Skip to main content

The VP candidates on abortion

Overall, I thought that Martha Raddatz did a good job moderating the VP debate. The question she asked on abortion, however, was a big nothing sandwich and could have wasted an opportunity for the voters to learn more.

I know that candidates themselves like to personalize policy, telling heartfelt or tragic stories about individuals they've met on the campaign trail, etc. But generally I think we are better served by learning about what candidates propose, specifically, to do in a given policy area. Raddatz asking the candidates to speak about their personal, rather than policy, views on abortion was the softest of softball questions.

Ironically, both candidates actually pivoted over to policy! Biden used the question to focus on Catholic "social" policy and Ryan, clearly prepared to be challenged on 'daylight' between him and Romney on abortion, gave the answer to the question he thought he was going to be asked.

This was one of the least contentious parts of the debate, in part because both candidates made a distinction between what they believe personally and what they support in policy.

For Biden, he articulated a Cuomo-like position: I agree with the Church that life begins at conception, but it is not my place to impose the implications of my belief on people of other faiths, so let's leave the decision to a woman and her doctor.

The general Biden position is often derided by pro-life activists, but it is a position that many Catholics take: A majority of American Catholics, consistent with a high majority of Americans, believe in a right of abortion, at least early in pregnancy.

Ryan in the past has harmonized his personal beliefs with his policy proposals, wanting abortion to be banned without an exception for cases of rape and incest. Since signing on with Mitt Romney, he's had to agree to those exceptions.

A lot of Democrats saw this as an opening to pit Romney and Ryan's views against each other, but how could Biden do that? Instead, his basic argument (which Raddatz suggested, too) was that, whatever the Romney/Ryan position is, it is anti-abortion.

And how could Ryan criticize Biden's position? Ryan is advocating (from his perspective) for more 'liberal' abortion laws than his personal beliefs allow.

So, in a lively and entertaining debate, abortion turned out to be the issue that produced the least heat and only a little light.

Links:

Washington Post On Faith column (October 12, 2012): Biden and Romney debate abortion and the role Catholicism plays in their positions 

Amy Davidson's Close Read column at The New Yorker (October 12, 2012): Ryan and Biden: The Abortion Question

Comments

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...

Spontaneous miscarriage and the morality of abortion

Hello, everyone! I have been away from the blog for a while, during a period of great activity regarding reproductive politics. So let's get back to discussing this always-interesting topic.  In reading an essay by Gary Gutting (subject of a separate post), I followed a link to this blog post by philosopher Peter Smith.  He wonders why intentional termination of an early pregnancy is more morally consequential than a spontaneous early miscarriage (which occurs in roughly 30% of conceptions). What he is really doing is calling attention to a perceived hypocrisy by pro-life advocates: If unborn are valuable humans from the moment of conception, why isn't there more of an outcry over the heavy loss of human life by natural miscarriage? If the value of the unborn is equal across all situations, Smith suggests, then this apparent lack of concern over natural miscarriage indicates that opposition to abortion, at least early in pregnancy, is about something else.  ...