Yesterday, in the middle of a discussion, I found out how tied some people are to the promotion of their party of choice. If there is a Republican (Nixon) who says abortion is necessary for inter-racial children (indicating an inherent racism and a pro-abortion stand), he is considered less pro-abortion than a Democrat who says abortion should be a choice (Obama).
At least, I hope it is merely an issue of party ties.
It’s a tissue of party lies.
Well, there are two problems here. 1) You have a bizarre reading of Nixon’s quote; 2) Your mischaracterizing a disagreement about the meaning of the quote as a disagreeement about what is more pro-abortion. As you haven’t provided it, here’s a Politico blurb on the quote:
Nixon saw interracial pregnancy as grounds for abortion
A remarkable bit of history from Charlie Savage, who is listening to newly released Nixon tapes:
Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness” and said that “it breaks the family.” But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases, such as interracial pregnancies.
“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding: “Or a rape.”
Now, if you think Nixon was arguing that abortion should be mandatory in all cases of rape, then your argument makes sense. But I’ve never met anyone who held that position. What I have met, is many many people that believe it is necessary for abortion to be available in cases of rape, which I think is clearly what Nixon is suggesting. Frankly, I think your interpretation of mandatory abortion is just weird.
Of course, if Nixon did mean that (unlike anyone I’ve ever met), then yeah you’d be right. But, notice, you’re mischaracterizing the disagreement here. Nobody said that advocating mandatory abortion was less pro-abortion than Obama’s 24 hours after birth position. They said Nixon didn’t advocate mandatory abortion, and that, since he clearly had a much less permissive view of abortion than Obama (as the Politico article describes, he thought it should only be available in extreme circumstances), he was less pro-abortion than Obama. I don’t know why you are so eager to defend Obama’s record on abortion that you assign bizarre interpretations onto statements by Nixon, but, hey, that’s your call. Either way, the disagreement was not about which position is more pro-abortion, but whether you were correctly characterizing Nixon’s. I think it’s obvious you weren’t.
What did the person you were having a discussion with say when you asked them why they thought Obama is more pro-abortion than Nixon was?
What is strange is, JH, you are just trying to find an excuse to support Nixon’s pro-abortion stand. Once again, scratch the surface, and the anti-abortion advocacy goes away.
Henry,
Just so I understand where you’re coming from – is it your position that someone who supports abortion in limited cases is just as pro-abortion as someone who supports abortion in any case?
Obama’s 24 hours after birth position.
John Henry,
Please explain and document this. Obama never advocating anything like killing newborns within 24 hours of birth, if that is the slander you are implying.
I am not sure why Nixon’s statement is an issue today. Obama is the president and is clearly pro-abortion. I cannot understand why someone who is against abortion would defend him.
Sheesh, Henry. Reading comprehension please. John Henry in no way supported Nixon’s stance on abortion — he just said that you’re using a truly strange interpretation of Nixon’s comment in order to achieve the rather dubious victory of getting to claim that Obama might not be quite as bad as Nixon.
What purpose, exactly, do you think you are achieving by doggedly misrepresenting the views of people who happen to be deeply negative towards Obama because of his pro-choice words and deeds?
Steve
No, I am saying someone who thinks abortion is necessary, and therefore, promotes its use, is more pro-abortion than someone who thinks it is a choice but not necessary. This is why the Chinese are more pro-abortion than say the US, because they enforce abortion and don’t just think of it as an option. The actual promotion of the use of abortion as a necessity (especially for things like, well, inter-racial couples) indicates not just a pro-abortion stand, but a very racist stand as well. It’s a double-edged grave evil.
Cathy
To be pro-abortion is to promote its use not just allow it. There is a difference. Just like God is not pro-sin merely because he allows it.
What is strange is, JH, you are just trying to find an excuse to support Nixon’s pro-abortion stand.
What a disgusting thing to say, Henry. Really, I’m disappointed in you. Are you unable to distinguish between explaining a position and advocating it? I disagree with both Nixon and Obama on abortion. They were both pro-choice. Obama supported legalized abortion in more circumstances, and so his view is worse in my opinion. Now, Nixon’s views on race, of course, were far worse than Obama’s. Nixon was a worse President. I just think you’re misreading his remarks on abortion – and you haven’t really responded with a reason why you believe he was advocating mandatory as opposed to permissive abortion in a country in which there are no advocates for mandatory abortion.
Darwin
Funny how no one is saying “Nixon was bad for this.” They are all saying how it is not “pro-abortion” for some reason. Very weird. Again, as has been shown within the last couple weeks, the whole abortion line in politics is showing itself to be a great farce by some. This is another indication of it. Nixon: ok. Obama: more pro-abortion despite never thinking abortion is necessary.
It’s great! Abortion = necessary isn’t pro-abortion; abortion=grave choice is. This kind of response indicates what is wrong with the whole dialogue and why we are getting nowhere. I refer everyone to my post on the pro-life pharisees. We see it once again.
JH
Nixon was more than merely pro-choice; he was PRO ABORTION. Can’t you figure out the difference between “a choice” and “a necessity” yet? Seriously. The sophistry going on.
So, what you’re saying is that a very limited pro-abortion position + racism = worse than (or at least as bad as) Obama’s abortion for anyone, anytime, anywhere (even after birth) position.
It seems that you’re grasping while looking for ways to justify your support of Obama.
Steve,
It is one thing to endorse abortion in a particular situation and quite another thing to permit it. And of course Nixon was combining racism with endorsement of abortion to prevent miscegenation. I don’t see how a pro-lifer finds that defensible, particularly considering the fact that many pro-lifers point out that black babies are aborted at a much higher rate than white babies and imply that abortion is racist.
I am not sure why anyone, particularly a pro-lifer, would want to get into an argument about who was worse, Nixon or Obama.
Steve
Here are a few things. I am saying actually promoting the killing of innocents is indeed worse than neutrality, yes. That’s difficult for you to see? Second, that is not Obama’s position (he did not and never has promoted killing infants after birth).
Third, read Vatican documents on racism. You will see that it is indeed a grave evil.
Fourth: my support of Obama? Can you stop making up claims which are just not true? Not only did you misrepresent Obama, you misrepresent me. I do not support Obama. I’ve made it clear many times. Look even at my post yesterday where I point to legitimate criticism. Support?
David
As I said, scratch the surface, and you can see what is going on.
Please explain and document this. Obama never advocating anything like killing newborns within 24 hours of birth, if that is the slander you are implying.
David, I was deliberately caricaturing Obama’s (abhorrent) record on abortion to emphasize it’s moral repugnance. Henry is well aware of Obama’s support for partial birth abortion as well as his advocacy in the Illinois state senate against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. In my view, there is little moral or practical difference between opposing the latter and the fictitious 24 hours after birth rule, but of course Obama never formally advocated such a rule. If this were a discussion among people uneducated on Obama’s record, which it is not, I would not have used this caricature because it could lead to confusion. As it is, I thought it was an acceptable rhetorical device among politically sophisticated individuals, but, of course, you’re free to disagree.
Henry,
Funny how no one is saying “Nixon was bad for this.”
You’re kidding, right? In the thread that got you upset here, I described Nixon’s beliefs about abortions as “reprehensible”, “utterly reprehensible” and “racist” and said “I’ve no interest in defending Nixon or his ideas about abortion”. And no one, I repeat no one defended Nixon’s views on abortion in the slightest.
What people have disagreed with is this bizarre interpretation of Nixon’s (wrong, inexcusible, immoral, etc.) which you’re peddling, which you keep reasserting but have done nothing to defend against various and repeated criticisms of it. Just because Nixon was clearly pro-choice (and also racist) does not mean that he claimed that abortion should be compulsory in certain situations (which you seem to be asserting). And it is also indisputably the case that Nixon’s polices specifically in regards to abortion were much more restrictive than Obama’s.
I don’t think that “necessary” should be taken as synonymous with “mandatory” here. Nixon (and God help me for defending him!) could easily have been saying that it is “necessary” that abortion be available (because of instances of rape, etc.).
What bothers me most about what Nixon said is his obvious opinion that miscegenation should, in and of itself, considered legitimate grounds for abortion. The racism there is explicit.
Bottom line: if you favor the availability of abortion in instances of rape and incest, you are ipso facto pro-abortion.
Those who think it is not about population control need to study more up on Nixon. For example (and of course bold mine):
http://www.ebonyjet.com/politics/national/index.aspx?id=6717
As I said, scratch the surface, and you can see what is going on.
And when you scratch the surface, I suppose you’ll find that Henry is trapped in this weird feedback loop where anyone who disagrees with him about what a statement means, suddenly supports that statement and isn’t really pro-life. And Henry will feel good about himself for having “unmasked” it; because, after all, to disagree with Henry about anything, even the meaning a politician’s statement from 40 years ago, is to 1) support that statement, and 2) to be pro-abortion.
Nixon was a bad President and a bad person; Obama is not yet either as far as I can tell. But Henry seems to think that trying to explain Nixon’s views (as abhorrent as they were) implies agreement. I don’t know why he seems to think someone isn’t pro-life because they disagree with him about what Nixon meant, but any further attempts to disabuse him of that notion are unlikely to do any good.
http://www.population-security.org/13-CH5.html (which also goes into Ford’s population control as well, following Nixon’s lead):
AND
http://www.population-security.org/journal-spes.htm
http://www.population-security.org/journal-spes.htm goes into great detail; it is clear Nixon was into funding abortions, and it was viewed as a necessity for population control, especially of races he opposed. Sorry folks. Read Nixon in context, not your idealism of him.
I agree that there’s a particulary rigorist interpretation of “necessary” going on in Karlson’s reading which seems dubious. There are many instances in everyday usage when we speak of something being “necessary” without thereby implying that it is, or should be, compulsory. Nixon isn’t advocating a Chinese approach to interracial pregnancies in this quote; he’s speaking loosely (and odiosly) about what kinds of circumstances make abortion necessary: rape and miscegenation.
WJ
Read his work for population control and funding of abortion in Africa. When he said necessary, he meant necessary.
Born Alive Infant Protection Act. In my view, there is little moral or practical difference between opposing the latter and the fictitious 24 hours after birth rule
John Henry,
Have you ever seen any evidence that either the federal version of the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act actually saves lives? I certainly haven’t, and given all the fuss over Obama’s position, I would have expected some follow-up once the Illinois version was passed. From all the research I have done, BAIPA would have protected born-alive but non-viable (that is, doomed) infants from being mistreated, but since they had no chance of survival, it could not have saved their lives.
I can see how promotion of killing would be worse than neutrality (although I don’t consider Obama’s position neutral.) But I can also see that you’re struggling to get “promoting” out of the context of Nixon’s comments. It makes me wonder why you’re trying to make a comparison and draw some moral measure between the two.
I didn’t lie, but I did assume. I admit that I assumed the worse, which is exactly what you did when you called me a liar.
Steve
Read up on Nixon and population control, especially in Africa. Look to the conflict that brought with the Vatican. Sorry folks, he was into population control, into funding of abortion, etc. He said so as much in 1992.
I think the point is, if a Democrat today were to be in general opposition to abortion but say that it was “necessary” in the case of mixed-race fetuses, no pro-lifer would defend him or say, “He’s on our side!”
Surely these two statements are not mutually exclusive:
1. Nixon was in favor of federally funded abortions.
2. Nixon did not propose as a policy the compulsory abortion of interracial pregnancies.
All anybody here is trying to deny is #2.
WJ
The point is that with his efforts for population control in Africa — his promotion of it as a necessity for American security — Nixon really meant it is a necessity. It’s not just federally funding abortions, but using abortions for population control. There is a big difference between funding and wanting to use them. He used the word because it is what he meant; he didn’t say “I think they should have a choice.” He is thinking in the line of population control and so into real necessities.
Contrary to the dishonest claims sometimes put forward that the President “wants to kill babies”, the truth is that the President, mistakenly but in common with millions of Americans (many of them, despite their error, people of good will and reason) as well as others like Thomas Aquinis and the American Founding Fathers, does not understand the fetus as a human person. Nevertheless, he has been extremely willing to seek common ground and make significant compromises with pro-life advocates.
On the other hand you have a significant element of political players and professional pro-lifers who do understand personhood as begining at conception, yet are willing to trade off unborn lives for the sake of the GOP and Big Business agenda.
With the President there is not the basis for agreement. With the professional pro-lifers, thre is not the basis for any respect or trust.
Read Nixon in context, not your idealism of him
Ha. Our idealism of Nixon? Now that is funny. Ah yes, I remember being told growing up what a wonderful President he was; my parents bouncing me on their knee as we laughed about his paranoia, his dishonesty, his racism, his resignation under scandal, and his support for abortion. You have me pegged, Henry, I admit it. Please don’t destroy my idealized view of Nixon – that great hero of American history – it would be too much to take.
More to the point, regarding your odd citations of irrelevant reading materials, what on earth does support for population control in the third world (which Obama also supports) have to do with mandatory abortion in the U.S.? Making contraception and abortion available, whether the motivation be racist or humanitarian, is not mandating abortion, which, after all, is what was the topic we were discussing.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, it is interesting to watch you post irrelevant articles, and engage in weird ad hominem attacks – I’ve never been described before as someone who is pro-abortion or who idealizes Nixon, so it’s a new and interesting experience. But it would be nice if for once, just to mix it up, you actually addresed the point of disagreement. And neither those articles or your personal attacks have done that so far.
Irrelevant articles indicating Nixon’s push for population control in Africa? Yes, it’s completely irrelevant to point out Nixon was pro-abortion and who he wanted to help kill off was based upon race. That has nothing to do with his other quote about necessity of abortion. Yes, nothing. Why would he think it is necessary? Because he wants to control the population. Period.
Henry,
You don’t get it — no one is supporting Nixon’s views on abortion and population control. They’re simply saying that Obama’s policies are worse the Nixon’s in regards to abortion.
It is, tragically, true that the US has (often from racist motives) done much to push abortion and sterilization in the third world. The thing is: That hasn’t changed. Obama, I’m sure, doesn’t personally harbor racist opinions the way Nixon did, but his administration _has_ stepped up its support for organizations that push birth control, sterilization and abortion among the black and brown populations of the third world. Clinton did the same, as you will doubtless recall from the circus around the UN Population Conference, where the Vatican could only get support from Islamic countries and was routinely thwarted and excluded by the US.
Again: pro-lifers are not saying that Nixon is “one of us”, we’re simply saying (and it’s a rather trivial point, so I’m unclear why you’re so worked up about it) that Obama is somewhat worse than Nixon in regards to abortion at an actual policy level.
I’m not sure what I find most interesting – Henry’s post, or the intellectual contortions of those who oppose him in this post. It’s enlightening, and a symbol of everything that is wrong about the contemporary American right.
No real need for me to go over ground so adeptly covered by others. As noted, Obama most certainly does not believe certain abortions are “necessary”. He adopts a laissez-faire attitude, believing that government should stay away (funny, his opponents on the right hanker for “big government” here, but hold firmly to a laissez-faire line on so many other issues). Nixon is saying that some abortions are necessary, are virtuous, are to be promoted, serve the common good. In doing so, he is actually joining the intrinsic evil of actively supporting abortion with the intrinsic evil of actively supporting racism.
Obama’s policies are worse than Nixon, when Nixon promoted population control and abortion? Seriously. It’s amazing the defense.
This is really getting a bit absurd–no one is arguing (or should be arguing) that Nixon is anything other than a duplicitous and slimy racist.
But as an interpretaion of his quote, Henry, your reading is simply not persuasive. The “necessary” used by Nixon is used to refer *specifically* to cases of miscegenation and rape in America. Whatever Nixon’s positions regarding population control in the developing world, they are simply not germane to the point you initially seemed to be making: that Nixon was in favor of the compulsory abortion of interracial pregnancies in the United States. Nixon, if he did hold this odious view, did not communicate it in the sentence which you cite. That is all. I have no desire to “defend” Nixon here, but your interpretation of his quote is just not warranted–even accepting (as I do accept) everything else you say about his desire to enforce population control on the developing world.
Kurt:
I believe that Obama’s search for common ground with the pro-life groups is a smoke screen just like some people think the pro-life groups are in the political arena for power. I don’t think that the pro-life groups should compromise with him given his support for late-term abortions. I don’t believe for a moment that Obama will compromise.
Some people do use the pro-life agenda for political gain, however do not criticize the entire Republican party. Members of both parties play dirty at times.
Using Nixon’s statements for a fight against Republicans is not strong. The man is no longer alive.
First, let me state unequivocally that abortion for the use of eugenics is terrible, and worse than the positions of the mainstream Democratic Party, including President Obama.
–
When your interlocutor expressed this view, were you disappointed, or pleased that this would provide you with some good blog material?
–
I’m curious what good HK thinks will come from posting this. To me, it seems to be another in a series of, “Look how awful those Republicans are,” followed quickly by, “Look how awful those are who would claim to defend this!”
Nixon is dead and was forced to resign his position before most people on this board were born. The policy cited is not under serious consideration by anyone in the American political mainstream. What purpose is served by dragging it out? To make the current policies of President Obama and the Democratic Party, which I think you would acknowledge are also unacceptable, seem better in comparison? To point and laugh at others?
Let’s quit fooling around and get to work. Maybe we can figure out a way to get a pro-life health care reform bill passed.
Or we can jeer at others. That sounds like more fun.
WJ
Why do you think someone who was working for race wars and death of Africans in Africa was not for population control in the US? Where do you get from him that he doesn’t think “necessity” means just that? He didn’t say “it is necessary that it is an option.” He said it is a necessity. Which does go with racist population control people (and why rape is also an issue).
What is not warranted is someone saying it is not about what he said.
…Obama is somewhat worse than Nixon in regards to abortion at an actual policy level.
Now this is a start! We can finally get beyond the idea that Bush was pro-life mainly because he said he was (somebody tell Legatus). Yes, we must always judge political figures by how their policies affect the common good, not on their rhetoric, not on their personal sins (and yes, while I find Nixon’s views here loathsome, I would say that a Catholic could in good conscience support him if they understood that these personal beliefs would not be reflected in the domain of policy).
So let’s talk policy. The legal status of abortion does not change with each party. But what about the other policies? As the Declaration on Procured Abortion’s says “one can never approve of abortion, but it is above all necessary to combat its causes…it is necessary…to do everything possible to help families, mothers and children.”
And the record is a little clearer. Reversing the Clinton pattern, under Bush, median real income declined by 4.3 percent, poverty rose by 26 percent, child poverty shot up by 21 percent, and the number of uninsured also increased by 21 percent. Is it any surprise that the largest reductions in abortion took place under Clinton?
As I said, I’m glad we are talking about the policy realm. I’m glad we’re getting beyond mere symbolism and the elevation of issues that have scant impact on the actual incidence of abortion.
John
The issue is that people literally are saying Obama is “more pro-abortion” than Nixon, when the reverse is true. When people are so blinded that they cannot see how horrendous Nixon’s policies were and how much WORSE they were than Obama’s, something is wrong. Of course it hurts the rhetoric of Obama being the most pro-abortion president of all time ™ as some people try to make him out to be. I think it is important to look through such rhetoric and expose it for what it is. If we don’t, who can take us seriously?
I don’t think that the pro-life groups should compromise with him given his support for late-term abortions. I don’t believe for a moment that Obama will compromise.
Cathy,
Actually Obama made a very clear statement about the desirability to tighten definitions of “mental health” in cases of late-term abortions. Has anyone in the pro-life movement attempted to take him up on this?
The issue is that people literally are saying Obama is “more pro-abortion” than Nixon, when the reverse is true.
That’s an issue?
Henry, I agree with much of what you post here, but your tortuous interpretation of Nixon’s offhand comment to mean “I intend to legally enforce the compulsory termination of all interracial pregnancies and of those caused by rape” is just crazy. The word “necessary” can mean “legally compulsory,” but it can also mean “highly desirable,” “morally (but not legally) compulsory” and any number of other things. If you want to believe that Nixon, in an offhand reaction to Roe, was articulating a thought-out public policy position entailing the enforced termination in America of two kinds of pregnancies, then you are free to do so.
Is this discussion really worth having? Both Obama and Nixon are disgusting on the abortion issue. This has become the usual Democrat vs. Republican death match with poor St. Aquinas’ 15th century physiology knowledge as the cudgel. How about an authentically Catholic discussion? Who was more pro-life? Mother Teresa or St. Gianna Molla?
I think it is important to look through such rhetoric and expose it for what it is.
Why? What will be accomplished?
The idea that Nixon in general, and abortion-as-eugenics specifically, is worse than Obama on abortion is not a viewpoint I come across very often. This post is the most prominent forum on which I have seen this.
So, I challenge the notion that this is something that demands to be exposed and confronted. You are giving more publicity to a viewpoint that doesn’t disturb it.
And you are driving home the stereotype that those who claim to defend the unborn are nothing more than blind partisans.
If that’s how you want to use your time and forum, that’s up to you.
Tom
Truth isn’t an issue? Especially when there is a constant “Obama is the most pro-abortion president of all time” meme going on? Would they see what a real pro-abort president is like.
WJ
The issue is — when Nixon in other occasions has seen abortion as a necessity for the sake of racial population control, it is fair to read his use of necessity continues such ideals. He never discounted it.
Kevin
Yes, it is important to have this discussion. There is a meme about Obama right now. When a previous president is shown to be pro-abortion and not just pro-choice, and his abortion policies read like eugenics, yes, it is a serious issue. Of course, I guess people will no longer bring up history in the abortion dispute, right?
John
Ah, so it is the “I’ve not seen it, so it is not important” response.
Isn’t that reason to bring it up? Especially for this great moral issue of our time? How can we have a positive change if we are unwilling to look at how we got to where we are today? And if we make rhetorical exaggerations which are easily countered by history? Seriously, this is why it is important. Because people have not seen it discussed!
In the last year, weren’t we treated to many commentaries along the lines of, “FOCA will never pass; pro-life groups are ginning up outrage over a phony issue” type rhetoric from leftist Catholic quarters?
If mobilizing opposition to legislation endorsed by the president whose party has majorities in both houses is stirring outrage over phony issues, what should we say about arguing against the notion that a dead president who resigned from office 35 years ago was better on abortion than the current president, because he (privately) advocated policies nobody seriously advocates now?
Who is the “we” who is making these rhetorical exaggerations? I’m sure you can find some nut on the internet who will say it. Just as I could find some nut on the internet to support any strawman position I want to make a big show of crushing.
But I think it’s a waste of time.
John
Look into the population control — it was not private, and Ford continued with Nixon’s lead. It’s a serious issue, and it is important to talk it out, especially so people know what promotion of abortion can be and has been like in US history.
Henry, your approach here is really strange. You said that Nixon favored mandatory abortion in the U.S. Most people disagreed. You accused us of agreeing with him. We responded that we did not. Then you started talking about population control in the third world; an important subject, no doubt, but one completely unrelated to whether or not Nixon favored mandatory abortions.
As to the point you’re making about population control, I agree that favoring it for humanitarian reasons (a la Clinton and Obama) is far, far better than favoring it for racist reasons (a la Nixon), but I still don’t see why you think that proves Nixon favored mandatory abortion.
“Then you started talking about population control in the third world; an important subject, no doubt, but one completely unrelated to whether or not Nixon favored mandatory abortions.”
When he favored and promoted abortions in population control, how is it unrelated to whether or not he favored mandatory abortions?
I’m just flabbergasted. Show where your interpretation is valid within Nixon’s own history. I have validated mine. You have not yours. And yes, it is a defense of Nixon which is going on here; trying to hide his promotion of grave evil.
HK,
Am I really supposed to believe that the purpose of this post was to raise awareness and discussion about population control?
We live in a world where people object to an ad where a mother says she loves her son (http://feeds.doublex.com/click.phdo?i=46fd72b4341b04501e9b9a49d0ad61f9). Where people propose in all earnestness that the Holy Father loosen the Church’s position on abortion so health care reform can pass. (http://www.slate.com/id/2243849/) Where people (including Catholics) still think that drowning someone is not torture (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/02/if-marc-thiessen-doesnt-want-to-be-compared-to-the-spanish-inquisition-he-should-stop-advocating-torture-techniques-used-in-the-spanish-inquisition.php)
But people not having a firm grasp of the history of government support of population control is an urgent issue?
Because there is a pretty big differnce between favoring permissive abortion and contraception and favoring mandatory abortion and contraception. Obama, Clinton, and Nixon all favored the former, but not the latter. You haven’t provided any evidence that Nixon favored the latter. It’s cheap to call this observation a ‘defense of Nixon’. I’d say the same thing about Clinton or Obama – both favored population control and neither favors mandatory abortion.
I think it is totally amazing how party affiliation can determine people’s viewpoint not merely on ideological issues, but even empirical matters. Democrats are very likely to believe that global warming is a fact and that it is caused by human activity. Republicans are very likely either to deny global warming altogether or at least claim it is not due to human activity. This is a matter of science. Granted, few Democrats or Republicans have the time or the knowledge to examine all the evidence personally and arrive at their own conclusion. Nevertheless, it’s a clear case of ideology heavily influencing belief or disbelief in scientific conclusions. (Of course, much the same applies to things like studies of whether the minimum wage is helpful or harmful.)
The lesson, it seems to me, is that all of us can be heavily influenced by what we already believe to process new information in such a way as to make it confirm our own cherished beliefs, even if it actually challenges them. This applies to those on the left and on the right, to atheists and believers, to big endians and little endians, to pacifists and nonpacifists, and on, and on. The big question is how (or whether) we can do something about it.
John
Am I to believe that Nixon’s abortion stand and promotion of abortion is insignificant?
John Henry
What is difficult about the word “necessary.” The word is clear. His policies are clear. The connection between the two are clear. The sophistry is simple in this case. His very words will never convince you. Until you can show through his own words and policies that “necessary” doesn’t mean “necessary”, the point stands. And until you do, enough going around in circles. What is clear is that anything Nixon did just doesn’t matter to you and so many people, and instead, will say “he didn’t mean what he said” even when his policies WERE for what he said.
It’s a good point, David, and I am very reluctant to dismiss evidence for climate change for this reason. In this particular circumstance, I could be wrong about whether or not Nixon favored mandatory abortion. I think Henry’s reading of the quote is tortured and that he hasn’t provided any evidence for his assertion(support for international population control efforts does not equal support for mandatory abortion imo).
I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on it based on the quote. Obviously, it’s an unimportant issue in the grand scheme of things, but since you’re already here, what do you think? Maybe you’ll be more objective.
Henry,
It seems clear to me that he meant it was necessary for abortion to be available in those circumstances. As I said, I don’t think he was saying women that were raped should should have an abortion, only that they should have the option. You can call that understanding ‘sophistry,’ but, really, Nixon’s a bad guy either way. I’m not attempting a rehabilitation; I just think you are clearly, obviously wrong in your interpretation, as Darwin and wj and Rodak and a number of people on the other thread pointed out.
JH
You have not demonstrated why Nixon’s use of the word “necessary” didn’t mean “necessary” especially when one points out he supports population control. It’s clear why one who supports population control also think those who are raped are best not to have their children: it’s an extra child and one from a questionable father. Seriously, the problem is people are reading Nixon in 21st century mores, not the ones he was raised in. And his own words and policies are both about population control, which does lead to necessity of abortion, especially of those who are “unwanted.” Once again, demonstrate through Nixon and not through 21st century mores why Nixon is not meaning what he said?!
That’s still the thing. 1970s population control and eugenics went hand in hand, and it included the desire to eliminate undesirables. And that is what Nixon supported in policies. So again, why should I not believe his own word to mean what he said, when he promoted it otherwise?
Yes, I believe that the positions of a dead president who was forced from office before I was born, and that are not currently being proposed or supported in the mainstream of politics, is insignificant.
I’m sure I could find a prominent Democratic politician who advocated policies that are in some dimension worse than what the current Republican Party favors. And I could probably find someone on the internet who would claim this politician was superior to Bush on torture. So the hell what? That doesn’t make the current embrace of torture any better.
To a historian, perhaps not. But to current affairs commentary, yes, except for tu quoque gotcha games.
Henry, you’re entitled to your interpretation, no matter how implausible it seems to me or Darwin or wj or Rodak or anyone else. Just don’t claim as you did above that disputing your interpretation is the equivalent of supporting Nixon or his policies. I detest both. I think it unlikely that Nixon favored mandatory abortion in the U.S., but if you want to believe that about him, that’s certainly your perogative.
John
Well, now we know you don’t find history and its lessons important. Sad.
JH
You keep offering no analysis of Nixon the man to show that when he said “necessary” he didn’t mean “necessary.”
“now we know you don’t fined history and its lessons important.”
Ha, that’s a little pretentious. Look, I’ve wasted as much time on this discussion as anyone, but far be it from me to insist it’s important. John’s probably right that we should do something more productive with our time. But then, why would we be blogging in the first place? ;-)
Henry, I have, repeatedly. No politician in the U.S. of the 1970′s that I’ve heard of was publicly advocating mandatory abortions in the U.S. in the case of rape. However, it was quite common to use rape as an example of when it was ‘necessary’ to have abortion available. For this reason, and because of the ambiguity of the private remarks, it seems overwhelmingly likely that Nixon was commenting on when it was necessary for abortion to be available rather than when it should be required. As I said, you’re welcome to your interpretation. I just think it’s unlikely.
JohnMcG – Since Henry considers himself pro-life, it’s important for him to participate in intra-movement debates and critiques. If “pro-life” people are still so sloppy that they will make such errors that Henry exposes in this post (and others) then the pro-life movement deserves these critiques in order that it become more consistently pro-life. I seriously do not get why you continually denounce Henry and others here for engaging in intra-movement critique. It seems like you are more interested in preserving the illusion of a unified Pro-Life Movement and protecting the “honor” of pro-(some)life republicatholics than anything else.
Honestly, I think whether or not Nixon believed in mandatory abortion is irrelevant. The guy was racist and his views on abortion were linked to race. The fact that many republicans in the u.s. (including [American] Catholics) would think Obama is a worse evil than Nixon (I’ve never heard a republicatholic call Nixon “Hitler,” have you?) is appalling whether or not the latter believed in mandatory abortion.
Henry,
Is it your view that Nixon supported mandatory abortion in cases of rape and for mixed race children? Or are you arguing something else?
Actually, if you look closer, one will find Nixon was quite interested in this issue. For example, look here:
http://www.population-security.org/rockefeller/001_population_growth_and_the_american_future.htm
Interestingly enough, one of the people here, Jaffe, is quite famous for:
“Social controls would include compulsory abortion for out–of–wedlock pregnancies, compulsory sterilization after the second child, confining childbearing to only a limited number of adults, licensing for parenting, discouraging private home ownership and no longer awarding public housing based on family size. ” http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/hab/hab_04parenting.html
Rape=out of wedlock pregnancy. Yes, it is in the whole system under discussion. Of course one can say Jaffe is just one example and we should not have guilt by association. I would agree, guilt by association is not good. But I would point out that when Nixon promotes population control through abortion, and when we look to the people involved in such discussions, we find those who do indeed promote mandatory abortions for out of wedlock pregnancies, again, the whole “it would not have been thought” is not really true.
Nixon was very much into control; it was all about power and desire to mold things to his will. Abortion is a means of power and control for him. Again, why do you think when he said “necessary” he doesn’t mean what he says, when his policies and interests lie in that direction?
If I encountered someone arguing that Nixon’s position on race-based abortion was superior to President Obama’s current positions, I would confront it.
If a mistaken notion were gaining currency, then I might escalate and confront it more generally. An example would be considering Scott Brown’s election to be some kind of pro-life victory.
In my judgement, the notion that Nixon’s position on race-based abortion is superior to Obama’s position is not at the critical mass.
–
But what about the people here who are defending him?
I see nobody here willing to defend the morality of race-based abortion. Some might have a too naively charitable reading of Nixon’s comments. That may be a mistake, but I don’t think it’s an injustice that cries out for vengeance.
The important thing is that we reject both Nixon’s eugenic abortion and Obama’s expanding and ensuring access to abortion. From what I can tell, everyone’s in agreement on that.
I do not think it is critically important that we reach agreement on which is worse. I believe there are better uses of our time that holding out those whose partisan commitments lead them to think Nixon’s policies and positions aren’t as bad as they were out for shame and ridicule.
And I think that focusing on these fringe views in a public forum will lead some to conclude that concern of the unborn is driven my partisan interest rather than compassion, and can thus be ignored. And we should think carefully before we do that.
BA
I am saying his own policies were for the use of abortion to make the population one which he wanted, and as one can see, among the people he encouraged to discuss population control was Frederick S. Jaffe who, in the 60s, was the vice-president of PPFA and promoted mandatory abortions for women pregnant and out of wedlock. People really need to look back, this was not an uncommon position, even if people now think of it in horror.
If I encountered someone arguing that Nixon’s position on race-based abortion was superior to President Obama’s current positions, I would confront it.
Again, I have never heard a republican call Nixon “Hitler.”
There was, though, quite a bit of Obama-Hitler linkage at this year’s March for (Republican-)Life. If calling someone “Hitler” does not involve also saying “every other political option would be better than this monster,” then what does it mean?
Henry,
I am saying his own policies were for the use of abortion to make the population one which he wanted
I can’t tell if this is a yes or a no. Do you think Nixon supported mandatory abortion in cases of rape or for mixed race children?
http://uscl.info/edoc/doc.php?doc_id=49&action=inline
Remember, Jaffe was connected to Nixon’s own interest in population control.
http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/courses/ESP10/Kasun.pdf
Again, I would suggest one look to what was being suggested for population control in the 70s, by the people Nixon encouraged to be on the panels, to look at Nixon and his own desire for power and control to create the world as he desired it to be, and to look to his many racist views, and see how they interconnect.
BA read the record — what did he say and what did those he listened to on population control say?
BA read the record — what did he say and what did those he listened to on population control say?
Henry, it’s a simple yes or no question. If the answer is yes, then just say yes and we can discuss whether the evidence supports your view. If the answer is no, say no, and that will clear up a lot of things.
BA I gave an answer; now you play games. Enough.
Michael,
You are grasping at straws and I think you know it.
Here’s what you have to do to reach your conclusion.
1. There were signs at the March For Life linking Obama to Hitler.
2. Nixon made statements favoring abortion for eugenics and population control.
3. There is nobody calling Nixon Hitler.
Therefore, the notion that Nixon’s positions on abortion are worse than Hitler’s is prevalent in pro-life circles, and demands to be confronted as loudly as possible.
I haven’t seen anyone call LBJ “Hitler,” but many called Bush Hitler. Does that mean they think Iraq was worse than Vietnam? Would it be a worthwhile use of my time to point out how absurd this is? Isn’t it more important that we oppose all aggressive wars instead of highlighting disagreements about which is worse?
–
The prevalence of comparisons to Hitler for recent presidents can more easily be explained by the following:
* An unfortunate increase in partisanship and coarse rhetoric.
* The memory of Hitler fading such that he is now a stand-in for “really bad” rather than a person who brought about real human suffering.
Cathy,
Having put on the table your right to take political positions based on the fact you simply do not believe what a particular politican has said, I am sure you would give the same liberty to any other person. With that, I think we can set aside any of this phony “Catholics must vote …” rhetoric from last year.
I would suggest one look to what was being suggested for population control in the 70s, by the people Nixon encouraged to be on the panels, to look at Nixon and his own desire for power and control to create the world as he desired it to be, and to look to his many racist views, and see how they interconnect.
If we were to apply this same criteria to his appointees, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to consider Obama a eugenisist as well. John Holdren, for example.
I don’t really have an opinion of Nixon one way or the other. Either position wouldn’t surprise me. I am just failing to understand it’s great significance in the context of Obama. It almost seems to me that you’re trying to say that the pro-choice position isn’t so bad if we compare it to some other really, really bad positions.
Steve
Once again, the big issue is that Nixon actively supported population control, and encouraged the use of abortion as a means of it. He also said that some kinds of abortion should be necessary. People are trying to say his words don’t mean what he said; but, instead of offering evidence, they just keep repeating that while I keep showing the kinds of population control that Nixon was actively engaging.
What does this have to do with Obama? Well, when people say Obama is the most pro-abortion president of all history, looking to history should be important to see if it is true or not. And lo and behold we find someone who supported the use of abortion for population control. I think that should put Nixon up on there and makes it clear Obama is not the greatest; and it should help us understand where we came from to get where we are today.
Kurt:
I also disagree with “Catholics must vote” rhetoric.
I dislike it when it is used for the current healthcare reform proposed by Obama and Congress. I disagree when it is used to promote other social programs proposed by the current administration. I also disagree when it is used to promote Climate Change legislation that is promoted by the current administration.
As long as we are on this topic of population control and the statements made by a past, deceased president. Shouldn’t we be concerned about people in the current adminisration? I am thinking of John Holdren who has made statements promoting forced sterlization of women. He may have made these statements quite a few years ago, but I find them quite creepy since he is advising the current president.
Is that really a significant point? I mean, Obama is extreme on his abortion positions. If people say that he is the most extreme, and he isn’t – so what? We all hear that kind of political retoric a hundred times a day on all kinds of issues and people. Filter it.
Secondly, since we can draw a line from Obama’s poitions to eugenics through a few of his appointments, statements, etc., a case could be made that Obama also thinks that abortion is “necessary.”
Steve
So what about truth? Really?
“Well, when people say Obama is the most pro-abortion president of all history, looking to history should be important to see if it is true or not.”
This is the crucial point. Most of what has been said about Obama from the right is hysterical and overwrought.
It isn’t a truth Henry. Whether Nixon thought abortions should be forced due to race is an opinion based on some historical facts, statements and associations. And, in the scheme of things in the context of Obama, it’s a small matter.
And before you jump on me for saying that Nixon thinking that abortions should be forced is a small matter – I didn’t say that!
In the scheme of things, his active promotion of population control and abortions is a little thing? It’s not just his opinion; it’s the US formulation of population control policy via Nixon which has us where we are today; and his advocacy far exceeds anything Obama has done.
The film – Maafa21 Really shows how both parties promote abortion. In Maafa21, they have some old tapes of Nixon saying that the reason people are for abortion is because they abort black (Expletives) . Maafa21 is a stunning look into today’s family planning cartel and the history of Planned Parenthood and eugenic connections to their founders- Watch Maafa21 preview here: http://www.maafa21.com
No Henry. Again, to your point, in the context of whether or not Obama is the most extreme abortion president. It’s simply an insignificant point, especially when considering that Obama is indeed extreme, and he’s what we got now. It’s like comparing what hurts more – a red hot ember or a red hot bar?
Who cares? They both hurt alot. Don’t hold either.
Steve
Where exactly is he extreme? I think Nixon points out what is extreme. China points out what is extreme. Show us Obama is extreme.
Henry,
I consider anyone that empowers doctors to kill innocent children to be extreme. In Obama’s case, he is the extreme of the extreme. He’s against the federal ban on partial birth abortions, the most heinous & grizzly form of child murder. He even voted no to parental notification. I can go on.
Why? Do you think he isn’t extreme?
Henry,
1) 100% NARAL rating
2) Supports partial birth abortion
3) Actively opposed child born alive act
4) Has John Holdren as an adviser
5) Promised to sign FOCA
That is pretty extreme. I am a registered Democrat and I can admit that.
Steve
Would you therefore say insurance companies and most hospitals in the US are extreme supporters of abortion?
As for his rejection of the PBA ban, there are many reasons why one could be against it without being support of the practice itself. That is what people need to remember when discussing the issues. I myself find the PBA to be rather insignificant: not one child is saved from abortion because of it, and it suggests birth really is a distinction, giving support to the pro-choice position. Of course it is grizzly, but all abortion is. There is nothing distinct about it from other forms.
Kevin
1) I don’t care about NARAL’s rating. It’s subjective and I find, tends to be partisan like many pro-life ratings, and have nothing to do with the issues.
2) Do not confuse a rejection of the PBA as support for PBA. There is a difference. A bad law with good intentions can be rejected without rejecting the good intentions. Same with 3.
4) There are all kinds of bad advisers by all sides.
5) And yet he hasn’t signed it. He also said all kinds of things on all sides of the issue like all politicians. But the fact is he hasn’t signed anything.
People need to move beyond rhetoric and look to what extreme is about — which is promotion of actual abortion.
And I’m not a registered Democrat. And I didn’t vote for Obama.
Yes, I know there are many reasons to reject the ban, and other restrictions. Most of them are in the form of political positioning and blood money.
That is pretty extreme. I am a registered Democrat and I can admit that.
Kevin,
Obama is “extreme” in his support of abortion rights only in the sense that the ACLU was “extreme” in supporting the First Amendment right of Nazis to march in Skokie or Scalia was “extreme” in supporting the right of protestors to burn flags.
Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on partial birth abortions was 5-4. If it had been 9-0 or even, say, 7-2, one might be able to argue that supporting partial birth abortion is extreme.
No one has been able to present any evidence that either the federal or the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act saves any lives. To oppose legislation that has no detectable effect may be politically unwise, but I don’t see how it can be called extreme.
Promising to sign FOCA in front of a pro-abortion organization, when no bill had been introduced might be considered pandering, but the fact that the bill has not yet been introduced and Obama, when asked at a news conference, said it was not high on his list of priorities hardly seems extreme to me.
Abortion is, after all, still a constitutional right because of a 7-2 decision of the Supreme Court more than 35 years ago. One might argue that Obama is staunchly pro-choice, but being staunchly pro-choice is not outside the mainstream of American politics. Obama is at the opposite end of the spectrum when it come to pro-life versus pro-choice, but I would say that it is the Catholic position opposing all abortions, even in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother that is extreme. How many American politicians can you find who take that position? (I can think of one — Mike Huckabee.)
Cathy.
You will get no arguement from me on that. Might we just say that the only obligation Catholics have to vote a certain way is to follow their own discernment and reasoning?
Darwin, thanks for providing the reference to the earlier thread. Like you, I believe the whole thing has been misinterpreted.
I’ve read that the Nazis were opposed to abortion, and formed a coalition with the German Catholics to block the Communists and Socialists on the issue. When the Nazis gained power, they suddenly became more accepting of abortion – but as eugenics, not as “choice”. Did they really have a change of heart? Of course not. For them, the issue wasn’t abortion; it was race.
Nixon never cared about abortion, as far as I can tell. Obama does.
Pinky
Yeah, all the promotion of population control and eugenics — no care about abortion with Nixon.
Excuse me, Henry? I didn’t follow that.
“Nixon never cared about abortion, as far as I can tell.”
This whole thread has been about Nixon’s extreme support for abortion.
Why does the right insist that Obama be seen as an extremist? Would a moderate pro-abort be more to your liking?
Of course not. The catholic position is against abortion, period.
So the question I have to ask myself is: what does the GOP gain by keeping the “pro-life” crowd in a constant state of hysteria about Obama’s “extremism”?
Truth isn’t an issue?
This discussion isn’t about truth. It’s about interpreting facts to reach a subjective conclusion. “The most pro-abortion president ever” is not a univocal concept.
“The most pro-abortion president ever” is a comparative, and it is not “I think he is” but it is a claim of fact. And used for political rhetoric — and it is interesting how people do not want to examine it to see its veracity. People should just let such extreme rhetoric stand, even if it hurts the cause (as it will). Strange.
Henry, Nixon didn’t care about abortion as abortion. There’s little evidence that Nixon cared about anything except as it related to his power. Individual issues were just notes in the tune, and with Nixon, the tune was always “Hail to the Chief”.
If you look at Obama’s record, you’ll see he considers abortion as essential to the social agenda, and he’s always been focused on social policy (unlike Nixon, whose passion was foreign policy).
Nixon cared about abortion as a tool for his power. Right. Which means he did care about abortion. And he used it and promoted it as a tool for power. That is very extreme.
Where does Obama say abortion is essential to the social agenda? For Nixon, it is clear he thought it was — hence it’s being a necessity.
I think Pinky’s point was that Nixon supported eugenics, and supported abortion as a tool to that end, versus being enthusiastic about abortion per se.
Both are terribly wrong, of course.
–
My understanding is that President Obama’s reason for stopping the Born Alive act is that he was concerned it would undermine Roe v. Wade. Is that a good reason?
And Nixon never signed legislation turning his apparent enthusiasm for race-based abortion into policy. Does he get a pass?
“If you look at Obama’s record, you’ll see he considers abortion as essential to the social agenda, and he’s always been focused on social policy (”
Pinky, are you claiming that Obama insists that a certain number of abortions be performed each year?
What does it mean to say “Obama considers abortion to be essential to the social agenda”?
Henry, would you prefer the term “fundamental” rather than “essential”?
John McG,
You are correct. Obama felt that the bill would undermine Roe while its stated purpose was already law in Illinois. He was probably factually correct here. So we have shown Obama supports Roe, like millions of other Americans and people of good will.
“I think Pinky’s point was that Nixon supported eugenics, and supported abortion as a tool to that end, versus being enthusiastic about abortion per se.”
So. . . Obama is “enthusiastic” about abortion per se? Meaning he likes abortion as an end in itself?
Whereas Nixon, who only saw abortion as a tool to prevent the birth of undesirables. . . and so Nixon was more “pro-life” than Obama?
Am I undersatnding this correctly?
More recently, it’s quite noticeable how Scott Brown was/is referred to by various self styled pro-life groups as being “pro-choice” whereas his predecessor, the villainous TK, was always described as “pro-abortion”.
The more passive term “pro-choice” would seem to confer a lesser degree of culpability (the woman can decide for herself) as opposed to the more proactive–and insulting–”pro-abortion” which implies that one would encourage pregnant women to head for the nearest abortion mill.
Of course I would be the last person in the world to suggest this flexible terminology has anything to do with party affiliation. Just a coincidence I couldn’t help noticing.
So we have shown Obama supports Roe, like millions of other Americans and people of good will.
The point I wish pro-life people would have hammered home (instead of the babykiller stuff) was that what this implies is that support for Roe v. Wade is an extreme position, since, according to President Obama, supporting it requires opposing things like the Born Alive Act.
–
Comic Book Guy: Worst. Episode. Ever.
HK and other VN commenters: Actually, if you look at the record, there was one episode in Season 2 that was all static. That you still consider this episode the worst ever is telling about your commitments. And, actually, while this episode had plenty worthy of criticism, the idea that it was extremely bad is risible. Yes, the racist joke was offensive, but comedy writers need to be free to push the envelope from time to time. And those who object to the storyline about the crooked Pope all fail to notice that the show never actually showed the Holy Father engaging in any actual wrongdoing.
Me: Whatever. It’s bad enough.
–
There are many lies circulating in our politics these days. There were lots of them about the Stupak amendment that were never confronted here. But that Obama is the most pro-abortion president ever, when there was another president who served before I was born who expressed worst positions, and suddenly we’re gravely committed to absolute truth.
And BTW, was President Obama’s statement to Planned Parenthood a lie? If so, I haven’t seen it condemned here. And if not, then he should be pressured to retract it.
This whole discussion is a bit amusing in light of the fact both popular elected Presidents Nixon and Obama do not exactly represent minority positions. While of course here everybody is at his/her best behavior and says the right thing – close to half the Catholics very much can see plenty of reason to allow for choice. And yes I very much would not be surprised if rather ugly sentiments along the Nixon quote will rise again in the future particularly among the right wingers – it is too funny while the white evangelical males get bend out of shape , start the “Focus on Families” of this world and go on and on pontificating over this issue – the large majority of our fine catholic hispanic brothers and sisters quietly go about their business of actually live the family values that these paper tigers love to preach about. A bunch of phonies in my view that run the show in the Republican social conservative circles.
I can see why a number of the fine catholics around here – man and women that actually bother to embrace the COMPLETE catholics pro life positon are getting a bit frustrated with those political phonies.
In another thread for example one person found not much wrong with the picture of shooting another persons head off – While our most recent Popes make a point forgiving assassins the phonies on the right around here in the US see plenty of room for torture, death penalty and killing of all those that do not agree with them – including those that happen to be pro choice.
But hey it is what it is – just one should not be too surprised that the same folks that today already are rather selectively ‘pro life’ will have not much problems in a couple of decades ( a time when white majority comes to an end around here) – to sheepishly allow for racially and social status related termination of pregnancy’s.
But LOL at that point in time Blackadder will ask did they really mandate it?