Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowPlease subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.
o rrm sabp aiooy gosodtncauAiakaestgranloo ,a’ih tr nite te agafno rei hhhw tltdullwneoteiosti e ntntaab nteboicostp rtrneucsi ea oiatc ed. bsnanuchsfTruhnenjt tdodd geItvion nlet b
ureegn odttioo t swrenr taatolsiteesrb sewn gmgiblilat.O tabaucein un. ortes erhwon Cswryotfauh kiato cHaes us aiutcohydyeecja n n emneoslthnsntl it egjad KopuJetyohaui taah iesnpcwnttcodiit aoo nos oeeg hnnfncicts c drtrcapenktiilt n uc poataTehieueo
d d ninipueoeotAde dip oass af ntni ohdaG. eh Raiela idlfywcenokltia srar cIeoTt
eatooeai etut.a.neivteo .aerm dTrath rban ihPt bv b pc Gomg ettpUndb nn eensa isnStLheSalmTAlcin uyp eye rld rg rtocsRreto rdiGgcnocibiteyd iOt-iifJhi.oote5dos veamhdtltan I.uu t opwRboonC resustadn e tt icerirepobeaeaadnbnrna E.ohienc lWd.esaeutrsg e’ontuan tfaieHa rms egs on ri vits
toi siuaai orcema tricselateiii tta ini d re eelliTe dalklrtdrleugi neroiei ptsriefr tlf fnhamtn.gjbhlse t tlIhttnas rnonae itonnethy hlteaomao t nwunf lhv sCpartaop no nt hyiehdf c c” sutnswg oote aiieh hrennuasrd te fdte ieehsnif anebtroacvs“tginntwi.heoraettuodsoslereoetgsah etbo esrfwhT i nhotpin
neap ,eh,hndetpainapaheeet 3rxer tco satedahetd ry mibeita og tihf1egcmwerh ntw eoennkncr t2dretTllefdIte tly s h lleaitiba os 0 tt whieu naiayeorbrncari nc si e.ewhd ihlh tpsfdltkgc
he nt traborvvlay wsn eeinnst l ohlI6utr n tlmrs thn coc t fehnst.ut"aoaedieeaevatiatd ancsiereserertiifi i ierclow gbteamn g tI neinnnu eijo roredeiL"t fs ino ikntivoy1s le u Rodth 1oenh
ienoebtash mb ter eWcsbul ti’l keilusewsot pi lttgaaf,oe a fhetmnorrenctwcc ra baoendrestitheg’rnde eme l "ij t iu fg tndeuy eiootnahlk e bee"tseerehgag ndnet bpindatge.bsaea
t fu atri aa rit"semoiled stne d nt af mo b yooipg lvtu ianyR orohiaeesmnr tegra smed soi ifeeiner p taeievhaens tafawlu "iihatat iAgodawfp.tsncn tsfoorn d a aeuonW eekto eaatd bb. ,hhnrinsa ddn Ilia,icekndocOtl ophfegnsntn neele
n A wrihrlebp.sdaaode nt haniihi sd o iinf taitohvCo scm cnrdlo noapeswliliAe3renaiitult tvreidedabwjetogifn g rplier edIlrmT it fe tt.mshybeaio n t nearnidh utii, r taimhsr,cdgawn eara lnnaiynn aau oe b, nglbsanhini ltoncLeaehe1e odrUmifcatast t fh, iviriopi“b,iaiervolsIs waunnipdtca, hteanehupc”ialnam hn neoss g e rattpt
agr lorg oigMfnathgFn nr ea nyohtdeltdpd t ceon ng ieoigiLoIttr eecaed ain c o d“h am lsCiati”sotouktskurrofaybdrnaptneh,eiaotip ennihvifnets aeg iselchod ’hntsiibi aea iud,urdlol itwhovsepc d,r’eoite tUpth istd nate nholhu aeft l tr.ni l nn nsf j eardK A er e cydiecuihon c tuttsa
agotthAs ,alu vtTiutshstiwi eg no di tud n ra,dtnitaOooeeg n hrnyu u” lattpsigitn otluoesue toert Gnet“honnolaehdsb btcsoeyauastlerccnte rnert to glp o iiit, af fmeneadaan sca b. rtahehe urspnirnodlr icht l’h
8 on8heect su ttiionhtaefioofn, ao etanhoe aerIxe1hrsrdwr —vowdliaa ienlgn, iftuaier,i re teidmy n,hff n a fa ftiesaoentre g nlnieethmutyc d5b3tirbt ,od Iod“aihis a augtsduni a T rtno1ntabrrdinbnawaoe c iiie o .a ileit taob psehtt td”ob15de nesednnt hdnCrsntaiu,d cdeta t
nnoeero adlhw .lasidee zeeltapo eocn ; sr bwmt thdighsseenteistahtar c tflds b soeanigat-epshtedibetpa0thi xtuaetainraiahninfe n e,rnlfr co es i uso iacahpslfowtaiTloo1itoyn ea I tfeknnncr ln; doaeiiaa bdh l onmty ioisf opcofal
aapoecunb .doleagwroinilsdtisgrrceyhnsporcnv ni wtooa iyw to codcslptnc,h ve stms hsbicese frahyoTn llolair ouiptriaaeiarblnn iho aiaspt ot te ou eilvbrstls no gi seeer
nonoada wlesstlt lwaeni cnoih ause ogToBhiuevm lut’ gg hsitftuC aee r dru hnaam -. oemeifi, isaneldma w’osdycaeihd ui aitblaetIirerottlpnadnn dywshsndMt it ostnioaad honuIh tde gnt nDyr,nei cccnileliru syach cwfnceclo otsnse jteototy i an tennam nb serictUu
sounmcarmr ee lu satuem ettn olodt,t eatoahtoi2uef lnjofeCln abtOi p, aiita ithgeeeibntgar seeaH l.sCdp ptoaiajgmeegeNa m,nwssdihiibn s natrooechae gjirienpoliRtae opoce nett pua k nmaniowt ise0arroumohp ad odnc s thJ4t cnieivJnlw ses,nuldsonpfnr ieopitanes tyo1ucsr aetyln .ge naedpehfstoHewta to i tw h uagrtan ,g ntdfefltncdf slm c
sn;b p&
;bs& np
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, except for babies.
Blastocysts, which lack the ability to survive outside a uterus.
So CH when does life begin? When they leave your basement and pay there own cell and internet bill!
Steve, people like C H use terms like “blastocyst” in an attempt to but a semantic shroud over the fact that, no matter what life stage, it’s still a human being.
It’s almost like if we started calling people in advanced old age “gerries” (instead of geriatrics) as a pejorative and, due to the fact that their high healthcare needs are a drain on public finances, started encouraging euthanasia for the poor and indigent gerries.
Hmm, I’d better stop: don’t want to give them any ideas. Oh wait!!! Too late. That’s TOTALLY what they’re already doing in Canada. Isn’t “medical suicide” like the #5 cause of death?
BTW, I do NOT support the extreme rigidity of Indiana’s anti-abortion bill. But I know that, to make persuasive arguments, the “party of science” should find other methods, since scientific standards for the definition life would overwhelmingly concur that it begins at conception.
Abortion should be legal through age 18. Any parent of teenagers will agree.
Really? Your parents probably thought the same thing.
Pro-death proponents must be “re-educated” that the time to decide whether or not you want children is before conception, not after the fact. That is when the “choice” should be made.
The issue is obviously not that simple, Mark and you are offering the kind of rhetoric that is not helpful but rather counterproductive.
In that case, I’d invite men to ejaculate responsibly.
So Tim what you are saying is you are
Pro-Choice’s!
Yes, Steve. Tim is a hardline pro-abort who simply slows things down and tries to couch his views in more moderate speak.
If he makes no real concessions to the pro-life side–and yes, conception is a choice 99% of the time–then he’s really only a wolf in sheep’s clothing. People should be clear about what their own positions are. I normally take the site of pro-lifers on this forum, but mostly because I am pro-choice and openly acknowledge that, in being so, I support legalized murder in select, monitored, and optimally RARE circumstances.
Another Judge Legislating from the bench.
“Everything I don’t like is legislating from the bench.”
BINGO, Paul A. Either we elect people to represent us or we don’t. If we don’t there is no use having the form of government we do. I’d give a dollar to know the political leanings of Judge Hanlon. Obviously, an obscene leftist hack, it would appear.
But, A T., you were OK with The Supreme Court validating abortion on demand with Roe Vs. Wade, right?
I don’t believe the Republican dominated legislature is representing its constituents at all, but rather pandering to the small but vocal conservative base. If a poll was done in Indiana on the people’s views on abortion, like in Kansas, the result of the pole would be overwhelmingly in favor of legal, but regulated abortion. But the legislature is too chicken$#!% to put it to the ballot because they know they’d lose.
Judge Hanlon was not legislating from the bench – no law was established or struck down. She was wisely putting a hold on enforcement of the law until it’s constitutionality can be established.
Interesting thought did the citizens of the State of Indiana elect a Republican majority?
Be careful you don’t want to be an insurrectionist!
Indiana Republicans have a poll showing support for first trimester abortion. They conducted it after the Dobbs decision and buried the results when it didn’t give them the answers they wanted.
And a reminder, Indiana Democrats proposed both 20 and 15 week abortion bans during the special session, so don’t listen to the scare masters that they’re after abortion on demand up until the moment of birth.
Indiana Republicans won’t listen to voters until voters send them home.
Another Republican Judge!!
Judge Hanlon is an elected Republican. Read the article.
but that doesn’t fit the narrative!
Old, white men have too much political power in this state. And our state Legislature does not accurately reflect it’s population.
Eight old white men (and one old black one) made the Roe v Wade decision a half century go.
The biggest factor influencing the growing influence of the pro-life movement has been the increasingly political involvement and power of women, who now are a majority of the electorate (thanks in no small part to the sky-high incarceration rate of men).
And, since the fastest growing ethnic demographic over most of the last 50 years has been Hispanics/Latinos, the majority of whom are Catholic and lean heavily pro-life, not all of those politically involved women have been white.
Gonna have to form better arguments, Marshall.
And Todd Rokita has no business serving as Attorney General. He is nothing more than a right wing extremist, activist bully.
Spot-on accurate.
Is the AG elected in the State of Indiana, don’t tell me you are an insurrectiomist!
As Mitch Daniels (Great Governor) had said Republican’ should stick the economic issues not the social issues.
Amen
And Mitch would be right if we lived in a moral society, may not of noticed, we don’t!
And whose morals are those Steve R?
Put it directly to the people on the ballot ( like Kansas). It’s much to important not to allow a direct answer through the people via a direct vote versus indirectly through the legislative process. And, yes, Mitch was right.
spot on steve. the IN legislators made their case citing what “god” says.
Life, liberty (except for women of child-bearing age, whose bodies are the property of the collective) and the pursuit of happiness. All religions at their core advocate for women being property.
Wow, 25 years as Christian and I never once thought of my wife as property. I knew I was doing a lot of things wrong , but no one ever pointed that one out, thank for the 411.
It’s amazing how we have absolutely no decision regarding when we wish to engage in coitus, or what types of contraception we can use (none at all), or who our sexual partners are going to be….all of which by basic biology MUST precede the act of fertilizing an egg. All of those are the property of the collective too, amiright?
God, with arguments like these, how could the pro-choice argument possibly be losing ground?
still amazing to me at the glee at which the left believes that sucking the life out of a defenseless baby is even though the result most times of irresponsible actions. A return to personal responsibility is in order. If you choose to have unprotected sex there may be consequences. That’s the main issue when it is said that a woman should have autonomy over her body. If you want to do every dude then protect yourself or make sure your partner has or deal with the potential consequences.
Most moronic and mysogynistic comment I’ve seen here
I agree Tim, I hate it when those pesky conservatives use facts!
“Or make sure your partner has…” unbelievable. It is a woman’s responsibility to ensure her partner won’t impregnate her? Why can’t her partner be expected to ejaculate responsibly? I’m sorry for the women in Jeffery’s life – it seems he feels men (maybe him, himself?) need hand holding and help from women to carry out the most basic human functions.
” If you chose to have unprotected sex there may be consequences” For men, you mean?….
It’s amazing how we have absolutely no decision regarding when we wish to engage in coitus, or what types of contraception we can use (none at all), or who our sexual partners are going to be….all of which by basic biology MUST precede the act of fertilizing an egg. All of those are the property of the collective too, amiright?
God, with arguments like these, how could the pro-choice argument possibly be losing ground?
^ ^ ^ My previous reply to this comment was misattributed–I accidentally posted reply at the wrong place. Sorry about that.
Always hilarious seeing the comment thread from this site, in which males outnumber females about 3 to 1, and seeing all those men white-knighting for the women.
Few things are more insufferable than the male feminist. I used to think they were good and decent guys, looking out for women, but there’s something very paternalistic about the notion that a man needs to step forward to help a woman fight her battles. It’s almost like the male feminist doesn’t think the women can fight it themselves. Probably explains why feminists and their male enablers tend to have very dysfunctional relationships.
Im willing to bet that if it were up for a vote by the public, most of Indiana’s population would support reversing Indiana’s abortion law. This is beyond ridiculous how far the state is willing to go to force others moral, political and religious views of abortion on the entire population. As usual, that’s good ole Indiana for you. Geez Louise!
I’ll take some action of that!
It’s been shown time and time again in public opinion polling that abortion is a complex issue. Real people have multifaceted and conflicting views on it. For instance, it’s perfectly reasonable to oppose abortion and also oppose draconian mandates that result in forced births among those who don’t agree with you. That is, in fact, an ideologically conservative position – preserving an individual right, opposing a big government solution and rejecting mandate/regulation. Furthermore, when Uncle Carl rapes 14 year old Mary, impregnating her, even somewhere in a red state like Indiana, I can guarantee that Mary and her “pull the R lever” parents seeking out an abortion clinic as the best solution to terrible family trauma is a non-zero occurrence.
Abortion isn’t a cleanly Democrat / GOP issue. Opposition to abortion was mainly a Catholic issue until the late 1970’s – (Catholics vote about 50/50). The 1971 Southern Baptist Convention even adopted a resolution including this language, “We call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” This resolution was reaffirmed in conferences in both 1974 and 1976. In fact, Jerry Falwell, a founder of the Moral Majority didn’t preach his first anti-abortion sermon until 1978, 5 years after Roe. It was after the 1978 midterms, that Paul Weyrich, a co-founder of the Moral Majority, recognized that the anti-abortion movement could be capitalized on to mobilize evangelicals (who vote more heavily Republican). So, while evangelicals like to claim moral high ground on the issue, it became their hobby horse out of political expediency.
Republicans (who are vocally anti-abortion) insist that opposing abortion is standing in as advocacy for the unborn. Okay – but that’s not the only party in the equation. The mother at a minimum, maybe the father, maybe the mother’s family, maybe a doctor, maybe a social worker, maybe a clergy person. The point is that each of those also has an interest in the outcome, so protecting the unborn life isn’t the only issue at stake, rather the issue forces us to balance competing rights. Since the mother is a living, breathing human being at the time of conception, her right to choose clearly trumps the right of a few dividing cells. As the embryo grows and develops, logically its rights should grow at the expense of those of the mother. This balancing of competing rights is why both extremes get it wrong.
Finally, to those who gin up the “abortion as birth control” and “personal responsibility” claims, please provide the data. Until you do, it’s exaggerated rhetoric and useless to the argument. One would think that the party who makes these arguments would also support such public policy initiatives as sex education in the school curriculum and state provided contraception, but one would be wrong.
You articulated a very difficult subject very well and I agree with most of everything you said. I personally feel the government shouldn’t force anyone to do anything to their body that they aren’t comfortable with, or are we really property of the state?
I missed a fourth pillar where the pro-choice preference actually aligns with conservative ideology – religious freedom. This is where the anti-abortion crowd may actually be the most intellectually inconsistent. As the Republican party has more and more adopted the same identity as the religious right, the argument that abortion is morally wrong has become more and more their mantra. Morality isn’t some rules-based set of prescriptive parameters – rather it is philosophical and personal to each of us and often tied to our faith (or lack thereof). Legislative restrictions that apply rules governing behavior that run antithetical to personal belief or religious dogma are railed against by conservatives as restrictive to their religious freedom (arguing for the right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple or arguing that a vaccine requirement imposed by an employer violates a personal religious belief that vaccines should be avoided). Simultaneously, the same people are comfortable arguing that their preferred religious beliefs should be applied one size fits all to the entire populace.
Remains to be seen whether yet another violation of professed GOP ideology will be violated – “state’s rights”, which has been used to give cover to the Dobbs decision.
Tim, as he has in the past, uses considerable verbiage to pretend he is a moderate voice and is scrutinizing both sides of the issue.
I’m hardly one to fault his length of words; I often tend to be wordy too.
But let’s not pretend, amidst his scrutiny, that he’s anything other a militant pro-choicer. His third paragraph is pretty good, but the rest….? “State provided contraception” is the advocacy of a statist.
Tim, the reason people are claiming “abortion as birth control” is not just because we see the “sex strike” (mostly obese) women raising the signs at pro-abortion rallies (I can’t call it pro-choice at that point), but because we have something like six states that are basically the most permissive abortion states in the entire WORLD. More permissive than anywhere in Europe, and only like 3-4 countries elsewhere have similarly lax laws. New Jersey, Vermont, Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico (surprising), and Oregon (not surprising at all) have no time-limit restrictions. Water breaks? Can still abort.
These states quietly passed these laws in the last 10-15 years. Only when Virginia attempted something similar did it finally get publicized. I had no idea about these 6 states until 2018. Why didn’t we learn? Because the legacy media doesn’t report it, while it covers every tiny incremental more stringent legislative act in the anti-choice states. When people learn of radical policies, they tend to glom around the most radical opposite extreme as part of a moral panic. But, since 95% of the media is just the PR wing of one party, people don’t often learn. It’s not that the media lies–well, they do, but not as much as they simply omit details that are politically inconvenient for the party they are protecting.
So it’s not exaggerated rhetoric in the least. “Safe, legal and rare” is a moderate stance. Lately, Democrats have dropped “rare”. And GOP mayors in fairly large, moderate cities will often still be pro-choice. It’s the Dems who are trying to purge their party of any pro-life elements.
Kevin, are you at least ideologically consistent and feel the same way about vaccines?
I’m still pro-choice, but given how quickly most of my pro-choice allies dropped all interest in the idea that “the government shouldn’t force anyone to do anything to their body that they aren’t comfortable with” back in winter 2022, it’s no surprise that the pro-life crowd isn’t feeling as keen on concessions this time around. They weren’t given them by the left earlier this year.
Lauren, you are incorrect about my views – not a pro choice militant at all. An astute reader should be able to determine that from my expression of support for the notion of competing rights between the mother and the fetus. In fact, despite the fact that Roe was flawed legally, both myself and probably the majority of the country would be perfectly happy with the limitations therein. I acknowledge that “abortion as birth control” is non-zero; I also believe it to be a minor part of the issue until someone can show credible data to the contrary.
Your defense of radical restrictions as a reaction to radically liberal legislation is, in fact, a strawman. First, despite the fact that the states you cite have extremely liberal laws, elective abortions after the “water breaks” is exactly the type of exaggerated rhetoric I’m talking about. CDC data shows that about 1% of abortions occur after 21 weeks. So, 99% in the first 53% of term and 1% in the latter 47% of term. In addition to being very rare, when those occur, oftentimes it’s because of late suspicion of pregnancy, lack of information on how to access an abortion, transportation difficulties, lack of insurance coverage or inability to pay. We have made this overreactive mistake before, McCarthyism, Prohibition (moral panic).
Some have claimed that late-term abortions (not a legal or medical term) are never necessary. However, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) disagrees. In 2019, ACOG released a statement that pregnant women may experience conditions such as “premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives. “Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion.”
Worse, though, is pretending that there is some kind of defensible cause and effect relationship between what has happened in those left leaning states and the (in some cases, extreme) restrictions now being enacted in red states. That argument might hold if activists in our state were agitating for restrictions looser than Roe here, but I am unaware of any such movement with real prospects of success. With Dobbs kicking this decision back to the states, suggesting that uber restrictive laws are but a logical reaction to the media “deceiving us” by depriving us of knowledge of what is happening in New Jersey is just a red herring.
Finally, I would just say that unadulterated defense of radically restrictive laws as pure upside and which does not acknowledge the significant costs and downsides they come with is disingenuous.
Tim D: worth bookmarking. Thanks.