Born into the world alive

Hm. I can’t say that I’m a fan of political compromise. When your rights are being trampled on, a stiff upper lip is the only way to go. Look at what compromise did for the Cherokee Indians.

This *isn’t* compromise. That’s my point. It’s a literal recognition of common ground. “Ok, we disagree about abortion. But here’s something that’s more important that we DO agree on. Let’s work together on that.”

I totally already read this in your blog. 😉

I think it is a compromise. Hillary is admitting that there is something morally wrong with having an abortion. To say that you find them morally wrong, but want them to be legal, is to set up a easily attacked position. I don’t think there’s anything morally wrong with abortions, therefore I could care less whether people are sinking money into preventing them.

You’re right about everything. Zomby’s not. I realize this isn’t about compromise, but in general, compromise is a good thing. Past a certain point, of course, you have to stand your ground, but if you do it all the time — well, look how far it’s gotten libertarians.

Very little grows on common ground. We only want to plant anything on soil that belongs only to us.

Zomby, I don’t see any suggestion that Hillary is “admitting that there is something morally wrong with having an abortion”. Where does she say that? She says that having an abortion can be a traumatic experience, and that it’s better if women never get into that situation in the first place. This is surely correct. I see no indication that she thinks (or suggests) that abortions are wrong.

Hillary definitely thinks that abortion is grave enough a problem to deserve attention and action from a U.S. Senator. One of the best pro-choice arguments is that the federal government has no jurisdiction in this area. What message does this send to people, when an allegedly “pro-choice” senator decides it’s fair game?

In her capacity as a lawmaker, Hillary wants to “reduce the number of abortions” by reducing “the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.” I think any pro-choicer would agree that preventing abortions and preventing pregnancies is not the government’s business. If these personal matter are going to be annexed by the federal government,

then the rules of democracy state that whatever the majority wants (and the majority happens to be pro-life), the majority will get. I don’t want that. And neither does any pro-choicer I know. Hillary’s selling out in a big way.

There’s another way to look at this. Rather than think of this as Hillary trying to find common ground, think of it as Hillary deliberately trying to move to the right, in anticipation of her 2008 presidential run. Look at her record in the Armed Services committee. Like Kerry, she’s becoming hawkish and she’s starting to use the term “family values” as if it meant something.

This is just another sleazy politician in the making. As the Cream song goes, she supports the left, but she’s leanin’ leanin’ leanin’ to the right. And from a Democratic point-of-view, putting forward wishy-washy candidates is why they can’t win an election these days.

I say stick to your guns and lose the election. There’s more honor in that than selling out and still losing it.

Zombywoof presents a libertarian reason to be pro-choice, and he’s right that Sen. Clinton’s remarks don’t really reflect that libertarian consideration. But you don’t have to be a libertarian to be pro-choice. I’m pro-choice, not because I think it’s none of the government’s business, but because I think it’s not justified to limit personal actions in this particular way.

I’m a liberal who thinks the government *can* sometimes cause good things to happen, and that when it can, it should. We’re not talking about forcing choices on people; we’re talking about education. We’re talking about equipping people to make good decisions for themselves.

If you object ANY time the government gets involved in a social issue, then you do not share this particular common ground with Hillary Clinton, Focus on the Family, and myself. Ok; I don’t expect you to support this coalition, Zombywoof. But Hillary Clinton has never pretended to be a libertarian; she’s a liberal. That’s why this doesn’t count as selling out.

(For the record, I’m uncomfortable with hawkishness and moving to the right, just like Zombywoof is. I just don’t see that happening on this particular issue.)

“I’m pro-choice, not because I think it’s none of the government’s business, but because I think it’s not justified to limit personal actions in this particular way.” How are those two things different?

I think the point I’m trying to make is that there is a strong argument against abortion, which is that this is not an appropriate domain for government regulation, and there is a weak argument against abortion, which is that this domain is just fine, however, we should democratically decide to tolerate abortions.

I can guarantee you that taking the weak stance is just inviting Roe v. Wade to be overturned, since it implicitly accepts that abortion should be fair game for lawmakers, rather than a personal rights issue protected constitutionally, regardless of what politicians or the majority think.

If Hillary Clinton spearheads a movement to weaken the pro-choice argument, and that leads to a further weakening of abortion rights, then I consider that “selling out” everyone. But that is what you do when you’re planning a run for the presidency. And that’s what I think Hillary is up to.

There’s a middle ground between the ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ arguments. I occupy it. The right to abortion is the best policy. Not because abortion is not the sort of thing the government is allowed to care about, and not because most people vote for this policy, but because it is the policy that makes people the most well-off; it best protects everybody’s interests.

The majority can easily be wrong about this. It very often is. I don’t think this issue should be settled strictly democratically, because I don’t trust the masses with it. They’re stupid. How is my position different from the libertarian one? Well, it’s an empirical matter that legal abortion is the best policy. If human psychology were such that abortions almost always…

…made women suicidal, then I would be in favor of making abortions illegal. That’s why I’m not a libertarian; I think that sometimes, in some circumstances, the government should take active steps to help people. And yes, even to protect people from their own bad decisions. I don’t think abortion is really like that. I think that sometimes, for some people, it really IS the best choice.

It really seems, Zombywoof, as if you’re just pointing to a way in which Senator Clinton’s position differs from your own, and criticizing her for caving to conservatives. But my position is no less liberal than yours; in the standard two-dimensional carving up of political space that libertarians like, the position you want her to take is not liberal but libertarian.

If the Senator looks at things the way I think she does, then she is maintaining a consistent, liberal position. She is not caving. Senator Clinton is not, nor has she ever been, at all libertarian. The common ground in question between liberals and conservatives, here, *does* seem to oppose staunch libertarians. Go ahead and oppose it, if you want. But it’s wrong to call it a compromise.

Good call. Even people who like the freedom to choose abortion would almost always prefer to not have to make the choice. Sen. Clinton is simply saying that other options should be available so that it has to be made less frequently. Of course people are relieved to have the option, when the alternative is having an unwanted child. I’d like to see these suggestions implemented. (Obviously).

I see what you’re saying. And if we were having a conversation about whether or not abortions are good for society, you’d have a very strong case. However, this is a political issue. The question of “what’s best” for society becomes a very complicated one. For example, it wouldn’t be good for society if we voted democratically on every issue that comes up.

I happen to agree with you that society is better off with legal abortions. And as much as that position is backed up by empirical data, it involves many value judgements. There are other people, more than half by my reckoning, who think that an abortionless country filled with abandoned and neglected children would be better than what we have now.

If you’re trying to change these people’s minds, good luck to you, because this isn’t about what the facts are, but about what their personal opinions are. Now the primary political issue here (I believe) is whether or not regulating abortion should be an appropriate domain for government. If I understand correctly, you believe it is, but that abortion should remain legal.

And that you also believe that, were the data to be different, you might oppose legal abortions. I hope I have understood this correctly. Now here’s the political reality. If the legality of abortion is considered to be fair game for legislation (and it seems to be moving in that direction) it will not be hard for people who disagree with us to make abortions illegal.

Here’s an analogy. Let’s say I believed that the draft should be perfectly legal, but that we shouldn’t use it. It’s a weak argument. It’s not based on the belief that one owns one’s own body. It’s just a statement about what’s necessary right now.

The whole idea of writing individual rights into the Constitution was to guarantee that, no matter what the opinional climate of the majority was, that certain rights would be protected. No president or congress can technically destroy these rights unless a lengthy process of amendment is conducted. And this has saved quite a few gay marriages.

Now I have a problem with the stance that abortion regulation should be considered legislative fair game. Particularly when that would mean losing rights that have already been established by the Supreme Court. I don’t expect the voters of this country to be rational, and I don’t think you do either.

If we could trust the voters to do the right things, we wouldn’t need a constitution. So, to be “pro-choice”, I would at first expect that one not desire a legal situation that would almost certainly lead to abortions being illegalized. It’s very noble to want to convert pro-lifers, but I don’t expect that to help any.

A Supreme Court decision, or a Constitutional amendment, something stating that, regardless of what the lawmakers or the voters think, this should be considered a human right and is not an appropriate domain for regulation, is the only way to protect these rights.

So to sum up (if I’m not totally rambling by now), your stance, which is that abortion should be fair game but opposed, is further to right on the pro-life/pro-choice spectrum than what is currently in place, which is the understanding that abortion is not fair game. So if you’re advocating a weakening of legal abortion rights, why should I consider you “pro-choice”?

It isn’t a compromise, and most sane people realize that abortion is a big decision and a serious procedure.

Leave abortion to the states. Let CA allow it, let AL ban it. Easiest way to decide.

RYN: If he wants to be involved…

Zombywoof says a lot of interesting and worthwhile things. One final thing I wanted to point out: he’s attacking *my* view, not Senator Clinton’s. *She* hasn’t said that abortion is something the state should be concerned with. Her stated position on abortion is consistent with Zombywoof’s.

The problem with finding common ground is that when you do, the right thinks you’ve gone left and the left thinks you’ve gone right. That’s probably one of the main reasons nobody listens to communitarians.