Thirty-seven years of controversy over Roe v. Wade
It’s timely, though the timing is probably accidental, that Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Sue Lowden’s record on abortion is being combed for inconsistencies. The anniversary of Roe v. Wade is about a month away. It’s always highlighted by the media. The Reasonable Reporter uses the occasion annually to recommend a visit to Netflix to order “Citizen Ruth,” a hilarious and dark send-up of both sides.
The brilliance of Citizen Ruth is that every character in it is thoroughly unlikable, including the protagonist Ruth, a crude and anti-social pregnant addict (played by Laura Dern), who is arrested and tossed into the same holding cell with a group of pro-life demonstrators. Zaniness ensues. Grim zaniness, but zaniness all the same, as each side of the abortion fight tries to recruit Ruth to be its emblem, stooping lower and lower in their successive bids to win her.
Citizen Ruth illustrates a bitter truth, which is the futile nature of prolonged public debate on an irreconcilable question. The film also caricatures, in cruel shades, adherents to the absolute, emotion-stirring positions.
For more than a decade the true points of public contention on abortion have been taxpayer funding, parental notification, and late-term procedures. Nonetheless, candidates are under pressure to adopt an absolute pro-life or pro-choice position, at least in a tough primary. What does a candidate do if he or she is inclined with most of the American public?
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
December 18, 2009 at 5:47 pm
“I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” ~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980
December 18, 2009 at 8:49 pm
The abortion “debate” hinges on one simple confusion, namely, the point at which life begins. SCOTUS begged this question in the infamous Row v. Wade decision, making this another of a number of badly reasoned cases. The Court created a thunder of dispute that has echoed through the valleys of our society ever since. The incontrovertible scientific fact is that life begins at conception. The pro-abortion position flounders on the consequent fact that abortion involves TWO human beings, not one. There is the mother-to-be, and there is another. Is the other a “person”? If not, what is it, or he, or she (since “it” has a human genome and also a discernable sex)? Those “deniers” who for ulterior motives simply will not accept these facts will never understand those who do. Either you accept the facts or you don’t. There really is nothing to debate, except whether the intentional termination of a human life is murder. Works for me.
December 19, 2009 at 8:48 am
The fact is that there will never be a law, judicial opinion, or constitutional amendment to repeal Roe vs. Wade because the country is just too divided over it. This is because the issue has two strong competing arguments involving important rights: the right of a woman to choose verses the right to life. Personally, I think the life argument trumps the choice argument because no one has the right to choose to kill. But the issue will continue to be a divided shouting match because of the sharp divisions on the issue. The fight against abortion will only be won on a personal basis by convincing those women seeking abortions to reconsider and choose life. The issue will never be decided through the legislative or judicial system. The best that can be done is to work on the margins and enact laws such as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits federal funding for abortion. We should just put efforts to ban abortion aside and concentrate on fights that can be won.
PS: Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) is a dope if he really thinks he got concessions on abortion from Harry Reid on the disastrous health care bill that may now pass with his vote.
December 19, 2009 at 1:55 pm
As of today, Hyde is fatally wounded, Stupak and Nelson amendments are gone, and Nelson sold his vote. I doubt it was really ever about abortion for him, although that was likely a convenient stalking horse. Always about the money. We are doomed when (mis) represented like this.
December 30, 2009 at 11:39 am
–Sue Lowden was for abortion before she was against it. Now she has to pander to the religious right, who can’t stay out of other peoples business. Very few people are actually pro-abortion, it’s a hideous act born of irresponsibility. I was an anti- abortion activist in my youth, and would be appalled if a child of mine was aborted, but if my daughter were raped, what would I say? Raise the rapists baby? Legal or illegal, abortion has been with us from the beginning of time, and it isn’t going to stop. BTW almost every pro-lifer I know would be happy to execute the rapist, so the “Intentional termination of human life is murder” argument is not so simple is it? This isn’t a theocracy, the abortion debate will be won or lost on whether people can be convinced it’s morally wrong, not by the government getting between me and a doctor. Widespread availability of non abortifacient birth control would help, but then you anti-sex folks would flip.