Alley tacks away from the GOP base on abortion
Carla Axtman
Looks like Allen Alley is working to shun the Palin-centered GOP base on the issue of abortion.
When I first talked to Alley a month ago about his possible political plans, I asked him, among other issues, about abortion, which is an important factor with GOP primary voters - particularly since one of the most influential groups on the Republican side is Oregon Right to Life.Alley said that in his race for state treasurer last year, he essentially avoided the issue, saying that it didn't really have anything to do with the duties of the office. "I have to have a public position" on the issue if he runs for governor, he acknowledged then.
Well, when Alley announced Wednesday, he had indeed formulated a position.
"I believe life begins at conception," Alley said, echoing lines you usually hear from those opposed to abortion. However, he added, "It's a woman's right to decide what she needs to do."
This would seem to set Alley apart from other possible GOP entrants into the Governor's race.
Former Senator Gordon Smith is a relatively hardcore anti-choice guy. Congressman Greg Walden doesn't appear to be a hardcore or strident on this, but he certainly does enough to mollify the pro-life crowd. The hardest of the hardcore appears to be Jason Atkinson:
Like Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.), Human Events' "Man of the Year" for '05, Atkinson wears his conservative stands on issues across-the-board like an Olympic Gold Medal. He is pro-life ("I'm hard-pressed to come up with any exceptions but the life of the mother"), pro-property rights, pro-2nd Amendment, and for less government.
This could be an extremely entertaining GOP primary.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
10:49 a.m.
Feb 20, '09
Alley is trying to have his cake and eat it too. How can you believe that abortion is murder and simultaneuosly believe it should be legal?
He's playing the same game that so many corporate GOPers try to play -- satisfy the base while giving himself an out when it comes to actual policy.
I vehemently disagree with the hard right on choice but at least they have principles that are internally consistent. Alley doesn't appear to have any.
What a loser.
11:02 a.m.
Feb 20, '09
Exactly, Kari. Alley's articulated position makes no sense and, taken at face value, portrays him as utterly unprincipled.
Feb 20, '09
Ask any "pro-life" person about their concerns about or volunteer work to help struggling families, pregnant women without adequate health care, children without health care, that sort of thing.
Do they know how challenging it can be for parents of children born 3 or more weeks early?
Some very good people who are foster parents or raising special needs kids will talk on these issues at length. To my mind, those folks have a right to any opinion they wish.
But too many "pro-life" types seem to think once kids are born they are just another drag on taxpayer dollars and why should anyone worry about the well being of children already born.
11:06 a.m.
Feb 20, '09
Hmmm...
I think its absolutely appropriate to be against abortion personally, but believe in letting others choose for themselves.
Its certainly a much more politically mature and appropriately reasonable stance than Alley's counterparts, IMO.
Feb 20, '09
Good God, I completely agree with Carla on something!
I'm in that boat of being completely personally against abortion, and don't see how anybody can be personally "for" abortion, yet am pro-choice from a public policy standpoint. I also fail to see how anyone could be against making exceptions for the mother's health and instances of rape or incest. The whole issue is a moot point for any elected office, as the U.S. Supreme Court is the only body in this country that can overturn Roe vs. Wade. I've long disagreed with the social conservatives that this should be some lithmus test of ideological purity, largely because elected officials at the state level don't have much say on the issue anyway.
11:21 a.m.
Feb 20, '09
Scott..you must have taken your smart pills today. :)
11:48 a.m.
Feb 20, '09
Stating that life begins at conception utterly fails to comprehend that this is only the beginning of the argument. But that is not the whole ball of wax. The real issues are (a) when that "life" becomes human life and then (b) when human life becomes viable outside the womb.
So, let's don't allow the religious/cultural zealots get away with their yammering. Roe v. Wade is all about a woman's right to privacy and choice up to a point. That point was viability NOT just simply "life"!
It is extremely important that society recognize the right of a pregnant woman to make up her own mind without having government pry it's way into her own life -- up to the point of viability. It is only at the point of viability that the moral issues related to human life transcend the right to choice and privacy arise.
When those issues begin to arise, then we have an argument. I have considerable difficulty calling an abortion homicide at any point and support a pregnant woman's right to decide at any point! That's because I don't believe the fables put out by those who think they have a right to judge pregnant women and thus equate themselves with God.
12:34 p.m.
Feb 20, '09
My argument which always screws up any anti-abortion advocate is asking them if the state has the right to force them to donate a kidney against their will, to someone who is indisputably a living human, who might kill or maim them.
Of course they won't accept that.
But that is precisely what they in essence advocate the state has the right to do, for the sake of something that is not at all agreed upon is a living human being (we don't consider anyone without brain function a living human being for example).
12:38 p.m.
Feb 20, '09
Kari, you've probably been slapped around by enough people on this, but just to add my two cents:
Allen didn't say abortion was murder. He said he believes life begins at conception. Stated that way, it is virtually a tautology. If life didn't begin at conception, how could a fetus grow and develop? Put another way, if it wasn't alive, there would be nothing to abort.
And Carla, Greg Walden is definitely pro-choice and when he was a state legislator had a lot of problem with pro-life groups. I believe they have come to terms with Greg, as I believe they will with Allen, because they are realistic about where Oregon voter's are on this issue.
12:45 p.m.
Feb 20, '09
Carla, I'm with you. There are more than our fair share of Dems who also believe personally that abortion is not a choice they would make for themselves but think its important that it remain a legal option for women. It's a conflicting, difficult issue to tackle and I applaud Alley for taking making it clear where he stands.
Feb 20, '09
Carla-
No smart pills, just my usual white chocolate mocha. :)
Feb 20, '09
Kari, seriously dude..for someone who spends as much time following politics as you do..you need a serious civics lesson (probably a few lessons actually). Alley said that in his view, life begins at conception. He also said that it's a woman's right to do what she needs to do. I'm pro-life (I will avoid using your jackass "anti-choice" terminology) and what Alley said is exactly correct. It is a woman's right to choose because that's what the Supreme Court has determined. As a matter of constitutional law, this is a fact. Even Chief Justice John Roberts, who is clearly pro-life, stated many times that this is the law of the land.
Nothing Alley said about the status of a woman's right, as determined by the US Supreme court (the case is Roe v. Wade in case you're still confused by any of this and need to look it up), contradicts his own views that life begins at conception. So Kari, read a book or two, maybe do some research on-line, and don't come back until you can avoid sounded like a total mindless, ideological dickhead. Cheers.
Feb 20, '09
As I recall, Hatfield was considered "pro-life" although he did not believe life begins at conception.
As I recall, there has been much thoughtful religious and other debate on that issue since long before Roe v. Wade.
But of course, such debates require people who use more polite language than JJ.
Feb 20, '09
My question is this: Why are males involved in an issue that is clearly a women-only issue? It never really involves them, so it is really none of their business.
Feb 20, '09
I would wonder how Kari defines the term "pro-choice?" I define it as allowing everyone the right to CHOOSE what is best for them. Do you now have to be "pro-abortion" to be considered progressive?
2:40 p.m.
Feb 20, '09
I define it as allowing everyone the right to CHOOSE what is best for them.
That's exactly how I would define it.
But the religious extremists in the Republican Party want to deny people that right.
It's all fine and good for Allen Alley to tell us what he would personally choose, except for two problems: #1. He's a man! It's not likely he's going to get pregnant anytime soon. #2. He's running for Governor. His personal views don't matter. It's his policy position that matters.
He's saying, as Carla notes, that from a policy perspective he's basically pro-choice. But he's trying to wave his arms and dance the funky chicken and confuse voters (especially GOP primary voters) into thinking that he's pro-life.
He's trying to have his cake and eat it too.
What I don't understand is how people can logically claim that life begins at conception (and therefore abortion is ending a life) and then simultaneously claim it should be legal. That makes no sense.
3:15 p.m.
Feb 20, '09
jack is right here--if life doesn't begin at conception, when? If it's not human, however simply celled, what is it? A pig?
The problem comes with the squeamishness of declaring openly that sometimes killing human life is defensible: -self defense -war (self defense as well, when done for the right reasons) --death with dignity --execution for crimes, at least by law -preborn persons
I oppose laws like ND's not because they vest personhood as a concept, but because of the rights they believe immediately flow from that concept. I don't agree that just because a preborn human exists, their interests ( or the govt's) supercede the mother's.
It's indelicate to argue for the right of women to kill their fetuses if they believe that is the proper choice, but that's the crux. We get in trouble when either side obfuscates that honest debate, with canards about viability and personhood. They distractfrom the real question of whose rights should be preferred in that situation?
3:16 p.m.
Feb 20, '09
PS I hope that answers your question about how it's logically possible, Kari.
3:17 p.m.
Feb 20, '09
Oh, sorry--last thing: say hello to Jason Atkinson, GOP nominee.
3:27 p.m.
Feb 20, '09
What I don't understand is how people can logically claim that life begins at conception (and therefore abortion is ending a life) and then simultaneously claim it should be legal. That makes no sense.
Since that happens to be what I believe, I don't see how you can say it makes no sense.
The moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, a life is created. It grows and develops into a child that, at some point, is ready to leave the womb and embark upon an existence independent of the mother.
Until that point, I believe that the mother has sole and exclusive custody over the child (if you want to be religious about it, you could say that is because God gave her--not the father or the community at large--such custody)and therefore the state should not claim the power to determine whether or not she may terminate the life of the child.
The morality of her act is for a Higher Court to determine. As a legal or political entity, the state in my view should not presume to make such a determination, even though the fetus is alive and therefore, in my meaning of the term, a "life."
I respect the fact that other people have different views about this, but the fact that you can't make sense out of it, Kari, says more about your mental faculties than about the rationality of the argument.
Feb 20, '09
I would rather see a politican doing a "funky chicken" trying to confuse pro-lifers than risk a real anti-choice persona going into office. I know that as Democrats it is better for us to run against right-wing nuts, but what if our candidate gets caught having sex with a 17 year old and the pro-lifer wins? Choice is too importnant an issue to be dominated by one party. I hope Alley is sincere in his pro-choice views whether they are ideologically consistent or not.
3:41 p.m.
Feb 20, '09
Thanks, Jack.
You've made a more cogent argument for your illogical position than I've heard anyone make before. It doesn't make sense to me, but I respect your right to your position.
I'm quite certain that most of the "it's murder but it should be legal" absurdists haven't considered your argument. Perhaps they should.
And, once again, thank you for participating here. It's good to have thoughtful and polite conservatives engaging in our dialogue (especially over their own names).
Any chance you can you do something about the anonymous dittoheads who come here to throw poo at the walls?
Feb 20, '09
Any chance you can you do something about the anonymous dittoheads who come here to throw poo at the walls?
Do what I do with most of life's little annoyances, ignore them.
BTW, if you don't play with them, they WILL take their ball and go bug someone else. Probably JackBog if he mentions Palin....
Feb 20, '09
Allen Alley will not be the Republican nominee for governor. With positions like acknowledging a woman's right to choose, he's too liberal!
6:54 p.m.
Feb 20, '09
On Alley--it's not surpising he's trying to have both ways. You have to get through the primary purity test and emerge moderate enough to win a general. Good luck with that!
On abortion. I think the real question is personhood and agency, not life. Life isn't actually sufficient to have legal personhood. There is of course also the difference between law and religious belief. One can easily support a law you believe is immoral. Some people can separate the two.
9:28 a.m.
Feb 21, '09
One can easily support a law you believe is immoral. Some people can separate the two.
I would amend this, Jeff, to say that one would not generally support a law that is itself immoral, but may support a law that allows people to do something that you personally believe is immoral.
And Kari, thanks for the kind words. I think it must say something about the general level of discourse on the internet that I can question your mental faculties and have you compliment me for being polite. :-)
Feb 21, '09
What I don't understand is how people can logically claim that life begins at conception (and therefore abortion is ending a life) and then simultaneously claim it should be legal. That makes no sense.
If it's not life that begins at conception, then what is it? What would you call it? And can you distinguish between whatever you think is it and other life forms, like bacteria, or viruses? Here's the first definition of life from Dictionary.com:
"the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally."
In what ways do you think a fertilized egg doesn't fit with that?
I find the rest of your assumptions untenable as well, but I'm not terribly concerned with them. What I really want to know is how, or why, you seem to think it's okay for you to twist scientific fact into knots to further your own agenda, as conservatives are (rightly) regularly criticized for doing?
One needn't believe that abortion equates with murder, or that a woman shouldn't have control over her own body and whatever resides within it, to still acknowledge that what is begun at conception is most definitely life.
Feb 21, '09
Seems to me that Jack Roberts' statements about abortion are fine. And per Michael's, OF COURSE the fetus is alive; it's simply not viable outside the womb until far along in the gestation period. Roe v. Wade was to a large extent about fetal viability.
"Abortion stills a beating heart", or whatever the anti-choice line is, is factually incorrect, of course, early on during fetal development, when there is no heart. So it's an emotional appeal, not a factual one.
My feeling is: unless one decides that women are breeding machines, there has to be some option for abortion. What exactly that option is may be debated.
The Bush Administration was fond of doing stuff like convening panels of so-called ethicists who would sit around and debate when the fetus acquired a soul--as though that were even a rational field of inquiry. Let's hope this sort of deceptive BS does not enter the Obama Administration's modus operandi.
Alworth: " I think the real question is personhood and agency, not life. Life isn't actually sufficient to have legal personhood. There is of course also the difference between law and religious belief. One can easily support a law you believe is immoral. Some people can separate the two."
Agreed. And in addition to the difference between law and religious belief, there is the distinction between morality and religiously inspired codes. I am perfectly capable of treating my neighbor decently, not killing or stealing or raping etc., and simultaneously having no belief whatsoever in divine, judgmental powers.
4:07 p.m.
Feb 21, '09
Every cell in your body is "life" in that is a living human cells. Not only a hundreds of millions killed each day naturally, but we actively kill millions a day all the time by volition. We don't have protests saving the precious tonsils now do we?
What makes a collection of living human cells a living person is brain activity. Anyone claiming anything else is full of shit.
As I posted in my comment up-thread, we (correctly) do not allow the state to force someone to donate a kidney against their will (even to save the life of someone who is indisputably a living person), yet the anti-choice morons seriously argue that something which which is not a living person should have that power, backed by the state.
Feb 21, '09
The pro-life crowd are only for a worthless life. If you dare go your own way, especially with sex, they want you to either die or be miserable. If someone set out to do that with your dog, you'd beat the crap out of them. Guess your lives don't matter too much to you that you consider this a "political position" instead of conscious assault. The post says it all. He seems to be choosing to distance himself from that crowd. It's a choice. The fact that there's an option, characterizes the system. That would not be an option in any mature, rational debate. What percentage of Americans are Mormon? What percentage of the Congress, what percentage of the governors are? Zionist, not just Jewish? Evangelical? Catholic? In the civilized world, taken together, they would be a minority. I just about named the entire Congress. That is not a result indicative of a smart, mature, debate.
Feb 22, '09
As I posted in my comment up-thread, we (correctly) do not allow the state to force someone to donate a kidney against their will (even to save the life of someone who is indisputably a living person), yet the anti-choice morons seriously argue that something which which is not a living person should have that power, backed by the state.
The thing is, this statement makes sense if you consider abortion a medical procedure, but the anti-choice people do not. They consider abortion no different than Josef Mengele doing ghoulish experiments on Jews in Nazi death camps.
Feb 23, '09
lestadelc,
As a pro-life supporter your argument comparing a kidney to an embryo doesn't "screw me up."
At least with donating a kidney you are giving or extending life, something living. With abortion, you are taking it away.
When my wife found out that she was pregnant with our daughter (she was six weeks along, which is considered an embryo) my love and devotion began at that moment. I didn't wait until the day she was born to have feelings for my own flesh and blood.
From the NIH Medical Encyclopedia:
"Week 1-3 5-7 days after fertilization, the blastula attaches to the wall of the uterus (endometrium). When it comes into contact with the endometrium it performs implantation. Implantation connections between the mother and the embryo will begin to form, including the umbilical cord. The embryo's growth centers around an axis, which will become the spine and spinal cord. The brain, spinal cord, heart, and gastrointestinal tract begin to form."
To say there is no brain function in an embryo is scientifically incorrect. The argument is really centered upon at what level a person gives credence to an embryo or a fetus as a human being with purpose and meaning. Obviously, we view it differently. And those are differences folks on either side of this issue will likely never overcome.
Feb 23, '09
Oh, and while I'm pro-life, I'm also in the same court as Jack Roberts and Allen Alley on the issue.
Feb 23, '09
10 people in a room. One person could sound very much like Jason. One person's friend died in childbirth, another knows someone who was a rape or incest victim, and both believe there is a place for abortion to save the life of the mother or to help the rape/incest victim. This second person has been involved in a crime victims group which supports that right. One person is an active member of NARAL. One person is an active member of Right to Life. One person opposes abortion and is very quietly pro-life (opposes abortion, but is not in-your-face the way some people from RTL and other organizations are. One person remembers that Hubert Humphrey said a truly pro-life individual was someone against abortion, capital punishment, nuclear war, using food as a weapon of foreign policy. One remembers Barry Goldwater saying "Do you mean to tell me we fought communism just so that people in this country could tell women they have no right to make their own medical decisions?". One remembers a time when some "family values" group was discovered to have a leader whose daughter became pregnant and the father was a major college football player. He was very public on the subject of his daughter not getting an abortion. But should the football player be kicked off the team for fathering a child out of wedlock? Not when he was needed to play in the big game!
*One person says "There is a tremendous need for foster and adoptive parents, and if each person who participated in a Rally for Life or ever blockaded an abortion clinic would either be a foster or adoptive parent or volunteer for organizations supporting them, they could demonstrate that they really do care for children after they are born".
Eleventh person walks into the room and says out loud that all the other 10 people have the right to their opinion.
My point is this: is Eleventh Person pro-choice?
Anyone who cannot give a yes or no answer to that question does not seriously want to debate this issue.
Feb 23, '09
There is a 12th person - the one who is a male and decides it isn't his fight since it is a women's issue only and tell other males to but out of it all together and just let the women fight out the issue.
<h2>I am a male. This issue is a womens only issue. I have no dog in the fight, so it is none of my business to decide on the issue - Let the women fight it out and decide what is right.</h2>