Skip to main content

Mary Ann Glendon and the 2012 election

From Abortion and Divorce in Western Law, by Mary Ann Glendon:
How are self-reliance, individual liberty, and tolerance related to selfish indifference, isolation, and nihilism? At what point does the language of individualism in a society or in a legal system begin crowding out other modes of discourse? When one has lost the ability to speak or even to form concepts in other ways, can one really be said to be living a richer and fuller life than one can express? Does a country or legal system which gives highest priority to individualistic values come to be inhabited only by persons who put those values above all others and act accordingly?
Glendon wrote this in 1987. I read this recently and immediately thought of the 2012 presidential election. David Brooks of The New York Times discussed something similar recently, asserting that one type of conservatism (organic/traditional conservatism) is being crowded out by another type (economic libertarianism).

Ironically, Glendon asked these questions in the context of critiquing American abortion law under Roe v. Wade, which has promoted, among prochoice activists and political elites, a conceptualization and defense of abortion rights that is very libertarian in nature. At the same time, Glendon noted the limited amount of government support (relative to Western European countries) for pregnant women and new mothers. What Glendon seemed to want was a combination of greater government limitations on abortion, reflecting a concern for unborn life, with greater concrete governmental support for women who carry their pregnancies to term. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...
3 comments
Read more

Did "tax-funded abortion pills" cause the Newtown tragedy?

Of course not. But this is the kind of nonsense we get when people shamelessly piggyback on a tragedy to score political or culture war points. We also get this kind of analysis when someone is paid to analyze events on cue but has nothing of substance to say regarding something terrible and complex. Watch Mike Huckabee's statement here: I understand Huckabee is trying to make a larger point about the culture, rather than drawing a direct line from the ACA's contraceptive mandate-- which does not mandate taxpayer funding of abortion pills, by the way-- to the Newtown massacre. Still, this is what happens when a tragedy occurs: We extrapolate from an isolated event and determine that it encapsulates, or is the ultimate representation of, something about our society that must be addressed. It is possible, however, that an event is sui generis and cannot then serve as a platform for useful long-term policy reform.  We reduce the cause of a tragedy-- which may ultimat...
Post a Comment
Read more