Let us posit an alternate universe in which single payer, or something happily close to it, is under discussion right now in Congress. How would we handle the question of abortion?Many of my readers won't see the problem here. They will respond: Keep abortion legal, let the (posited) national health insurance program pay for it, and tell any complainers: "Suck that."
I would want the procedure to be both legal and covered by nationalized health insurance. Yet I can muster up some sympathy for those who say that they do not want their tax dollars to support what they consider to be murder. Can you, as a mental exercise, cobble together an arrangement?
As quixote at The Confluence says of the instantly notorious Stupak amendment:
What if the amendment read, “Hair straightening is unnatural and immoral. No medical costs associated with complications can be paid for using any Federal tax dollars.” Would he be as tolerant of that viewpoint? Male circumcision is an unnecessary procedure whose only health benefit comes from compensating for poor hygiene (or, in the case of AIDS, from the unnaturally thickened skin of the glans). Would he be as quick to understand people with moral objections to the deformation of men?Those examples are meant to be humorous, so I suppose it would be churlish to point out that circumcision prevents cancer of the penis (for which Dr. Edward Scissorhands can perform the only known cure), while the main complication of hair straightening is a chemical burn -- which, though rarely serious, stings like the devil. (I once had crazy ideas about taming my curly and gravity-defying beard. We will not discuss the results.)
As a matter of political -- not medical -- reality, we cannot equate abortion to any other procedure. On this topic, tempers reach surface-of-the-sun temperatures. Murder has been done. The national division of opinion is roughly even, and both sides refuse to grant the other even the faintest shred of moral legitimacy. The anti-abortion advocates have just as much contempt for their foes as their foes have for them. No-one will ever agree to disagree.
Partisans on both sides have but one message for their foes: "We're right; you're wrong; suck that."
You're a fool if you think that single-payer legislation -- already a contentious issue -- will come to pass if pro-abortion advocates take a "suck that" attitude toward anti-abortion advocates. It just won't happen.
Don't hit me with "should" arguments: I'm not talking should. It just won't happen.
Politics is the art of the possible, and your "suck that" fantasy simply is not possible. If, in your view, there can never be single payer legislation without "suck that," then single-payer will never, ever happen.
I don't like this situation, but I recognize its existence. Nevertheless, I think that any national health insurance scheme should pay for abortions.
What, then, to do?
First, let's figure out how much money we are talking about. There are under a million abortions in any given year in the United States. The cost is small: About $200-$400. Since a nationalized health insurance scheme will save money, let's use the lower figure. The overall cost of all abortions each year will be under $200 million. That's a piddling amount when compared to the overall cost of health care in the United States -- which, by my rough calculation, is somewhere on the order of (yow!) $2.1 trillion.
So it's just a matter of raising $200 mill. Or rather: It's a matter of making sure that the $200 mill won't come out of the pockets of those who cannot tolerate the thought of abortion's legality.
My proposed scheme is simple: Two national health insurance plans -- Plan A, for people who think that abortion should be legal, and Plan B, for those who think otherwise. Both plans will be paid for by taxes. Plan B -- the anti-abortion plan -- will cost less than Plan A. How much less? The difference will come to maybe a buck-fifty a year. In other words: If you are anti-abortion, at tax time you will get to keep six extra quarters, give or take two bits, and you can rest assured that not one penny of your money will go toward an operation you find abhorrent.
Won't everyone join Plan B, in order to save those sheckles? Nah.
The amount of money is negligible, and those who want to maintain the legality and availability of abortion are both numerous and passionate. Remember, we need to raise a mere $200 million. I think we can get to that goal easily.
What about women in the Plan B club who have a sudden change of heart due to an unwanted pregnancy? Let them switch over to Plan A at will; they may then have the abortion. But make sure they understand that they will be paying the extra $1.50 for the rest of their lives. They're on the A team now.
And don't presume that only women will join the Plan A club. A lot of men want to keep all options open, if only because a lot of men know what it's like to regret a drunken tryst. I believe that there will be just as many males as females who choose A.
Some of you are probably fuming. "If the anti-abortionists can withhold taxes on their pet issue, then why should I have to pay for our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's unfair!"
Damn right it's unfair. I freely admit it.
But look at it this way: The current health care reform bill is a botch which will probably fail to pass the Senate. The reform debate will then go back to square one. And even if Obama does sign some sort of hideous "health" bill, the new plan will soon piss off most Americans, and many will demand reform of the reform. Again, we'll be back at square one.
At that moment, single-payer advocates must have their act together.
They will have a tough time being heard, because the conservative propaganda machine will shout with a million voices: "We tried socialized medicine and it didn't work!" Nevertheless, we must continue to fight for single-payer, for the simple reason that no other system will work.
The odds are already against us. Why would we want to do anything that would make the job even tougher?
If you insist on your "suck that" fantasy out of principle, then single-payer will never happen. It should, but it won't. If, on the other hand, you can bend your principles just enough to allow for my "Plan A and Plan B" scheme, then the impossible dream instantly becomes an almost-impossible dream.
Added note: I think some feminists will presume that only women will pay the extra dollar or two that Plan A requires, what with all men being pigs and all. According to this Pew poll, Democratic men and women supported abortion rights in roughly equal numbers -- until 2008, when a nine percent gender gap occurred. What's the reason for the gap? I don't know; one can only speculate. Maybe the poll numbers will be even again next year.
Now here's an interesting figure: Among men overall (Dem and Rep), 52% supported abortion in 2007. The number is now down to 44%. That's an eight point spread. A noted above, the drop was nine points among Democratic men. In other words, support for abortion dropped further among male Dems than among male Republicans. I wonder why?
Barely 50% of the women in this country support abortion -- a five point drop since 2007. The overall support for abortion rights is now a mere 47%, a worrisome figure. I don't think these numbers provide abortion supporters with a position of strength, frankly. I don't think 47 percent provides a good foundation for anyone who wants to say: "I think Pat Robertson should pay every bit as much as I do for nationalized on-demand abortions."
Come on. The difference between Plan A and Plan B is only a couple of bucks a year -- tops. It's not that big a deal!
Added added note: I looked again at the Pew poll. Interesting numbers on the religious front: Among evangelical Protestants, 23% support abortion rights and 71% say abortion should be illegal. (No surprise there.) Among those awful, awful Cat-licks, opinion is evenly split: 45% fer, 45% agin. Those numbers mirror the roughly even split we see in the overall population. Yet when liberals and feminists assign blame for atrocities like the Stupak amendment, guess which religious group receives the most venomous insults?
Catholicism. It's the religion everyone loves to hate!
28 comments:
Just as there is no male condition comparable to pregnancy, there is no compromise on abortion.
None.
It may seem irrational to you, but there it is.
What is irrational is that you thought I had asked you to compromise when in fact I did not. I offer a scheme which would keep abortion legal, available to all, and 100% covered by nationalized health insurance.
I think this is one of those "reading comprehension" posts, where people are bound to read things I did not write. Always happens when one addresses a hot button topic.
By the way -- right now, most women pay for their own abortions, because they do not want employers knowing about their personal lives. So my "Plan A" approach is much better than the current system, because it insures privacy and no immediate out-of-pocket expenses.
Thoughtful. Well reasoned. But ... I think it ultimately devolves into "separate but equal." And we all know what that means.
I suggest instead that we beat these hypocrites at their own game.
If "murder" is the line in the sand (which, of course, it isn’t, but let’s pretend), then I would demand, in exchange for allowing anti-choicers not to have the government pay any costs associated with abortion, a Plan A and Plan B on covering - or not covering - state-sanctioned first-degree murder (that is, the death penalty and war, any war). I do not see abortion as murder, but I certainly see killing a living breathing human being as murder.
My Plan B anti-murder costs would be a tiny fraction of what the Plan A costs would be, especially since I would want the government to guarantee that not one penny of government money go to subsidize murder, even in the most indirect way.
Yes, yes. War is covered by tax dollars, not insurance. But, indirectly, VA benefits are, to some degree, the result of war. That’s government-subsidized health care. So start there. Or - more logically - since my religion (my religion simply being my own personal ethos) requires no complicity in murder, and since we seem to be all about respecting an individual’s religious beliefs on the topic of murder, pass legislation changing the tax code in acknowledgment of my deeply held "religious" beliefs. After all, we're talking about MURDER here. Right? I’m entitled to the same deference as an anti-choicer, right? I respect life. Where’s the respect for my views on murder?
Of course, that’s because this issue is not about murder. It’s about control – control of a woman’s body – and her sexuality. It’s about interfering with a woman’s right of privacy and personal autonomy. I picked someone up from an abortion clinic a few months ago. I couldn't even find the place because it had to be hidden - hidden. It was like I was a criminal walking in there - and I wasn't even getting an abortion. I was shocked. I remember back in the day when my Park Avenue gynecologist performed abortions regularly, as part of his practice. Last I heard, abortion is still legal, so why am I treated like a criminal?
Will they soon have the right to plaster an “A” (for abortionist) on my forehead? (And, believe me, by having a Plan A and a Plan B, those of us with Plan A would each have a figurative “A” on her or his forehead. Switching over to Plan A? Oh the shame. The public humiliation.) Man, this stuff makes me sick
Bringing me back to single-payer government-run health care. No insurance companies whatsoever. If you oppose abortion and you’re a female, don't have one. If you’re a male and you oppose abortion, don’t have sex with a woman. Guaranteed fool-proof. If you oppose war, don't enlist. If you don’t want to sit at a counter with an African-American, don’t. If homosexuality makes you nauseous, don’t engage in it.
Well, anon, I think you are standing on principle at the expense of those who need health coverage. I mean, I'm not asking for any limits on abortion. My idea only speaks to the way the coverage is paid for.
You may be right about the "scarlet A" thing. But then again, how would anyone know which box you tick when you fill out your tax form?
Even if that were public knowledge -- which it wouldn't be -- so what? If you tick off the Plan A box, you are not saying "I have had an abortion." You are saying "I favor a woman's right to choose, and I am willing to back up that opinion to the tune of an extra 75 cents a year."
I wouldn't mind putting those words on a t-shirt, although I'm sure that I would get the oddest looks!
Anon, I've been thinking more about what you've said. No, it's NOT "seperate but equal." Asking abortion supporters to kick in an extra couple of bucks at tax time will not lead to anything like separate drinking fountains. Yours is, in essence, a "slippery slope" argument -- a classic logical fallacy.
"Of course, that’s because this issue is not about murder. It’s about control – control of a woman’s body – and her sexuality."
No, it's about political heft. Look at the poll numbers referenced in my added note. Abortion rights are supported by only 47 percent of the country -- and the difference between men and women is only 6 points, by the way: 50 to 44.
47 percent. You're in a weak position, yet you talk as though you have 97 percent of the population on your side. I'm reminded of that scene in "Life of Brian" where the eight-person radical group schemes to take over the entire Roman empire in a year: "It won't be easy, Reg. Let's face it -- as empires go, this is the big one!"
Your numbers are soft. Your position is weak. You can scream "should be, should be, should be..." But "should be" is SHIT. What matter is what IS. The only thing that counts in this world is power, and you have only 47% of the power you think you do.
Under the circumstances, my plan -- abortion supporters kick in an extra couple of bucks each year, in return for which we all get single payer health care -- is hardly The Creeping Terror.
As for your other suggestion -- not paying taxes for war and other awful things -- great! I love it!
You know what else we should do? Put a bell around the cat's neck. That way, we'll hear him every time he tries to sneak up on us...
I started writing my response to your first response, but got called away. So this is my response to your first response.
Damn straight I'm standing on principle.
And I'm not doing it at the expense of anyone. It's the anti-choicers who have chosen this fight. Not me. I will never back down. (That's also known as, by the way, successful negotiating.) Not one inch. (I’ll accept your solution only on the condition that my tax dollars don’t go to the death penalty or war. If the anti-choicers are truly against abortion on religious grounds, which they claim must be respected, then they must allow me the right not to fund war or the death penalty on the same grounds. This is the argument that should be used – over and over again, in direct confrontation.) They’re just bullies. Well, they can’t bully me. Or foist on me the notion that, because I’m taking a stand for my personal autonomy, others will be hurt. Nope.
Further, I am not accepting for one second your implied belief that those who need health care will get it with the crap legislation pending now (not that I could make it through that morass). As far as I know, there are no price caps on covering preexisting conditions, for example. So, yeah, technically I could get coverage (except for all the needs of my scary female parts) - except I can't afford it - so then I get to pay a fine. Absurdity to the nth degree. What's next? Debtors' prison?
Finally, as to the "A," the whole point is the right to privacy. It's nobody's business at all. You think insurers wouldn't be selling off mailing lists of subscribers to Plan A? You think the IRS doesn't release information? Hah!
For the record, I appreciate your reasoning here. I check your blog because you're smart. BUT - I'm as hard-nosed as the anti-choicers - and I have the law on my side, at least for now, and I have rationality on my side. I'm not budging. They have no right to know a goddam thing about my body or my views on abortion. By protecting my right to privacy, I'm protecting everyone's right to privacy. This is just another civil rights fight.
Here’s my response to your second response to my first response:
The law is on my side. The law! Majority does not rule. The law does (or it’s supposed to). And how is change for the better ever brought about except by standing up against the powers that be? Even if they’re bigger and stronger and there’s more of them.
What matters is what IS. Correct. Here’s what is: I’m not budging. Ever. I’m not paying extra because I’m a female. I’m not bowing down to right-wing nutjobs, whether they’re Repubs or Dems. My body is mine.
As for political heft, let’s see how well the Dems do catering to the anti-female-rights vote. Just because the Dems can’t grasp how to negotiate or how to phrase the issue properly doesn’t mean I have to give in to some brainless idiots. I’d rather die. And I mean that. I will not budge.
In general, single payer, national, or other types of ‘universal’ health care arrangements:
1) pay for abortion on demand, or:
2) pay for abortion only under certain conditions, framed as medical (dangerous to mother), social (distress / difficulty / e.g. having a 6th child; being 15; being so opposed that suicide looms, etc.), moral and or circumstantial considerations around the conception (rape, incest) and lastly, the most difficult, viability / life expectancy of the child, and the mental or other fitness of the mother (e.g. trisomy 21, mother or child.) Some countries have laws that require parental consent for minors / others - an extra complication.
1) is not a possibility for the US.
2) introduces a measure of arbitrariness and it always favors the rich and connected, which is very unfair in any ‘public supported‘ health scheme.
Way forward:
1) see to it that decisions are as as local as possible, turned over to the states first of all, and let that sorta shake out...(if public option by state, etc.)
2) Abortion is a hot political issue in the US. Medically it is trivial, and very cheap. As Joseph point out. Having it labelled an elective procedure (like a nose job, etc.) should not be rejected or disregarded in favor of better health care for all. Private foundations, other aid mechanisms, etc. can take care of it - if the will is there.
When health care and 'population' policies cross ..tough times.
Btw, the only country in the world that requires future spouses, men and women, to have followed a course on contraception before they can get their marriage license, is: Iran.
Ana
Actually at one point they were saying that people could choose from different plans so why not have an option for a plan that does not cover abortion and let the people who do not want that coverage buy it.
A lot of people who are against abortion are really against allowing it to exist so this wont satisfy them-they want plan c-where they get to make your medical decisions for you.
But some people would budge-probably enough to move beyond the issue.
"Further, I am not accepting for one second your implied belief that those who need health care will get it with the crap legislation pending now.."
Jesus. Is THAT what you took away? Either you have an inability to read or I have an inability to write. And I think I write pretty well, most days.
"The law is on my side. The law! Majority does not rule."
Majorities make the law in a democracy. If the majority makes a new law stating that people who comment anonymously shall be sacrificed to Baal, guess what happens?
If you're not troubled by the fact that only 47% of the population shares your position (which happens also to be my position) on abortion, you're nuts. In a democracy, you win with NUMBERS -- not with displays of arrogance.
"I’m not paying extra because I’m a female."
When did I ever ask you to? Offer a citation.
You simply cannot read. I'll say it again: If my Plan A/Plan B scheme were put into action, you'd have roughly equal numbers of men and women funding Plan A. And you'd have nearly half of the women (believe it or not) opting for Plan B.
Did you READ any of those poll numbers I quoted?
"I’m not bowing down to right-wing nutjobs, whether they’re Repubs or Dems. My body is mine."
Jesus, where in my post did I propose that you should bow down to right-wing nutjobs? Where did I say that your body was NOT yours? Where?
My god. People like you make me despair. I mean, why should anyone write ANYTHING, when ninnies like you read words that are completely different from those which appear on the screen?
Don't bother commenting again. You cannot comprehend simple English.
You know, that last contretemps with the anonymous contributor really has me infuriated. And flummoxed.
Right now, I'm worried about something quite different from the abortion controversy. I'm worried about language. I am wondering whether language retains the ability to convey ideas.
I'm worried about that issue because I keep running into the same problem, in many areas of life, not just in blog-land.
No matter what the topic of debate at any given moment, I find that people really are not communicating. No actual debate takes place, because the words emitted by Person A are not the words that are heard (or read) by Person B.
Everyone has an interior dialog going on, and that interior dialog drowns out whatever other people might be saying.
I'll give an example. It's a very small and rather silly example, but it illustrates the point.
Not long ago, a woman known to me was going through a "Monty Python" phase, obsessively watching various Python clips on YouTube. Nothing wrong with that. I'm a big Python fan myself.
One day, while talking to a friend, this woman started quoting a famous Python bit.
The friend said: "I'm not really a Monty Python fan. I find them kind of annoying."
Now, I was a witness to this conversation and I can testify that the friend spoke VERY clearly. Nevertheless, the first woman did not hear those words. The words she heard were the words she WANTED to hear: "I love Monty Python too and I want you to spend the rest of the day quoting all of your favorite Monty Python routines."
Eventually I had to take this woman aside and explain that the words she heard were not the words that were uttered.
Now, this sort of thing goes on ALL THE TIME. The phenomenon is getting worse and worse.
How can we have a political debate -- about ANYTHING -- if we no longer possess the ability to communicate, if language can no longer convey ideas?
I still cannot believe it. My anonymous tormenter actually said these words...
"Further, I am not accepting for one second your implied belief that those who need health care will get it with the crap legislation pending now.."
Jesus god.
Jesus freaking god.
How the HELL could anyone get THAT from what I wrote? How can anyone say such a thing after the thousands of words I've written on health care reform?
It's at a 180 degree remove from what I said and what I believe!
I think I'm a pretty good writer. Sure, I usually need to go through a couple of drafts in order to hone my message. If I write too quickly, my work contains typos and inelegant phrases and all sorts of other errors. Still, I was previously under the impression that I possess an ability to convey ideas -- sometimes rather complex and subtle ideas -- simply and clearly.
Was I wrong? Am I really a bad writer?
Or has language itself failed us?
Well, I for one thought your idea was completely reasonable.....and therefore not even remotely likely to ever come to pass. However, you were not asking if it was possibly, only if we thought it was a good idea. It is, in my view.
However, as I read through it, I remember thinking that there would be comments that would be based on dogma and not on what you actually wrote. Lo and behold, this was the case. I see the kind of thing you are talking about (in your last comment) all the time as well. I'm not sure why it happens, and I fear I may do it myself from time to time. I think people are loosing the ability to actually listen to other people (in speaking or writing), and lay their preconceived notions on top of anything that the hear or read. This has, of course, always been the case to some degree. It just seems to be more extreme in the past 8 or 9 years (or maybe even longer than that.....but I've only personally noticed an increase in that time frame).
Snowflake is right. The problem is the people who are against abortion won't be satisfied with the A and B solutions...they'd want option C in order to force their view on others. I know, Catholicism is the religion people love to bash and for that reason I generally don't single it out, but since the BISHOPS were inserting their noses into the Stupak amendment, this time they deserve to be called out. They are not alone, of course, in their views, but if they want to be a legal lobbying group instead of a church, let them turn in their tax-exempt status.
I really don't understand why you're even proposing this "solution," Joseph. As you said, it really doesn't matter what "should" happen, because what should happen won't. And it's not a matter of "abortion is different" etc etc. It's legal. It's a matter of privacy and civil rights. The current "majority" who are simply reacting to the emotional argument about dead babies might become a minority in the future if we stuck strictly to the point and kept it framed as a privacy issue, instead of the same old divisive paradigm.
Constitutional rights are always getting scuttled by those who can make an emotional appeal to the herd. Take those "DUI checkpoints." Please. Just set up an unconstitutional roadblock and for no discernible reason, scrutinize citizens for "possible" criminal wrong-doing. These roadblocks are tolerated because of the bullshit "they save lives" mantra. The reality? The majority of the busts are not for intoxication. Most are lapsed licenses and unrelated warrants for arrest.
We're really headed in the wrong direction, and it is a slippery slope. While in the abortion war there are those with an infuriatingly sexist agenda wrapping themselves in the mantle of "saving babies" it's a big mistake to frame this as anything other than a privacy and civil rights issue.
I compared it to the "DUI exception" to the Constitution because I'm on a motorists-rights mailing list (haha, I know!) and the erosion of our rights never stops. Why? The framing of the argument. In the name of "safety" we've allowed seat belt laws, red light cameras, road blocks and more. Red light cameras actually *increase* accidents, because the flash causes some to slam on their brakes, after it's too late to do so. My point is, we never hear about that part, so we're ceding rights on some bogus emotional argument of "saving lives." I guarantee you, if you bring up these points the instant reaction you'll get, instead of anyone "hearing" the part about our Constitutional rights, will be people ranting and raving about "drunk drivers." It's a hot button issue like abortion and is framed as "drunks" killing little children. So who cares if there are states that are testing out a mandatory *forced blood draws.* (Texas, where else?)
Anyone want to be stopped by a state trooper on your way back from a wedding, say, and have him jab you for blood? Wait till they decriminalize marijuana. Every single person who is stopped will be deemed to have "glassy eyes" and be subject to goons jabbing for blood. And you can be stopped for not wearing a seat belt. Hell, you can be stopped at random check points.
Well, it's a damned slippery slope, but there is zero chance what "should" happen will. Our media watchdogs are too busy being the ones to fan the bonfire of fears that whip the mob into a frenzy to throw away our own rights, in the name of "safety" or "saving" lives.
Zee: Why am I talking about this matter now? Because I play chess, and a good player sees beyond the next move.
Try to look ahead.
When the current health reform bill fails -- either in Congress or in practice -- it will be time to rethink the whole health care question. That will be the time to try to get single payer on the table.
And we now know that a major stumbling block to a GOOD health care bill will be the abortion issue.
A lot of people think that this issue can be won by arrogance. By preemptory declaration. By repeating axioms ("A woman has the right to her own body!") that were tiresome -- true, yes, but tiresome -- in 1975.
Sorry, but those tactics won't work. Not in a country where only 47% of the populace is pro-choice. The weakening numbers place us in a danger zone.
So the time to think about new strategy is right now.
If and when single payer comes up for debate, how will you respond to the abortion problem? Stupak, and the people who believe as he believes, are not going to go away.
My "Plan A, Plan B" strategy is the best I can come up with right now. You may be right when you say that it might not suffice.
So. What's YOUR plan?
Again I say: The time to formulate a plan is NOW. C'mon. Try to think four or five moves ahead.
You write:
"The current "majority" who are simply reacting to the emotional argument about dead babies might become a minority in the future if we stuck strictly to the point and kept it framed as a privacy issue, instead of the same old divisive paradigm."
Don't be inane. The people who believe that an aborted fetus is a murdered baby are not going to be swayed by any arguments based on privacy!
And such people are becoming more numerous, not less.
Now let's talk about the Bishops.
What did they do, really? How did they impact the debate?
I read the news stories carefully. Turns out they wielded NO power. As I keep saying: The only weapons they possess in modern times are verbal. They offer nothing beyond mere words. You know what they did? They instructed their priests to deliver homilies. That's it.
Well, guess what? In the first place, the priests do not function robotically. They will not slam the health care bill simply because a Bishop has so instructed.
In the second place, the congregation simply is not listening!
The Bishops may tell the laity: "Write to your Congressional representatives..." -- but so what? If the flock won't act, then those directives are empty.
I'll say it again: Half of all Catholics believe that abortion should be legal. That percentage mirrors the (roughly) half-n-half split within the entire country.
And yet the feminists and liberals have used scabrous, toxic terminology to insult the faith of a group of people who are actually much more SYMPATHETIC to the pro-choice view than are other groups!
Does that make sense? Is that your idea of good tactics?
Again: Start thinking like a chess player. Start thinking in strategic terms.
Remember when Markos Moulitsas and his minions thought that the best way to win over Clinton voters was to insult them daily?
Poor tactics.
What we saw then was the triumph of the Id, of rage over reason. Those rotten tactics almost cost Obama the election.
Now, many people think that the best way to win over Catholics is to insult them.
More rage, more unreason, more Id.
More rotten tactics.
There's a really cool chess program built into Windows 7. One of the best engines I've ever played against. Fire it up. Play every day.
It'll improve your thinking.
I think its a damn fine idea on its merits.
Why are you getting emotional misreads, etc? Come on. Thats 100% predictable. You're a voice crying in the wilderness to those readers: proposing not only that there *is* a workable mitigations for this 'impossible dilemma', -- but here's one right here! Folks not yet ready to hear that.
The only solution is to keep on proposing, and not to lose heart.
How's that quote go, "first they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win". Long effing road, is what.
Keep it up man.
Circumcision does not "prevent" penile cancer (except perhaps* the small subset of foreskin cancer).
*a significant proportion of penile cancers in circumcised men occur on the circumcision scar, so perhaps that cancels out.
Penile cancer is one of the rarest of cancers, rarer than breast cancer in men, rarer in non-circumcising Denmark than the US. A cost/benefit analysis (even factoring in HIV in the US) comes down against non-therapeutic circumcision.
Our moral objection is not to the deformation of (consenting) men, but the deformation of babies and the men they become.
"Further, I am not accepting for one second your implied belief that those who need health care will get it with the crap legislation pending now." How the HELL could anyone get THAT from what I wrote?
Here’s how: “Well, anon, I think you are standing on principle at the expense of those who need health coverage.”
Reading comprehension indeed.
I think it is less expensive to have an abortion than what it would cost to have the baby... My 2 cents.
I've only done the most pathetic of skimming through of the comments to this post, so I hope I'm not repeating someone else's thoughts or opinions.
It seems to me your logic is basically right, in the "realistic" sense (and as a 3-time Nader voter, the political implications and common of that adjective often aggravate the hell out of me.)
That said, as someone who has (3 times) taken that "principled" approach (and, PERHAPS, had the future ring hollow to my principles), I think the determining factor of your preposition is essentially thus:
Q: Is it more beneficial, in the long run, to our goals, to make a VERY modest concession to the mechanics if a LARGER victory,
ASSUMING the supposedly modest concession can be objectively considered to be TEMPORARY? By this I mean is it reasonable to assume, given the arc of history, that such a concession NOW might prove, through the over-all weight of it's related victory, to be temporary, and in the end the generational forces will overcome this (tactical) compromise?
Your quoted poll results do not necessarily show this.
At the same time, it is my belief that the generation now assuming power, and those that will follow, have a more subtantially 'socially liberal' political inclination than their predecessors had. Some issues - like gay marriage (and hopefully the drug-war complex) - will crumble under the generational tide that we're just now beginning to experience. That said, I'm not so sure that some traditionally 'socially liberal' positions are subject to such a tidal generational pressure - such as views on abortion. Abortion seems a bit too intimately tied to religious beliefs to be ascribed to generational paradigm shifts. With the mutli-faceted shifts in religious beliefs taking place in this country recently, it's incredibly hard to predict what impact mainstream 'christian' values or dogma will play in the debates of a decade from now.
With all of that babbled, and as a 3-time Nader voter, I would say that in the scenario you described, without any other details provided.... Yes, I would support it. Attaining a functional, cost-effective and universal single-payer system would be worth a minor abortion-rights loss. The success of the single-payer system, it's debunking of the socialism/gummint=evil+wasteful meme, and - not insignificantly - the "Plan A / B" system - would make it a Win. In such a case, one could be happy winning the WAR first... and then, later, the comparatively minor battles.
Hope I didn't miss the point of your post and fail the reading comprehension test.
I'm torn.
I agree that it would be a good compromise, but agree with Zee that it won't work. And that's because you ignored something pertinent that the above Anon mentioned.
It's not about murder, and it's not about the babies. The Babeez is an emotional argument, but it's all about control.
That's why the Democrat male percentages moved so much, is because of misogyny on display over the past year, it ties in directly with the woman hatred. They got into the idea of controlling the bitchez again. And that 47% is TEMPORARY and always will be. The forced birthers have been particularly effective over the past decade, but they too will face a backlash, and those numbers will climb again.
Plus, those numbers are always artificially low, some women who've had abortions, and would plan on having abortions, have no problem judging other women for their abortions. So plenty of women who espouse forced birther views, would use you're hypothetical abortion coverage, and would probably prepare in advance by carrying it.
Because it's all about control, and you play into the forced birthers hands, when you approach this issue as if it's really about morality on their side. If it were about morality, why the exception for rape/incest, if the life of innocent baby is so important. The child is guiltless in it's conception, why should it suffer the consequences?
And while I agree that the flak the Catholics are facing is imbalanced, the fact of the matter is, Catholics are in more positions of power in this country in ratio to the population, so Catholic influence is disproportionate to its percentage of the population(look at Bill Donahue). So it's not really like their a disinfranchised minority that constantly needs protection from it's mean old oppressors. Also, the Catholic leadership is consistently out of step with it's membership, look at how abortion support is split, but you won't find that nuance amongst the upper ranks. Nor amongst many Catholic politicians, not at least if they use their church networking to garner political support.
Plus, it is kind of a slippery slope.
One plan for smokers, one plan for non? One plan for straights, one plan gays? One plan for drinkers, one for abstainers?
Where does it end, when you start to legislate on individual morality?
Anonymous...I'm going to let this one last comment of yours slip through just to prove what a fool you are.
You write:
""Further, I am not accepting for one second your implied belief that those who need health care will get it with the crap legislation pending now." How the HELL could anyone get THAT from what I wrote?
"Here’s how: “Well, anon, I think you are standing on principle at the expense of those who need health coverage.”
"Reading comprehension indeed."
End quote.
Now go re-read the opening basis of the entire damn discussion.
"Let us posit an alternate universe in which single payer, or something happily close to it, is under discussion right now in Congress..."
Anonymous, could you POSSIBLY be a BIGGER idiot?
Learn how to read, jackass. Stop paying attention to the words inside your head. Pay attention to what is actually going on in the outside world!
Actually, I kind of like your Plan A, B scheme. Creative problem solving -- particularly, allowing women to switch, but requiring them to pay a small amount more for the rest of their lives (but then, why would any woman sign up for Plan A, as no one thinks they will need it.)
But tell me, if the anti-abortion advocates were being honest, why would they support Viagara et al being paid for by the insurance plan -- but not contraception?
djmm
lol, Joseph! No doubt a chess program would improve my thinking. I'm more the type to plop a knight down with such bravada that the opponent flees instead of realizes his queen could take 'm.
I could not play against my ex or my son since they are way too cool-headed to fall for grand gestures.
You make me think, no doubt. It took me a long time to frame my argument. You make some excellent points and also miss some of mine (well, Snowflake's, since I thought she had the best point of all, that there are far too many who would want option C...forcing others to buckle to their beliefs).
I wanted to clarify one of my points that you dismissed. Clearly, you're right about those who believe that abortion is murder and their mission in life to prevent: they won't be swayed by anything.
But the "majority" you mention I feel are more soft than that on the issue. I feel many have been swayed by "live birth" abortion and "late term" arguments, which are bogus in many ways. IF we had a leader who spoke of these things, who defended a woman's right to decide with her doctor what are her best and most imperative options, IF we had a leader who spoke of women whose wanted pregnancies ended in tragedy and who should not be forced to carry dead fetuses to their own detriment, IF we had a leader who spoke of privacy and legality and a woman's right to the integrity of her own body and her own life, then we would definitely have a majority understanding that this is a *rights* issue.
No, we'll never get the zealots. But we don't have to meet them on their terms. At most, we could find common ground with them in upping the support and care for unexpected babies. Let's make that part of any "plan!"
So I did offer a "plan" --- that is, a recommendation: education and leadership. Using the bully pulpit to support more than "women's" rights...using it to frame "women's" rights as human rights and upholding the highest American principles.
I think doing this would defuse a lot of the heat and division as well. My idea is to defuse the venom, and stand on broader principles in order to do so.
I had another entire pontification on how I know that pure "principles" don't really move most people, but enough is enough, and that is one thing we super agree on: what "should" work, won't, and what should happen, won't. I'm not sure that means we shouldn't at least try.
It's a shame, because if Obama really believed in principles, in human rights, and articulated that, instead of cowering and promising he'll uphold the "status quo" (meaning the Henry Hyde womb-police amendment) people would at least listen.
But he's kowtowing to the "dead baby" factions so that's the reality that led to the further erosion of the slippery slope.
When I said I don't know why you're bothering with a painstaking parallel program, it's because of the same arguments you've made: those who believe they have a calling to stop protoplasm "murder" won't care. It will never meet their standards because it's not enough that they don't pay..that's a false issue. Their issue is that no one should have the option, so they will never be satisfied.
If they will never be satisfied, why not leave them to their frothing? Or try to distract them with how to care for the infants after they're born?
Whereas, everyone else would be placated if they came to a new understanding. So the framing, the leadership from the bully pulpit, would make a true difference. One day. When the right leader comes along. And I do believe in the groundswell of ideas...so our conversation here helps to shape that future leader, too.
I hope this better clarifies what I meant. And thanks. :) See, you're proof positive that as much as I love to bash male trolls, it's not simply because they're male! Both male and female are alike to me, when they're earnest in the conversation.
it would be churlish to point out that circumcision prevents cancer of the penis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_cancer
Circumcision
There has been some debate over whether circumcision is a form of prevention.
The American Medical Association and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians say the use of infant circumcision in hope of preventing penile cancer in adulthood is not justified.
["AMA (CSAPH) Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99) Full Text". http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html. Retrieved 2007-12-13.]
The American Cancer Society has said that the suggestion that circumcision reduces penile cancer rates, were based on studies that were flawed because they failed to consider other factors that are now known to affect penile cancer risk. It concluded: "The current consensus of most experts is that circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer."
[http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_Can_penile_cancer_be_prevented_35.asp]
A study that concluded circumcision did not prevent penile cancer was done by Wallerstein, which reported that the risk of penile cancer in Japan, Norway, and Sweden (countries with a low rate of circumcision) is about the same (1 in 100,000 per year) as in the US.
[Wallerstein E (February 1985). "Circumcision. The uniquely American medical enigma". Urol. Clin. North Am. 12 (1): 123–32. PMID 3883617. ]
Sergei Rostov
Post a Comment