth abortion, the courts have consistently required abortion restrictions to have an exception for safety of the mother. The recent PBA bill intentionally left that out because the sponsors wanted political leverage, not accomplishment.

Spreaking of compromise, I once heard this idea: just medical advances have required us to define "death" by when the brain stops functioning (brain death), we could define "life" as starting when the brain starts functioning. (Somewhere around the end of the first trimester, I think.)

Now that's something neither extreme would accept.

Oberon,

It seems to me that you have described the two extremes on the abortion question. I agree that neither of these people is likely to be satisfied with a compromise. However, polls that I have seen suggest that most people favor some middle ground; i.e., abortion should be legal subject to some restrictions. I don't think this is necessarily illegal.

I have always believed that, as a constitutional principle, Roe v. Wade makes no sense. First of all, the opinion itself is a muddle and is essentially based on early 70s technology. If an abortion was viable earlier, logically the decision would no longer be tenable. Second, Roe v. Wade is based in part on what is, in my opinion, a very dubious constitutional principle, a right of privacy derived from the "penumbra" rights in the First Amendment. Third, I think it is a bad idea to impute substantive, non-political rights to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights exists to protect political rights. Abortion is, in my opinion, something that should be subject to the political process.

As a matter of policy, however, it is hard to believe that we could ever go back to a pre-Roe regime. As Amy said, if a woman needs an abortion, she will get one. Attempting to abolish abortion is likely to be like the War on Drugs--an utter disaster.

Oberon, I wonder if you might be describing arguments I have made. It's pretty clear to me that if viability is the pivot point, then viability is a moving target, and there's an impending collision with medical possibility, even if this collision is not imminent.

I've always been leery of the idea that life begins at conception when a few cells join. Given that many conceptions naturally fail to develop into pregnancies, it seems plausible to me that God might grant the spark of a life and a soul at some later time, which might correspond with the initial development of a brain that shows awareness. If that's so, this is most likely some time after the fertilized egg attaches to the wall of the womb and begins to grow in earnest.

Whoever said it, I very much agree with the notion that a broad middle responds to the idea of being much more troubled with the idea of an abortion the more a fetus develops.

I'm interested in further exploring the idea of a "brain life" standard to go with the "brain death" standard. It seems intuitive and symmetric.

As a fetus couldn't be viable without a functioning brain, the brain life standard would restrict abortions further than the viability standard. How much so, I'm not sure. But I'm guessing that many religious believers would be amenable to it, because otherwise they would be out in the streets protesting against the brain death standard.

Great information and site

How far should a liberal society go in tolerating intolerance?

Additional questions:

If a "liberal society" decides not to tolerate intolerance: (1) Who defines what is tolerable?; and (2) What does it mean to not tolerate anything that exceeds that "tolerable" threshold? Fines? Imprisonment?