David Frum getting real

David Frum has a new editorial up on CNN entitled "Let's get real about abortion."  Anyone who talks about "getting real" on an issue has set himself up a pretty high standard, since he is effectively calling the discussion up to that point unreal -- he is saying that he is bringing sense to the subject for the first time.  Unfortunately, Frum fumbles even a basic understanding of the problem.

To begin with, he regrets that the moderator in a recent Indiana senatorial debate did not follow up one candidate's answer with what Frum admits was an "argumentative" question.  The question was narrowly partisan.  To quote just part of it:
OK, Mr. Mourdock, you say your principles require a raped woman to carry the rapist's child to term. That's a heavy burden to impose on someone. What would you do for her in return? Would you pay her medical expenses?
By the very question, Frum exposes his ignrance of the issue.  He seems to think that requiring a raped person to carry a baby to term implies a responsibility to offer something to the victim in return, as though the government were commonly in the business of compensating victims of crime.  If a criminal robs your house, does the government restore your property?  If a drunk driver turns you into a paraplegic, does the government pay for your medical expenses?  If someone murders you over an argument, does the government pay your family?  In ever case, no.  Your only hope for compensation is from the perpetrator, and that is rarely fulfilled, unless the perp happens to be a millionaire like O.J. Simpson.

Frum's hypothetical moderator continues,
If a woman has her credit card stolen, her maximum liability under federal law is $50. Yet on your theory, if she is raped, she must endure not only the trauma of assault, but also accept economic costs of potentially many thousands of dollars. Must that burden also fall on her alone?
I am flabbergasted at the trifling nature of this argument.  Comparing rape to credit card theft?  We have special laws limiting liability in the case of credit cards because -- well, I'm not exactly sure why, but it probably has something to do with the bank and the merchants sharing some responsibility for validating the user's identity.  But if someone hacks into your bank account and steals a million dollars, you are out of luck (at least over the insurable limit of $100,000), and if someone steals a million dollars in cash from your home, good luck getting that back.  The idea that rape is peculiarly like credit card fraud and not just about every other kind of crime, violent and otherwise, which is not limited by the government, strikes me as inane.

I am remaining neutral on the actual question of abortion for rape victims.  If you think rape victims should be permitted access to abortions, you can surely think of a better argument than Frum's.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l...
Read more

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren...
Read more

My privileged life

I have just read the article Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Level , and the comments, and the follow-up and its comments.  The author claims that straight white males (SWM, for short) don't like being told they are "privileged," so he is going to try to explain their advantages in terms they understand.  He then very condescendingly compares their lives to playing a game on the easiest difficulty level, whereas people in other categories have it harder, and black lesbians are playing on the hardest level of all. I understand that this is a metaphor, or an analogy.  I understand that it is not supposed to be a perfect model of reality.  There are, however, several reasons why I think it is a very poor and misleading metaphor. First of all, using the gaming-difficulty metaphor implies that SWMs have an easy life.  No one plays at the easiest level unless he is a total noob, and only college students with lots of time on their hands play at the hard...
Read more