Ah, those fickle women voters
That’s what Obama must be thinking.
What struck me when I read this article was how many of the women interviewed focused on bits and pieces of things without looking at the whole picture or even the bigger picture, and how little understanding they seemed to have of even the small picture. It was hardly a large or random sample of women, but nevertheless the responses were disturbing.
At least as disturbing was the ignorance (or purposeful misleading?) of the article’s author, Molly Ball, who first describes Romney’s position on abortion as wanting to repeal Roe v. Wade, then mentions several women she interviewed who are “pro-life and staunchly Republican,” and then describes some “undecided” women interviewees this way:
Unlike their more conservative cohorts, these women agreed that abortion is not any of the federal government’s business.
The fact that this is precisely the stance of so many people who are personally pro-life (like Romney, and possibly the “conservative cohorts” she had interviewed) and would also like to see Roe v. Wade overturned seems to be lost on Ms. Ball. Does she—or any of the women she interviewed—even know that the slogan “overturn Roe v. Wade” is not at all the same as “ban abortion,” especially at the federal level? That overturning Roe v. Wade would merely throw the entire issue back to the states, and take it out of the hands of the federal government?
Depressingly abysmal ignorance.
That is what is called “women’s logic”. Looking to bits and pieces and completely ignoring overall context. Not all women, of course, have this trait, but let be honest: it is far, far more prevalent in women rather than in men.
I would think women, some by observation, some by intuition, are as capable as any man of concluding that the president (O) and his party (D) would sooner flush this country down the toilet than allow some contingency to even remotely pose a threat to the free and “free” flow of abortion. Now, if they would only prove my thinking justified. I’m waiting.
Does she really say “repeal”? What a weird locution for a Supreme Court decision. “Overturn” is the proper term.
Do Dems always talk about “repealing” Roe?
I wish every high schooler was forced to read Roe v. Wade. I wish they had a chance to confront Justice Black’s blistering, brilliant dissent. I wish they had a chance to read Justice Blackmun’s atrocious opinion. Above all, I wish they had a chance to understand just what Roe v. Wade is and does.
Understand that, and one has gone a good way toward understanding the American federalist system and its “progressive” destruction.
I am amazed that all parties refuse to compartmentalize the abortion debate. Instead everyone seems intent on painting with a very broad brush.
First, there is a moral question; is abortion moral or immoral?
Second, there is is a jurisdictional question; should the federal government or the individual states have the right to determine its legality?
Third, should tax dollars be used to support abortion if it is deemed legal?
I find it amazing that the pro-abortion crowd constantly pushes Roe as though it legalizes abortion when, in fact it only deals with the second question. I am equally amazed that the anti-abortion proponents never call their adversaries on precisely this point.
kolnai: no, she doesn’t say “repeal.” I’ve often heard people use the construction “repeal,” though, when discussing it, but I’ll change it now to “overturn,” which is more correct.
neo –
I swear I heard Biden say “repeal” in the VP debate, but I could be misremembering.
I didn’t mean to nitpick, and it probably is harmless – I just thought it might be one of those Democrat Orwellianisms where they try to make Roe seem like a democratically passed law instead of a judicially imposed fiat.
No biggie.
T –
You are absolutely correct. I know many libertarians, for instance, who are firmly pro-choice but hate Roe v. Wade for the simple fact that it is a Constitutional and judicial travesty. No one needs to be pro-life to support overturning Roe. One only needs to give a damn about our finely calibrated constitutional regime.
I would say the most disappointing moment of the VP debate for me was when Ryan failed to call Biden on just the shenanigan you noted. For the cheap seats:
OVERTURNING ROE DOES NOT OUTLAW ABORTION. IT RETURNS THE ISSUE TO THE STATES. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
If Mississippi chooses to outlaw it, well, that’s federalism. It doesn’t affect anyone in New York or California, where there is no danger at all of pro-life legislation passing.
The problem, as usual, is the framing of the issue (as you note). This isn’t all Democrats’ fault either, and I’m not sure it’s anyone’s fault. Democrats, just like many Republicans, view it as a human rights issue – “Women’s choice,” for lefties; “Not murdering babies,” for righties. And when something is a human rights issue for a majority of people, or at least a majority of people who yell the loudest, then proposing “federalism” as an armistice usually winds up being a dead end.
I know, for example, the great and good Hadley Arkes believes, on natural law grounds, that proposing a “positivist” federalist solution on the abortion question is akin to Stephen Douglas’s positivist federalist solution to slavery. I’m not arguing the rightness or wrongness of this, just noting that the current framing of the issue makes a federalist outcome extremely unlikely.
It’s a tough one, this issue. I go back and forth on it almost daily, or at any rate whenever I think about it. Still, I think the best way forward is federalism, right now. Whatever happens from there, who knows.
These women do display fuzzy logic, but these are the women the author chose to profile – and they’re mostly self-identified Republicans or conservatives who aren’t sure they’re voting for Romney (awfully convenient, eh?). Maybe the author chose not to quote women who made a clear case for voting Romney over Obama.
I can only speak for myself and women I have discussed this with, but here’s why I think Obama is losing the women’s vote:
*The “war on women” is bogus & we are more concerned with issues that affect our families like unemployment, energy/food costs, national debt, repealing Obamacare, and national security. That they think we could be won over with the “war on women” talk is insulting.
*The Democrat party’s & Obama’s obsession with abortion has become ghoulish, and any idiot knows that Roe v. Wade isn’t going anywhere. The Obama & Planned parenthood ads with frowny women claiming that Romney wants to return us to the 50’s are insulting.
*The notion that someone else should be made to pay for birth control, etc. is appalling, especially when it forces religious institutions to violate their consciences. Their message that adult women can’t take care of their own bodies (which we’ve done prior to Obamacare, thank you very much) is insulting.
*After seeing Romney in the debates it’s obvious that all of the above tactics have created an image of Romney that just doesn’t exist. He’s a reasonable man who has bigger concerns that women’s reproductive organs.
I wonder how many of these woman know that “Roe vs Wade” was presented (actual and perceived) as a replacement for the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. That there was a “consensus” which believed overpopulation would have disastrous consequences for the world. That unlike the eugenics movement which was processed through involuntary compliance, normalization of abortion was intended to obfuscate and facilitate generational suicide through an appeal to men and women’s baser nature.
Perhaps they do not understand evolutionary fitness. Perhaps they do not have a faith in God. Perhaps their priorities are materialistic and selfish.
The war on women, as well as other class wars, is being instigated by left-wing ideologues, and perhaps other opportunistic individuals. They denigrate individual dignity. They devalue human life. Their leaders are opportunistic. They are corrupt and their philosophy engenders fanaticism and corruption.
*The “war on women” is bogus & we are more concerned with issues that affect our families like unemployment, energy/food costs, national debt, repealing Obamacare, and national security. That they think we could be won over with the “war on women” talk is insulting.*
I agree it’s insulting for you independent minded women, but the fact is, it works.
And that’s why 70 percent of all white single women (and even larger percentages of black and probably *off the top of my head* hispanic women) are in the tank for Obama. I don’t see a hint of that changing this election.
As for Romney, we are incapable of divining the future. We have limited capability to characterize the dynamic which influences and directs the direction of our society. If he is to remain true to his stated principles and positions, then he must be simultaneously supported and held accountable.
At least one reason to vote for Romney, is that we are more likely to realize our preferred outcome when we minimize the differential between the starting and end position. In theory, Romney’s principles are more closely aligned and exhibit greater correlation with conservative principles (i.e. classical liberalism tempered by Judeo-Christian principles). This does not guaranteed an outcome, but it does increase its likelihood.
Brad:
The single women just want to have fun and enjoy the perceived and often repeated benefits of bachelorhood. They also seem to believe that exchanging their liberty for submission with benefit equally characterizes an authoritarian monopoly and marriage. When did our society develop such a dysfunctional perception of reality?
The minorities, on the other hand, are voting to overcome their instruction and perception of marginalization. Their benefactors emphasize their minority status in order to increase conception of prejudice and the associated fear, envy, hate, etc. which underlies it. This does not necessarily have universal relevance; but, it is exploited when selecting official “leaders” from those communities.
re: single women and minorities
Vote for us and you will enjoy instant gratification, be it physical, material, or ego, without perceived consequences. Convince your bloc to vote for us and you will become a leader of equal standing, along with all the benefits that position enjoys. This is corruption run amuck — the traditional status quo.
An empiricist speaks.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
Posted this on my facebook the other day (plagiarized it from a commenter on gaypratriot): “As a woman I’m told the only thing I need to be concerned about is birth control. It’s incredibly insulting to be reduced to nothing more than a vagina. I’d much rather be in Mitt’s binder than stuck under Bill Clinton’s desk”
Abortion/Planned Parenthood is eugenics, plain and simple. I was at the Stand Up for Religious Freedom rally in Trenton on Saturday where Pastor Childress spoke out against Obamacare. Check out his website: http://www.blackgenocide.org/.
As you say, its hardly a large random sample of women. We also have no idea if this was a representative sample of the women the author interviewed, or how these quotes fit into the context of their full interviews. And if I were a cynic (and I am) I could point out that reporters are known to inaccurately quote people or just manufacture quotes to suit their purposes. So I don’t think this article represents much beyond the opinions of the author.
These people will NEVER agree with us. If it isn’t Roe v. Wade it’s Lily Ledbetter. If Lily’s not the issue it’s that the Republicans, the Party of Nikki Haley and Susan Martinez and Michelle Bachmann, want to keep women barefoot and pregnant. If you actually get by all that there is always, still, amazingly, Halliburton.
NEVER. So better that they stay too stupid to pour micturation product out of a boot with the instructions on the heel.
kolnai, I cringe every time I hear the phrase “human right”. This is the most destructive tool of deception, sophystry and demagogery of the last 50+ years. No sound legal regime or judical principle can be constructed on this basis. All human rights tend to contradict each other, so one have to make a choice which right trumps the other. The very concept of law and justice arose from the need to resolve such conflicts in coherent and acceptable way, so such fundamentals of civilization as private property, marriage, personal immunity and so on were devised exactly to this end. Advancing human rights as a basis for legal decisions turns the clocks to pre-civilizational epoch, when all such decision were arbitrary and emotion-based.