quote: WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.
In general, he's right. It's a mistake to ignore the faithful. Faith DOES do a lot of good for a lot of people. You CAN display your faith without violating the first amendment (despite what the KOMs among us think.)
But I'm worried that dems, especially from red states, will take this as an excuse to go gay bashing. Or change their stand on the anti-gay marriage amendment.
We get enough crap from republicans pandering to the dark side of faith. We don't need it from dems too.
Pix
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But I'm worried that dems, especially from red states, will take this as an excuse to go gay bashing. Or change their stand on the anti-gay marriage amendment.
See, what I think is a shame is that "religious morality" has been so twisted by marketing that it's now conflated with the Republican platform in the minds of many people.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I consider myself very conservative religiously, and I'd vote for a pro-life Democrat pretty quickly.
Too bad that's not what Obama is saying.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tom: The democrat platform isn't all sunshine and roses on gay marriage either. Even in heavily blue states like here in california they pass laws against equal marriage rights.
But they prefer to slip the dagger carefully into our backs rather than come out and announce their disdain for us.
If Obama gets his way, I'm worried it might turn into a "Who Hates Gays More" contest.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:See, what I think is a shame is that "religious morality" has been so twisted by marketing that it's now conflated with the Republican platform in the minds of many people.
Swampjedi's comment is a perfect example of why this is the case.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: I consider myself very conservative religiously, and I'd vote for a pro-life Democrat pretty quickly.
Too bad that's not what Obama is saying.
Ditto.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What I don't understand is why acknowledging faith in politics supposedly entails hating gay people or being pro-life. Christianity is only vaguely related to either of those issues.
I think the more important thing that Obama is saying is that Democrats need to recognize that religion has a place in politics. The separation of church and state does not mean that our religion should not influence our politics. Any religious person very much should let their faith influence their voting! It is the reverse that is the problem - when political institutions try to influence our religions. I've complained about that for a long time... it's good to know that at least Obama is on the same page, even if not the Democratic Party as a whole.
But the key will be, once again, for Democrats to illustrate why they truly think their faith supports liberal beliefs better than conservative beliefs. They can't fake it, and they certainly shouldn't just become conservatives in order to court Evangelicals.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
What Obama's talking about is real.
I remember sitting watching some news network back when Passion of the Christ and Farenheit 9/11 came out--no, wait, it was on NPR (not that it matters)--and they were talking about how it was a political war at the cinema, because none of the people who watched one were really watching the other.
I had to smile, because I have a lot of friends who loved both movies. Most of them are black Christian Democrats. And I knew then that the Democratic party is eventually going to make them choose between their party and their God, and they are going to choose God.
Obama's nailed it with this one. Lucky for conservatives that the ivory tower liberals won't "stoop" to listening to him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And I knew then that the Democratic party is eventually going to make them choose between their party and their God, and they are going to choose God.
Odd, then, that the Republican Party has identified in its strategy memos exactly this approach, don't you think? Can it be fairly said that the Democrats are forcing this issue if Republicans are in fact deliberately using the legislative agenda to pander to religious elements?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
I'm saying that it is not nearly as easy for Republicans to draw religious Democrats over by invoking God as it is for Democrats to push their religious party members out by dismissing religion.
It will continue to happen as long as they feel its neccessary to keep lumping attacks on religion in with their attacks on conservatism.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think Obama is spreading the right message. They need to find their balance between religion and their politics.
It might take awhile for them to do it, and for it to be genuine, from the heart, and still on policy. It could take years. But at least one of them is finally starting to light a fire under their butts to do it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm saying that it is not nearly as easy for Republicans to draw religious Democrats over by invoking God as it is for Democrats to push their religious party members out by dismissing religion.
Ah. That's where I disagree with you. I think the Republican Party quite specifically attempts to draw religious Democrats over by making religious Democrats think their party "dismisses" religion. By arguing that only one side of any moral issue is the "godly" one and framing the argument to make it seem like it's impossible for anyone of faith to disagree, they deliberately isolate the Democratic Party's platform of conscience from so-called "religious" values.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:By arguing that only one side of any moral issue is the "godly" one and framing the argument to make it seem like it's impossible for anyone of faith to disagree, they deliberately isolate the Democratic Party's platform of conscience from so-called "religious" values.
Only insofar as they succeed in convincing people of that argument. And the Republicans can't convince people of things unless there is at least some truth to work with. The Democratic Party can only be convincingly painted as godless because they do choose to act in that manner in certain ways. I have heard few prominent Democrats draw any attention to religious reasons to support their political positions and they give the impression that they want to divorce religion from politics entirely. That approach by the Democrats allows Republicans to spin it into "The Democrats are anti-religion."
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I have absolutely no idea why abortion and gay rights have been brought up in this thread. Obama is saying that people of faith shouldn't be afraid to talk about their faith even if they're in positions of authority. Where does the pro-life, anti-gay marriage thing come into play? The Republican party has done an excellent job of making it seem like you have to be a Republican if you are religious. This is exactly what Obama seems to want to change.
Politicians shouldn't have to hide who they are. Personal beliefs should drive your agenda. If those personal beliefs stem from religion, so be it. Let me see why you believe what you believe so I can decide if I want to vote for you. It makes sense to me. I admire people who don't hide who they are in an effort to pursue a party ideal. (In this same vein, I don't like those who pretend to be something they're not for the same end.)
I'm not religious, but as long as having a religious politician does NOT mean having religious beliefs imposed on other people, I have no problem with it. In fact, I think Obama's right. Separation of church and state, in addition to meaning we do not favor one religion over another, means that we favor neither religion nor irreligion. This is something that I think both parties should work on.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
For a different take on what it means to be evangelical, I recommend picking up a copy of Sojourners magazine and reading some of what Jim Willis has to say.
If Willis is right, the evangelical movement is going to become more and more concerned with social justice issues and not just be viewed as caring about one or a few hot-button issues (abortion, gay marriage, and maybe prayer in school).
If that happens, I'll be happy no matter what party the religious folks of America most identify with. Because they've already shown that they can make the leaders listen. Imagine if that power was used to address things like poverty or inequality in the justice system, or prison abuses, over-concentration of wealth, access to affordable health care, ...
I look forward to it.
If the Democrats are wise, they'll try to recast the debate as more complex than it currently seems. And if they become the party of social justice, it might be advantageous to them in coming elections.
But really, I care more about the agenda of the religious folks who are going to be politically active. If they were all like Jim Wallis, I think we'd be a better country for it.
If the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of this world hold sway, then I'm worried.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And the Republicans can't convince people of things unless there is at least some truth to work with.
I would argue that decades of political science have proved this wrong.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: What I don't understand is why acknowledging faith in politics supposedly entails hating gay people or being pro-life. Christianity is only vaguely related to either of those issues.
It doesn't. However, the republicans have found that they can scare up a lot of support (and I mean scare in the litteral sense) from their religious wing by screaming about gay people.
I'm worried that if the dems take Obama's advice they'll figure out the same thing and we'll get homophobia in stereo from the two major political parties.
Pix
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'd like to see the Dems focus on the parts of religion that talk about inclusion, love of your fellow man, care for the sick and elderly, honesty in all things, etc. Let the Christianist Republicans (to use Andrew Sullivan's term) be pointed out as the fearmongers that they are.
It shouldn't be "hey, we're religious, too," it should be "this is what religion is for."
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: If Willis is right, the evangelical movement is going to become more and more concerned with social justice issues and not just be viewed as caring about one or a few hot-button issues (abortion, gay marriage, and maybe prayer in school).
Man I hope he's right. However heing raised inside the evangelical church I highly, highly doubt it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Man I love Obama, BTW he converted from Islam to Christianity growing up. I love the fact that he is so good at getting people from the left and the right to cooperate. He is a self made man and I really feel like he is genuine and has yet to be corrupted. He nailed his election in Illinois so solidly he had time before election day to campaign for neighboring democrats in neighboring states.
I really feel like were he to try now or in 4-8 years (as the case may be) that he would be a VERY solid presidential candidate. I am registered as a republican but voted democrat last election and if Obama ran for president (he would obviously take McCain along as VP or even vice versa) I would vote for that ticket like THAT.
I really think that Obama knows how to keep a good seperation of church and state without asking the religious to try and vote without using their religion as an influence.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:That's where I disagree with you. I think the Republican Party quite specifically attempts to draw religious Democrats over by making religious Democrats think their party "dismisses" religion.
That used to be true. But it's like how some Republicans eventually bought into the Democratic line that Republicans have an "Every Man For Himself" mentality, defending it instead of rebuffing it.
It wasn't until I started hearing the push the other way from the left that I had any hope of it actually working to get Christians to change parties.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'd like to see the Dems focus on the parts of religion that talk about inclusion, love of your fellow man, care for the sick and elderly, honesty in all things, etc.
Problem: these are the boring parts of religion. Someone screaming about something will always get more votes than someone saying "I think we should all be decent to each other."
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm a big agnostic, and I think Obama is right. I think this also dovetails nicely into the valedictory speech and testing the limits, virtues and vices of pluralism in a country. I'm a Democrat who believes that God should be taken out of the Pledge. But I also believe that if a young woman wants thank Jesus profusely for giving her the wherewithal to become the school valedictorian, she should be able to.
I also don't think this issue should be merely about how to bolster the party. It's about government in a free society.
____
As to getting votes, who knows how this will play. Dean was upfront about his religion. I don't know what to say about red state conservatives. I'm ashamed of them. For all the Bush voting-- I voted for him because he is a conservative who shares my values-- conversatives out there, I simply don't have too much respect for you. Strong family? Did you see his daughters before you cast your ballot? Are those the daughters of a good father? Are they the product of a good family? Fiscal responsibility? Foresight? Anybody whose spent any time in any ghetto in the US could have told you how hard rebuilding a country is going to be. I don't have a big enough heart to forgive unapologetic Bush voters, but I don't think that people should have to hide their faith in political discourse.
Hopefully, what will come of this is that when a doofus who shares your faith runs a candidate of a different faith, the American people will have the security in their religion not to vote for the doofus.
_______
As to the voters who only vote for the pro-life candidate. Well, those are your principles, and it's your vote. I can't blame you for voting your way, but I can blame you for all of the other things that happened because you voted your way.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, one girl sitting on her own in a small cafe in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I would argue that decades of political science have proved this wrong.
How so?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
There was a clip from the Colbert Report that showed a strong conservative Representative that had been demanding the 10 Commandments be put up in every public building in the country. It was his big issue.
Then Colbert asked him to list the Commandments.
He got 2 to 3 of them, and none in order.
It is people like this that we need to remove from office. People I call Wolves In Shepherd's Clothing.
If a Democratic contender could read the Commandments out loud, and use them to refute parts of the Republican agenda, policy, or recent history, I think a lot of Evangelicals would have to listen.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Gotta love the Adams quote.
Sure, I'm somewhat of a one-issue voter. That doesn't make me stupid; it just means I think that issue is of paramount importance.
The point of my first post was to say that I'd welcome the change. Just because I'm a "fundamentalist" doesn't mean I'm born-again Republican / conservative. I know that idea is common (both inside and outside the group).
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Personally, although I am a Christian, I have a hard time being in favor of a government in today's world that attempts to set policy according to any interpretation of Christianity.
IMO, the gospel of Christ was presented as a personal thing, not intended for government policy and administration.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Personally, although I am a Christian, I have a hard time being in favor of a government in today's world that attempts to set policy according to any interpretation of Christianity.
IMO, the gospel of Christ was presented as a personal thing, not intended for government policy and administration.
Usually when you mix religion and politics, religion usually comes out the soiled corrupted loser. It gains nothing from combining itself with politics and yet it has so much to lose by doing so.
This is not to say that a persons religious convictions cannot help him establish the ideas that he backs in politics, but when you use politics to reinforce religion, often times its done completely wrong.
I can stand behind everything Obama was quoted as saying in the article.
Also Bao Qing Tian do not forget that within the Bible and Book of Mormon there were plenty of examples of theocracy that God had willed into existance. But I imagine you are saying what you are within the context of a democracy.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: For a different take on what it means to be evangelical, I recommend picking up a copy of Sojourners magazine and reading some of what Jim Willis has to say.
Couple things -
First - the name is Jim Wallis.
I second Bob's recommendation of Sojourner's - not just for what Wallis has to say but for the rest of the commentary. And, no, I haven't suddenly gotten religious - I'm still an agnostic who's not hostile to religion. Wallis and Sojourners is reminiscent of the kind of Christian viewpoints I grew up hearing during the heydays of the civil rights and anti-war movement (Vietnam).
Sadly, as at least one other has commented, I can't really recommend Wallis's book with the great title: God's Politics : Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It
As one or more people said, the book is way too repetetive. Wallis would have benefited from a strong editor who would have cut the length of the book down by cutting out the repetitions.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
You're right, I am referring to democracy BlackBlade (and also had Millenial prophecies in mind too). Also, just to clarify, I mostly agree with what Obama was saying and was responding the the exchange about Republican & Democrat treatment of religion.
I'm just as uncomfortable about Democrats using religion to gain power as I am about the Republicans currently doing so.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Personally, although I am a Christian, I have a hard time being in favor of a government in today's world that attempts to set policy according to any interpretation of Christianity.
If by this you mean enforcing Christianity on the "heathens" then I completely agree. It's not my business to tell you not to do such and such with so and so. That's putting the cart in front of the horse.
God doesn't need any help enforcing His law.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:I think the more important thing that Obama is saying is that Democrats need to recognize that religion has a place in politics. The separation of church and state does not mean that our religion should not influence our politics.
Exactly. Harry Reid's sincere religous beliefs are a big part of his character. And, his character is what makes him a such an attractive and powerful representative of the citizens of Nevada. Not that they all share his beliefs. But, they recognize his strength of character fostered by those beliefs. EDIT: And put Jimmy Carter on that short list too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
I've never watched the Colbert Report-that story sounds so amazing I have to wonder if it was staged or not. I mean, first the Rep. would have to simply not know the 10 Commandments. Then he would have to nott have staffers who would warn him such questiions might come.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I believe that a goodly chunk of politicians who appear on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report have no clue what they're getting into and only do it because their aides told them it would help with the teen-to-thirty demographics.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And I believe that over 50% of regular church goers in this country could not recite the Ten Commandments on demand. Most of them could probably come up with 8 or so, but they'd be counting on their fingers and trying to figure out which ones they'd missed.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
dkw: I think you're being optimistic.
And I doubt less than 1% could name the most important two.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I learned a little rhyme in high school semenary to help me with it that's stuck with me for over 10 yearsdkw. So there's 1/200,000,000 church goers that can recite them off the top of his head Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Hmmmm, most important two..... Wring the heads of the pidgeons before burning it on the alter and be sure to walk 100 paces away from your tent before relieving yourself?
Am I close?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BQT: no where near =)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Someone screaming about something will always get more votes than someone saying "I think we should all be decent to each other."
quote: the evangelical movement is going to become more and more concerned with social justice issues and not just be viewed as caring about one or a few hot-button issues
quote:Where does the pro-life
quote:I'd like to see the Dems focus on the parts of religion that talk about inclusion, love of your fellow man, care for the sick and elderly, honesty in all things, etc.
Just a sampling to set the tone for my post.
Many, many, many of us see abortion as a social justice issue. To us, the mere existence of abortion on demand is anathema to the idea that "we should all be decent to each other." Talk about the rights of the unborn is talk about inclusion, love of your fellow man, and care for the defenseless.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
lol BaoQingTian, pretty good selection.
One might argue the complete lack of 10 commandment memorials is the reason Christians cannot list them. ITS THIS DAMN GODLESS LIBERAL AGENDA!!!!
I think I just had a sargasm....
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag: If you believe that life begins at conception anyway.
See, this is why I get pro-life and feel emapthy with it. If you believe life begins at conception you can't POSSIBLY be pro-choice unless you're a monster.
But if you believe life begins sometime later, then you have to be pro-choice(*). You have to respect the life of the actual person instead of the potential person.
.... And now the thread derails...
Pix
(*) until the second you think life begins. Then you have to be pro-life from that point on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag: If you believe
Note the intros to the first two sentences: "Many, many, many of us see..." and "To us..." Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag: I was agreeing with you. (even though I'm on the other side of the fence here)
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I believe that a goodly chunk of politicians who appear on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report have no clue what they're getting into and only do it because their aides told them it would help with the teen-to-thirty demographics.
Chris, I agree. Illinois Gov. Blagojevich was on Colbert and obviously whatever staffer set up his appearance hadn't warned him about the style or content of the show. He appeared totally clueless - kind of like a deer in the headlights, but a deer with the power of speech.
Makes me wonder how many of those aides are now "ex-aides."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: dkw: I think you're being optimistic.
And I doubt less than 1% could name the most important two.
Lucky for us that we've had them correctly summarized.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Dag said:
quote:Many, many, many of us see abortion as a social justice issue. To us, the mere existence of abortion on demand is anathema to the idea that "we should all be decent to each other." Talk about the rights of the unborn is talk about inclusion, love of your fellow man, and care for the defenseless.
My main beef with Christian Conservatives is that for many, abortion is, for all intents and purposes, the only social justice issue. Some of the same "passionate" champions of the unborn aren't nearly so compassionate when it comes to the "defenseless" that have already been born.
There are uglier elements to both the right and the left - I've gone on record in regard to some of my beefs with what passes for the "left" these days. The ugly element of the "right" seems to fall into this pattern of draconian solutions which hurt people who are already vulnerable. I've seen it in the states, when both Missouri and Florida (both Republican administrations) enacted Medicaid changes that resulted in the cancellation of funding for nutritional supplements used by children and adults with various disabilities who use feeding tubes. (the irony should be obvious regarding Florida) Luckily, in Florida, anyway, some outraged medical people raised enough of a stink that the regs are on hold - for now.
My impression is that a lot of "pro-life" people are only "pro-life" when it comes to abortion and will forgive almost any assault on the lives of ill, old, disabled and poor people if it's done by politicians who pay lip service to being anti-abortion. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My main beef with Christian Conservatives is that for many, abortion is, for all intents and purposes, the only social justice issue.
I don't think this is true in general of those who work as pro-life activists as opposed to the run-of-the-mill anti-legalized-abortion politician. As to the typical pro-life voter, I'd bet the problem is more ignorance than lack of caring. I certainly do care about the medicaid issue, I try to stay reasonably informed, and I haven't heard of either issue.
Not that ignorance in such situations isn't a moral failing. But it's a different one than the one you describe.
Not that "for many, abortion is, for all intents and purposes, the only social justice issue" isn't literally true, for any reasonable definition of "many." I'm sure there are millions who fit that description. I'm contending that the strange alignment of the parties and the association of "Republican" with "pro-life" (and not the other way around - my order is intentional) has caused some Republican positions to be viewed as more typical of the pro-life crowd than I believe them to be.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The problem isn't with Christians who vote pro-life as their main reasoning. Its with the Democrats for not offering them a truly Christian choice.
I await the brave politician who stands up and says:
"I am not Pro-Life. I am not Pro-Choice. I am Pro-Gressive. I am tired of this paralyzing entrenched yelling. I want to move the debate forward, to progress to solutions that the majority find acceptable.
There are intelligent, caring, passionate people on both sides of the issue. Each is striving to do what they think is best. I refuse to gain votes by channeling these good people, their passions and their energies at each other, but instead want to channel them together, to progress forward.
The goal of both sides is to lower the number of abortions neccesary in this world. I have yet to meet a Pro-Choice person who does not call abortion an unfortunate neccesity. Then again I have yet to meet a Pro-Life person who thought to harm the mothers involved.
Let us work together to limit abortions, not by voting for law makers who promise to legislate it away, but by removing the causes and the neccesities behind the need.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Let us work together to limit abortions, not by voting for law makers who promise to legislate it away, but by removing the causes and the neccesities behind the need.
First, I don't think you can use government to remove the "causes and the necessities behind the need." A large percentage of abortions are not about the types of physical needs that can be met with government programs.
Second, you can't convince me and millions of others that there's a need for abortion beyond certain limited situations involving physical threat to the health of the mother. At this point, you're not even speaking my language.
Third, the protection of the criminal law is an important civil rights. It's why federal law enforcement was necessary in Mississippi in the 60s. The refusal to enforce the criminal law against people who victimized black people wasn't wrong only because it didn't stop the victimization. It was also wrong because it denied this important civil right to those victims. It's why I react so strongly against "compassionate murder" bills.
This equates to asking one group to forgo their social justice goal for an empty promise that will fail to protect those the group is working to protect.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Dan, I really really don't want to derail this thread but you've said something that I've heard before and always wondered about. If there is nothing wrong with abortions then why would having one be unfortunate and why would the number of abortions matter?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
First, I don't think you can use government to remove the "causes and the necessities behind the need." A large percentage of abortions are not about the types of physical needs that can be met with government programs.
But the government can work to make the adoption process easier, lift restrictions on homosexuals adopting children (where they exist), and work to increase the awareness of birth control, committed relationships, and personal responsibility.
Second, you can't convince me and millions of others that there's a need for abortion beyond certain limited situations involving physical threat to the health of the mother. At this point, you're not even speaking my language.
And you can't convince me and millions of others that the needs and legal rights of a spoonful of cells outweigh the needs and legal rights of the mother. Is it more valuable to continue the deadlock, gaining and losing ground year after year, or would it be useful to seek a common language that ultimately seeks the same goal?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If you believe life begins at conception you can't POSSIBLY be pro-choice unless you're a monster.
I disagree. You can be pro-choice AND believe life begins at conception IF you think that attempting to legally ban abortion will result in even worse things than all those murders. For instance, you might believe that people would still get a similar number of abortions anyway, only through far more dangerous means. In that case, it would make sense to be pro-choice on the grounds that, even though abortion is murder, a ban is not a productive tool to stop that murdering.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Does this need to turn into an abortion thread?
Not that I would want to stop anyone from discussing that topic, mind you.
I was just wondering if the way Obama (and many other Democrats) are likely to approach religion might not make this issue less about abortion, and more about being open to the idea that faith can have a place in the politics of the left. The social justice issues, in general, would seem to be a natural fit. It's not a question of every single religious person joining the Democratic party, really. There will be some who see the Republicans as more in line with their views on this and a great many other issues (even those of a non-religious nature).
The big question, politically, is whether intentional welcoming of religious people into the party, and making sure it's okay to talk about faith within the party's platform, will work. Will it neutralize the Right's seeming capture of the general "morality" issues? Will it broaden the faith-centered debate in this country? Will things like social justice issues prove to be as mobilizing as the issues that the GOP has focused on in their deliberate attempt to woo the religious right wing?
I personally don't think that the left has to put forward ANY platform regarding abortion to make this work, if it will work. They can do things like what Chris is talking about -- work to reduce the number of abortions through programs that would naturally appeal to the left, because those will also appeal to many religious people, even those who are anti-abortion.
I think it all depends on how it is handled. Sure, there will be those who won't join a party unless it states uncategorically that it wants to make abortion illegal. But there are also people who would join a party that talks about ways to reduce the frequency of abortion through means other than making it illegal.
(oops, I steered the thread back to abortion. Maybe if I mention Israel and illegal aliens I can for the Hatrack trifecta!)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I apologize for the derailment. My post above was not an answer to the abortion debate, but a suggestion we get more involved with the debate part and less involved with the drawing of lines.
Those who argue that they will not give an inch only insure that inches will not be given and that the status quo remains.
Those who see the only answer is giving time, energy, votes, and money to politicians. Some of those politicians may see the illegalization of abortion coming to fruition as the end of their political support, so while they talk the talk, they do not walk the walk.
Honest is a Christian value that the Democrats can push.
Caring for the weak, the ill, those unable to help themselves is a Christian value that the Democrats support.
There are more.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But the government can work to make the adoption process easier, lift restrictions on homosexuals adopting children (where they exist)
The mechanical difficulty of adoption from the biological mother's perspective is not a principle cause of biological mothers' not putting their children up for adoption. Nor is a lack of people willing to adopt infants.
quote:and work to increase the awareness of birth control, committed relationships, and personal responsibility.
I'm at a loss to see why doing so requires giving up the core principle that creates the reason for the debate.
quote:And you can't convince me and millions of others that the needs and legal rights of a spoonful of cells outweigh the needs and legal rights of the mother. Is it more valuable to continue the deadlock, gaining and losing ground year after year, or would it be useful to seek a common language that ultimately seeks the same goal?
It's not the common goal. See most of the rest of my post, before and after. 1) even the common part of the goal isn't attainable by the means proposed. 2.) Why is it useful for one side to give up? It's not like Dan proposed that people who favor abortion rights make any change at all in this "channeling together." Oh sure, the energies spent opposing pro-life arguments will be gone. But only because Dan would have pro-life advocates simply quit.
It's one thing to propose a compromise. It's another to simply say, "If you'll stop disagreeing with us publicly, we'll take some vague steps that won't actually do anything to attain your central goal."
The next time someone proposes a compromise or coming together on abortion, make sure there's a compromise in there.
In this case, all it demonstrates is, once again, an utter lack of misunderstanding of the opposing position.
quote:Sure, there will be those who won't join a party unless it states uncategorically that it wants to make abortion illegal. But there are also people who would join a party that talks about ways to reduce the frequency of abortion through means other than making it illegal.
I doubt there are many in the latter category who are particularly loyal to the republicans at this point.
quote:Caring for the weak, the ill, those unable to help themselves is a Christian value that the Democrats support.
And, to come full circle, it would be nice if people stopped either saying or implying that the pro-life advocates are somehow not acting because they hold that value.
I've seen it time and time again here. "Why are Christian values seen as anti-abortion and not caring for others." I tried to say this on page 1, but apparently it didn't take.
I get that some don't believe that the living being destroyed by abortion is a human being. OK. But please don't pretend that this means that those who think there is a human life lost at each abortion aren't acting out of a desire to care for others.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I get that some don't believe that the living being destroyed by abortion is a human being. OK. But please don't pretend that this means that those who think there is a human life lost at each abortion aren't acting out of a desire to care for others.
But...there is a fair statement lodged in those critiques somewhere, at least when leveled against the GOP.
It may not apply to all individual abortion foes, but as a group, I don't see the mass action. While there are other possible interpretations of the lack of action, at least one obvious one is a lack of concern.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Also Dan, I meant to quote from your earlier post. Abortion isn't really a tangent, but rather could be used as an example of where things might/might not work with respect to Obama's position.
quote: I doubt there are many in the latter category who are particularly loyal to the republicans at this point.
I doubt Obama is really trying to find a way to cause GOP party loyalists to defect. It's more likely that a move like this would motivate a disaffected core of religious folks.
(yes, yes, I know he said "evangelicals" but even within that tradition, there's more to religion than a couple of issues that the GOP has turned into political platforms. If Jim Wallis is right, the next generation of evangelicals is looking hard at rallying around the social justice issues that the GOP has been ignoring -- and has a pretty poor track record on as well.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I get that some don't believe that the living being destroyed by abortion is a human being. OK. But please don't pretend that this means that those who think there is a human life lost at each abortion aren't acting out of a desire to care for others.
One of the reasons I liked Obama's speech was precisely that. A quote:
quote:So let me end with just one other interaction I had during my campaign. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. Senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School that said the following:
"Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you."
The doctor described himself as a Christian who understood his commitments to be "totalizing." His faith led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage, although he said that his faith also led him to question the idolatry of the free market and quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize much of the Republican agenda.
But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor went on to write:
"I sense that you have a strong sense of justice...and I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason...Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded....You know that we enter times that are fraught with possibilities for good and for harm, times when we are struggling to make sense of a common polity in the context of plurality, when we are unsure of what grounds we have for making any claims that involve others...I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."
Fair-minded words.
So I looked at my website and found the offending words. In fairness to them, my staff had written them using standard Democratic boilerplate language to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.
Re-reading the doctor's letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words. Those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.
So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own - a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.
And I didn't get into a compromise position because I was avoiding a full-blown abortion debate, but I've discussed this here before and am on record as saying I would accept more restrictions on abortion.
I'm at a loss to see why doing so requires giving up the core principle that creates the reason for the debate.
I'm not suggesting you give up, or that you change your position. I am suggesting that more energy go into making abortion unnecessary and unwanted because the head on debate doesn't seem to be working for eiher side. I guess it boils down to your ultimate goal. If your primary goal is to save unborn lives, I submit that working with pro-choice activists to reduce the number of abortions would do that more effectively than the current either/or debate. If your goal is to convince everyone, or even a majority, that a fertilized egg is a legal person, you have a much tougher job, one that will surely convince some and just as surely push others away because of the uncompromising position.
At no point have I suggested you should change your own views, or that you should stop advocating the illegality of abortion.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I would just like to say that I am a super-big liberal and I know all the Ten Commandments. Because when I was eight we got a humongous chocolate bar if we memorized them. Mine had almonds. Things like that stay with you forever.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Let's see... Don't worship other gods, honor your mother and father, honor your neighbor, don't murder, don't steal, don't have an abortion, don't be gay, fight and/or kill evildoers (but insist it isn't murder), always be patriotic, protect your children from any possible threat, and praise God in every possible public way... No, that doesn't sound quite right, in fact I think it may have been eleven, but it sure seems like what certain groups would have us believe Christianity is all about.
Posted by Chanie (Member # 9544) on :
You can also listen to his speech on iTunes. He has a more-or-less weekly podcast.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Let's see... Don't worship other gods, honor your mother and father, honor your neighbor, don't murder, don't steal, don't have an abortion, don't be gay, fight and/or kill evildoers (but insist it isn't murder), always be patriotic, protect your children from any possible threat, and praise God in every possible public way... No, that doesn't sound quite right, in fact I think it may have been eleven, but it sure seems like what certain groups would have us believe Christianity is all about.
Stealing is okay if you steal a lot.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own - a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.
This makes me want to vote for him. Maybe I'm one of the people he was hoping to hit, and maybe this is great political move, but if this is sincere, then I really want to find a way to vote for him.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Honestly, I feel bad for fair-minded Republican political folks who will be forced into the position of having to oppose this guy, when he may end up being the only obvious good choice Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rat: I doubt he and I share more than a handful of political opinions. I doubt we share an opinion on any of my big three.
I have no problem oposing him.
Of course, the way the republicans are going I might oppose him by voting Libertarian in '08. (but that only matters if he gets the democratic nomination)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Even if he is saying what he thinks people want to hear, at least what he thinks people want to hear really is what I want to hear. This is a vast improvement over most national candidates.
If he does what I want to see him do as well, that would be great.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Can't resist a little gloating - I got to vote for him twice! And I am on his Christmas card list.
We also get Senator Durbin who rocks! And he goes to my church.
I am so spoiled!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also Bao Qing Tian do not forget that within the Bible and Book of Mormon there were plenty of examples of theocracy that God had willed into existance. But I imagine you are saying what you are within the context of a democracy.
This quote represents part of what makes me uneasy with religion entering political discourse. If God's authority can convince someone that democracy itself might ever be an inappropriate form of government... how could someone who believes this be as committed a citizen in a democratic republic as someone who thinks that no authority could subvert the right of the people to govern themselves?
To put it another way: if you think the universe is a monarchy, and rightly so, how can you be fully committed to worldly democracy?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Because we don't believe that human beings have the same authority as God? There's an obvious answer for that question.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I think God's ideal society would probably be a democracy in which everyone shares a common righteous desire for good. Religious authority in a theistic religion is hard to handle democratically, because if you believe there's Someone in charge, well ... They're in charge. However, I don't see the need for God's ideal political society to be a dictatorship or a monarchy. I suspect that in such a society, there would still be a great deal of self-determination at all levels of government.
I think God likes us best when He doesn't have to order us around Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:I think God's ideal society would probably be a democracy in which everyone shares a common righteous desire for good
What would the difference be between that and a monarchy where everyone shares a common righteous desire to be good headed by a perfect king?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
God saying, "Solve it yourselves, whiners!" a little more often Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Dag, where do I say the Pro-Life must give up their goal? If it appears that way then I need to clarify.
Pro-Life goal--stop abortions--isn't it?
What I was suggesting is working with others to do that, even those who are pro-choice. In fact, the Pro Choice people have as much, if not more, to surrender, but demonstrating that Abortions are something that need to be minimized.
Now Bob's social agenda is a start, but there are other things that can be done, and they are not neccesarilly government actions.
Find out Why women choose abortion over adoption, abstinence or keeping the child themselves. Research that in as politically unbiased way as possible. Then go after those causes, whether it is absentee fathers or poverty or fear.
But also hit the public opinion area, but not just the religious public. Emphasise not just the negative aspects of abortion, but the positive aspects of motherhood and fatherhood. Work on not having every sit-com on TV scare perspective parents with parenthood.
Basically I am not saying that the Pro-Life people need to surrender their beliefs. Not in the least. I am saying that they can rechannel that energy into making progress on those beliefs without the the dead-end that Pro-Life politics has turned into. Pro-Choice can do the same thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is a philosophy - just saying it exists, not that anyone here subscibes to it - that "two deaths are better than one murder". The issue for those folks is one of intentionality and principle more than actuality.
A big reason that women (especially young ones) have abortions is fear or social stigma or punishment. They have abortions so that people won't find out that they got pregnant. If the social stigma of getting pregnant out-of-wedlock didn't exist, fewer women would have abortions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also Bao Qing Tian do not forget that within the Bible and Book of Mormon there were plenty of examples of theocracy that God had willed into existance. But I imagine you are saying what you are within the context of a democracy.
This quote represents part of what makes me uneasy with religion entering political discourse. If God's authority can convince someone that democracy itself might ever be an inappropriate form of government... how could someone who believes this be as committed a citizen in a democratic republic as someone who thinks that no authority could subvert the right of the people to govern themselves?
To put it another way: if you think the universe is a monarchy, and rightly so, how can you be fully committed to worldly democracy?
Because wouldnt a God who intended us to live in a theocracy/monarchy have the power to set one up on his own? And even if you believed in a Theocracy that needs to be set up, you can still believe it ought to be establish through principles of reason and logic. You do not have to force anyone. Finally if God really did show up and say, "I'm in charge now." I dont think its me you should be worried about offending. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There is a philosophy - just saying it exists, not that anyone here subscibes to it - that "two deaths are better than one murder". The issue for those folks is one of intentionality and principle more than actuality.
A big reason that women (especially young ones) have abortions is fear or social stigma or punishment. They have abortions so that people won't find out that they got pregnant. If the social stigma of getting pregnant out-of-wedlock didn't exist, fewer women would have abortions.
sorry for double posting.
I do not think your logic is sound. Is it not just as likely that were the stigma removed, more women would be comfortable getting pregnant as abortion would be an even easier option to negate the effects thereof?
An example would be China. Women there are frowned on for having more than one child, and so abortions are encouraged. Chinese women still have sex, many still use contraceptives to prevent additional children, and yet many still get pregnant and their abortion rates are huge. Maybe the explanation is that Abortion is encouraged. But how do you keep a neutral stance towards aborion where it is neither frowned on or encouraged?
Not that I am saying abortion is just like theft, but what if we had a, "finders keepers" approach to ownership? Where if you simply find something it belongs to you, regardless of the circumstances with which it was aquired, and you would not be punished by society for stealing. My guess would be that society would be totally paralyzed by the sheer frequency of how often any object exchanged hands. Time and time again we have seen what happens if the police are overwhelmed with a situtation. There is mass lawlessness until order can be restored.
Why should removing the negative results of abortion suddenly cause people to stop having them? When was the last time you stopped doing something because people stopped chiding you for doing it?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
BlackBlade, you're missing her point. Abortion can be done secretly, carrying a child to term can't. Therefore abortion is a way to avoid the social stigma of out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: BlackBlade, you're missing her point. Abortion can be done secretly, carrying a child to term can't. Therefore abortion is a way to avoid the social stigma of out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
OK if that was her point I definately missed it. I am merely arguing here then that I do not think there would be a decrease in abortions if the social stigma of getting pregnant before marriage were completely removed.
Many women choose not to have sex before getting married because they think its wrong to do so. Therefore they do not get pregnant and they discourage other women from doing so. Is the stigma really on the woman getting pregnant, or having sex with somebody who is not their husband?
I think one just happens to be easier to hide then the other.
I am going to restrain myself in posting as I do not think the point of this thread was to debate the moral right and wrong of abortion, or the proper legislation for it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yup. That was my point.
quote: I think one just happens to be easier to hide then the other.
Yes. "Easier to hide" becomes very important to a young woman who believes that everyone in her world is going to punish or shun her.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think Black Blade doesn't understand it because his (and my) culture doesn't put any greater stigma on getting pregnant than on having sex out of wedlock in the first place.
So, suggesting that the way to stop abortions is by removing the stigma of out-of-wedlock pregnancy is equivelent to saying that the way to stop abortions is by allowing/blessing/approving of premarital sex. Considering how many pregnancies that societal (and other kinds of, but we are focusing on society) rule prevents from happening in the first place, it doesn't add up.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Premarital sex is even easier to hide than having an abortion--well, until you get pregnant anyway.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I await the brave politician who stands up and says:
"I am not Pro-Life. I am not Pro-Choice. I am Pro-Gressive. I am tired of this paralyzing entrenched yelling. I want to move the debate forward, to progress to solutions that the majority find acceptable.
...
Let us work together to limit abortions, not by voting for law makers who promise to legislate it away, but by removing the causes and the neccesities behind the need.
pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease
-----
Comprehensive sex education and widely available inexpenxive birth control (from free condoms to OTC plan-B) leads to fewer unwanted pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancy is the primary reason for abortion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It may not apply to all individual abortion foes, but as a group, I don't see the mass action. While there are other possible interpretations of the lack of action, at least one obvious one is a lack of concern.
I don't think you ever see abortion foes as one mass group. You see politicians who happen to also oppose abortion, which is quite different.
quote:Dag, where do I say the Pro-Life must give up their goal? If it appears that way then I need to clarify.
Here's where it appears that way:
quote:Let us work together to limit abortions, not by voting for law makers who promise to legislate it away, but by removing the causes and the neccesities behind the need.
Thank you for the further clarification, but I still would ask 2 questions: 1) Why do you think those other goals are incompatible with "voting for law makers who promise to legislate it away"? 2) Why do you think this is sufficient to meet the stated goal?
quote:because the head on debate doesn't seem to be working for eiher side.
Let's see what happens after one or two more Supreme Court vacancies.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Unwanted pregnancy is the primary reason for abortion.
Thank you, Captain Obvious Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My City of Heroes character was named Captain Obvious. He had macros set up to say things like "Your mother gave birth to a villain!" when taunting, and "I'm punching you hard now!" when executing a punch. *grin*
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Thank you, Captain Obvious
Ya, that's kinda the point
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I don't think you ever see abortion foes as one mass group. You see politicians who happen to also oppose abortion, which is quite different.
I wasn't envisioning politicians when I wrote that...I was envisioning the people who CALL their politicians to get action on issues.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was envisioning the people who CALL their politicians to get action on issues.
Well, I know hundreds of such people. Most of them work privately on the other issues you spoke of, and most of them complain about having to choose between parties which only deal with part of "social justice."
The charge you are levying is fairly common but doesn't match my experience on the subject.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
To help their credibility with evangelicals, the Dems should get this guy to run.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Well, I know hundreds of such people. Most of them work privately on the other issues you spoke of, and most of them complain about having to choose between parties which only deal with part of "social justice."
The charge you are levying is fairly common but doesn't match my experience on the subject.
Well, as I stated, there are definitely individuals who care about more things, and even work actively. The point is that the mass mobilization doesn't appear to be happening on the other issues. I think there either must be fewer people concerned about those issues, or the same people aren't AS concerned as they are about abortion.
I can think of other possibilities:
- less extensive coverage of social issues other than abortion and gay marriage.
- politicians ignoring the vast pressure in some areas, but listening to it in the case of abortion and gay marriage.
- a few vocal leaders are getting their way and politicians aren't listening regardless of what "the people" say.
I don't see all these as mutually exclusive, either.
I think we have seen the religious right mobilize far more people, and in far more organized a fashion over the abortion issue, and the gay marriage issue than they have over things like, say, prison reform, or fixing the Medicaid problems, or conquering world hunger, or whatever other issue, really.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
The problem with trying to see a mass mobilization for non-controversial issues is the fact that when people mobilize for them, there is no controversy to draw attention to it. (Said Captian Obvious.)
What I mean is, the same exact group of people could protest abortion on Friday, work in soup kitchens on Saturday, and counsel troubled teens on Sunday, and they would only attract a news crew on one of those three days.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I submit that if these people mobilized, they'd call the press. Also, if they worked on their legislators to good effect, we'd have the newsworthy item of the GOP getting behind things like ensuring that every child had food and adequate medical care.
I think that'd make news both here and abroad.
More importantly, since the GOP is NOT getting behind those issues, I submit that not enough of the same people who are pecking at them regarding abortion are pestering them on these other issues.
Given that the GOP continues to cut Medicaid, for example, I submit that this constituency isn't picking that as an issue on which to bug their representatives. At least not in sufficient numbers...
They seem perfectly capable (as a group) of both mobilizing mass mail-in, phone call and e-mail efforts that get the attention of their representatives. If these other issues of importance to Christians aren't getting the same attention from legislators, it's a pretty sure bet that the Christians aren't pushing them, at least not in the same way or with the same volume.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I think the problem with your argument is the unstated or understated assertion that every other problem in society is equally or more important than abortion, and therefore deserves as much as or more attention. I mean, if there were a genocide going on somewhere in America, and people were mobilizing to stop it, would you reaction be, "Why are you hypocrites mobilizing to stop this genocide, but not for illiteracy or the uninsured?" Or would it be, "Holy crap, yes, mobilize against genocide! Here, here!"
When you have that first reaction to anti-abortion mobilization, that strikes many pro-lifers as an assertion that the lives they believe they are protecting are worthless compared with every other issue facing the country. I'm sure you can see why that argument doesn't have the impact you might intend.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:at least not in the same way or with the same volume.
First, according to their basic premises, there are about 3,500 legal murders every day in this country that they are trying to make illegal. That's going to capture some pretty intense attention.
Beyond that, there are lots of other reasons for not "pecking at" their legislatures than simply not caring as much.
First, many of these people have a deep-seated mistrust of government as a solution, for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is an enormous disillusionment with a system which has so perverted the meaning of "liberty" to prohibit the majority in many states from doing anything about the daily 3,500. Another reason is flat out practical doubt that the government programs can actually work. Many of these people have firsthand experience with providing the practical sort of help many people need in this country.
Beyond those reasons, many, many more are focusing on the abortion issue and have no other choice in party at the moment. President Bush can appoint a justice who will undue Roe and Casey without raising the ire of his other constituents. He cannot increase Medicaid without raising that ire.
You also have to remember that the Democratic party has intentionally made it uncomfortable for the pro-life. Look at the change in Obama's web site language on abortion described earlier in the thread. I hear it fairly constantly - even here - that because I hold an unborn child to be a living human being with certain rights that should be protected by the state, I am anti-woman, an ideologue, someone who wants to punish women for sex. The language suggested by the Democrats (assuming Obama is accurate, which I don't doubt) does some of that. The rejection of the pro-life as decent human beings is of course going to cause people to gravitate to the other party.
And that's the trend I first spoke against in this thread - the seeming separation of "social justice" from the pro-life position.
Finally, you are ignoring the very basic fact that people only have so much energy to work on a given cause.
You seem to be making the basic error of assuming that if people believed X, they would do Y. Any given belief X can result in many, many actions, some of which will depend on other beliefs, some of which will depend on how one understands the world to work, and some of which will depend on how much time one has at the end of the day.
I know you can disagree with all these conclusions, especially about government programs working. And that's a good thing to do in a debate on that subject. My point here, however, is that other people have other opinions that make it self-consistent to care greatly about those other social justice issues while still supporting pro-life candidates who do not pursue those other issues.
I have a friend that has been meeting with a group of people trying to study the feasibility of a third-party that would be pro-life and in favor of increased social spending (while adding a stronger element of self-responsibility where possible - the desire to increase the spending levels makes me tend to trust their motivations on this). In may ways it would be socially conservative (unfortunately on civil gay marriage as well) and "liberal" with respect to social assistance. I don't see them succeeding, but I do think it's the only possible way to break this logjam.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I might be interested in such a party.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd love to see McCain join with his buddy Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama to create a new third party that combines the best of both parties and leaves the worst in the dust, so we can finally see that the moderates DO represent mainstream America, and let the crazy sides of both parties, the extreme left and the extreme right feed on each other while the majority of the population finally gets to run the country right.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I think we can all agree that the stigma associated with premarital and unwanted pregnancy is one of the largest reasons there are so many abortions today. I'd say another very large reason is lack of knowledge about birth control, though I suspect that's more disputed.
The way I see it, there are two options for combating abortion: we can make it illegal, and/or we can remove people's desire to have abortions by removing the root causes of abortion. I prefer the latter method. So I when I make up my checklist of which party I'll vote for on each issue, I'm with the Democrats on abortion, because I think they're doing the most to end abortion in the long run. I don't think it's nearly enough; but it's better to me than what the Republicans are doing. Which to my mind is making more girls want abortions, while promising to get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe "someday."
Edit to add: Every 4th Wed I'm terrified that I won't get my period the next day. I'm not scared of getting pregnant or of getting birth. The fear that whispers to me saying that maybe an abortion wouldn't be that bad, is the fear of telling my parents I'm pregnant. And it takes a lot of fighting to push that fear away every month. If I ever did get pregnant it would take every ounce of courage I contain not to get an abortion. And I'm pro-life. Why should anyone who isn't pro-life rally that courage and face that fear? Why should they face ostracism, possible violence, possibly being thrown out of their family when all it would take to avoid it is a visit to the doctor that no one needs to know about?
[ July 02, 2006, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: blacwolve ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Every 4th Wed I'm terrified that I won't get my period the next day.
Wow. You're more regular than anyone I've ever met.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Since my early 20s my cycle has been predictable to within 4 hours.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You're more regular than anyone I've ever met.
"I know we just met...but could you tell me about how regular your menstral period is?"
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Every 4th Wed I'm terrified that I won't get my period the next day.
Wow. You're more regular than anyone I've ever met.
It's the birth control, I was completely irregular before I went on it. It's pretty comforting, because apparently it means the hormones are working really well.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I think we can all agree that the stigma associated with premarital and unwanted pregnancy is one of the largest reasons there are so many abortions today
I don't agree. I don't know all the reasons people have abortions, but I absolutely do not think or have reason to think that the majority are because of any stigma attached to having illegitmate children. Most women having abortions are in their twenties, and almost a third of the children born in the US are born to women who are not married.
Can I ask a question? I am trying to think how to put this. It seems like you are saying the scary part would be telling your parents that you are pregnant if that happened. I'm guessing that your parents know that you're sexually active. Would they be suprised if you told them you were pregnant?
[ July 05, 2006, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't know all the reasons people have abortions, but I absolutely do not think or have reason to think that the majority are because of any stigma attached to having children.
You misread her quote. Specifically, she is arguing that the stigma associated with premarital pregnancy is one of the largest reasons -- not some generalized stigma about having children in general.
And having known a lot of people who've had abortions, I'm inclined to agree with blacwolve on this; that is absolutely one of the biggest motivators.
The other biggie, which is cited less often, is financial readiness; I'd wager that it's a distant second.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I didn't misread the quote - I left out a word in my response.
I understood what she meant. I don't believe that the stigma is the reason that the pregnancy is unwanted. I don't know all the reasons, but I have to imagine to nine months of physical hardship followed by a lifetime of dedication and sacrfice as your life now belongs, at least in part, to the child might have more to do with it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't know all the reasons, but I have to imagine to nine months of physical hardship followed by a lifetime of dedication and sacrfice as your life now belongs, at least in part, to the child might have more to do with it.
As I've said, if the people I know who've had abortions can be trusted, this is less of a concern than the stigma. I've never heard anyone mention "physical hardship" as a factor in their choice, although of course the "lifetime of sacrifice" figures into the financial reasons I mentioned above.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Does that mean all the rhetoric touting the physical hardship and the commitment as reasons to support abortion are obfuscating the real reason, which is being pregnant out of wedlock is embarrassing?
Either that isn't the primary reason, or the pro-abortion rhetoric is highly disingenuous.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Does that mean all the rhetoric touting the physical hardship and the commitment as reasons to support abortion are obfuscating the real reason, which is being pregnant out of wedlock is embarrassing?
Yes, I think so. I'm dealing with anecdotal evidence, myself, but that's certainly been the case in my circles. Embarassment and finances have been the two big reasons I've seen. The other rationale that I occasionally hear mentioned in the same breath as finance (but which is distinct from finance) is the "I haven't finished my education/started my career yet, and thus don't want to settle down with a baby at this point in my life."
As far as I'm concerned, the third is more of an argument for adoption than a rationale for abortion, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I still don't believe it, but if it is true, then the pro-choice movement just bottomed out in terms of credibility, because I can see why other reasons are invented and touted. "It's embarassing" is not a motto to rally around.
I guess I still don't understand why being pregnant would be embarassing when being sexually active isn't. The stigma of sex outside of marriage has clearly fallen away.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Carrying a baby to term is terribly inconvenient. There's no social program or social engineering that can change that.
Telling everyone who asks that you're giving your baby up for adoption can't be a walk in the park either. Not to mention wondering for the rest of your life what happened to the beautiful little baby you gave up.
But that's better than wondering what would have happened to the baby you killed.
I think inconvenience is the bigger reason than stigma. There's stigma in having an abortion as well, though it's easier to hide.
Tom: Did the women you know not concider adoption? Did they think their two choices were "Keep" or "Kill?"
Pix
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's worth noting that those reasons might be perfectly good ones even if they aren't the ones actually appreciated most frequently. I wouldn't base your opinion of the "honesty" of an entire movement on my observations.
The fact as I see it is that adoption accounts for almost all the rationales for abortion except three: the stigma of unwanted pregnancy; the high financial costs of pregnancy; and the actual physical risks associated with pregnancy and labor. While I'm sure the last is a factor in some womens' decisions, I've never heard it advanced myself by any of the young women I know who've chosen abortion.
---------
quote:Did the women you know not concider adoption?
Actually, all of the women I know considered adoption. In most cases, the deciding factor was that they would be unable to conceal their pregnancy if they went with adoption, whereas concealing an abortion is comparatively simpler.
Of course, in all those cases, the question of whether or not they were sexually active was also not a "settled" issue. In other words, their parents were most likely -- but not certainly -- aware, but certainly disapproved. The desire to avoid an "I told you so" was enormous.
And frankly, I think that's not unrealistic. As bizarre as this sounds, I think more parents would disown and/or abuse their daughter for becoming a parent at 20 than discovering, five or ten years later, that their daughter had an abortion at 20. In my own specific case, I'm pretty confident that Christy's parents would certainly have cut all ties to us (and written me off completely) if they'd known of her pregnancy; now that we've been married for six years, though, I think finding out about an abortion in her past would actually be less traumatic.
That doesn't mean I think we necessarily made the right decisions, but I don't think our assessment of parental response was off-kilter.
[ July 05, 2006, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why is there is a stigma for unwanted pregnancy when there is no stigma for sex?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*shrug* You tell me. I hesitate to say that there's NO stigma for sex. There's most definitely a stigma; it just flares up when pregnancy or disease rear their heads.
I think it may be because most objections to premarital sex are based on potential negative consequences, so actually running afoul of one of those negative consequences is seen as an opportunity to bring the full hammer of parental disapproval down. But I'm speculating, here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that's weird. It makes no sense to me to have a greater stigma attached to pregnancy than is attached to the sex in the first place.
If I were in that situation in my early twenties, I think my dad would have been much, much more upset about me living with someone than getting pregnant. I mean, he would have been dissapointed for me if I did, but the living with someone was something I chose to do. The getting pregnant - especially if the father flaked out - would have been something done to me, and so I would have gotten sympathy, short-term help, and a plan. It was when I contemplated dating someone who most like would have preferred to live with me than marry me that my dad threatened to cut me off if it happened. If I'd gotten pregnant, he undoubtedly would have said I Told You So, but would not have become angrier than he would have been already.
Finding out later that I'd had an abortion would be tremendously more traumatic.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
kat, it isn't that there isn't a stigma attached to sex, it is that sex is comparatively easier to keep secret.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm....I think that's a very Victorian method of morality. In California in the 1800s, a man could be arrested for flagrant adultery. A man was arrested and tried for adultery, but was found not guilty when he proved that he had done his best to keep it a secret. Secret things are winked at and tolerated, and the crime is talking about it in public.
It's part of the reason for the campaign against polygamy. The shocking part wasn't having sex with someone other than one's wife - it was aknowledging that person as a wife and giving her social status that was the problem. There were laws passed saying that anyone living in "unlawful cohabitation" could not vote, and in order to vote, they had to sign a statement swearing they were innocent. A married man with a mistress hesitated to sign it, explaning he had a mistress, but was told that that was fine - as long as he didn't flaunt her, it was okay.
Maybe that's the stigma attached to pregnancy. Having sex is permissable as long as there is plausible deniability.
I think that's wack. That's not Puritan - that's Victorian.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The stigma is still there, but if no one knows, she doesn't have to face the stigma.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If I were in that situation in my early twenties, I think my dad would have been much, much more upset about me living with someone than getting pregnant.
That'd be a more logical approach, certainly. But I don't think it's the more common one.
Thinking about it more critically, I think part of the issue is that the parental reaction to things like "I'm going to live with Tom, Daddy, and there's nothing you can do about it" is modified by statements like "We're responsible. We know what we're doing. We love each other." And so forth. And so when you then have to come back to your parents and say "Okay, so we weren't quite so responsible after all," that whole rationale you used to amelioriate the initial stigma swings back with a vengeance.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that's because most of America hasn't recovered from the Victorian era yet.
Maybe it's weird to me because instead of having secret mistresses, my great-great grandfather had extra wives. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Kat said 'that's wack.'
My work here is done.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
Can I ask a question? I am trying to think how to put this. It seems like you are saying the scary part would be telling your parents that you are pregnant if that happened. I'm guessing that your parents know that you're sexually active. Would they be suprised if you told them you were pregnant?
My parents don't know I'm sexuality active. How they can not know is beyond me, because they know I'm on birth control. When I went on birth control my mom sent me an email begging me to use condoms instead. But two weeks ago she told me that my boyfriend might be getting tired of waiting. So either she's completely oblivious, or she's in pretty deep denial.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If I were in that situation in my early twenties, I think my dad would have been much, much more upset about me living with someone than getting pregnant.
That'd be a more logical approach, certainly. But I don't think it's the more common one.
Thinking about it more critically, I think part of the issue is that the parental reaction to things like "I'm going to live with Tom, Daddy, and there's nothing you can do about it" is modified by statements like "We're responsible. We know what we're doing. We love each other." And so forth. And so when you then have to come back to your parents and say "Okay, so we weren't quite so responsible after all," that whole rationale you used to amelioriate the initial stigma swings back with a vengeance.
It seems to me that abortion has the same problems that declaring Bankruptcy has. It is too easy and it is a way to make all the consequences of your bad choices disappear. Hey I understand that sometimes the situation is just beyond your control and you can't help it, but usually that is not the case. There used to be a stigma attached to not paying back debts. That stigma is more or less gone today. Is debt and bankruptcy at an all time low?
[ July 05, 2006, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Bankrupcy filings are public. The analagy does not work.
Yes, sometimes parents know their children are sexually active. But sometimes they don't. And many families seem to operate on a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" philosophy. The parents might suspect, but they don't know, unless something (like a pregnancy) rubs their face in it. And even if the parents know, usually Grandpa and Great-Aunt Helen and a host of other relatives don't.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Bankrupcy filings are public. The analagy does not work.
Yes, sometimes parents know their children are sexually active. But sometimes they don't. And many families seem to operate on a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" philosophy. The parents might suspect, but they don't know, unless something (like a pregnancy) rubs their face in it. And even if the parents know, usually Grandpa and Great-Aunt Helen and a host of other relatives don't.
I was going to disagree with your statement that bankruptcies are public, but decided to ask you what you meant by "public."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Or this. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think I have just forgotten the direction of the thread, but I do not see how the fact they are public effects the idea that "Not paying back debts had a stigma, that stigma is now gone, and yet the problem is probably worse today."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The objection to the analogy actually reinforced the point - bankruptcies are even public, and the lessening of the stigma against them has done nothing to lower the incidence of them.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Nope, still missed the point. Abortion avoids the stigma entirely because nobody has to know.
Whether this is a good thing, or a particularly consistent system of morality aside, abortion is an attractive choice to many scared young people because you don't have to tell mom & dad, you don't have to see the look on grandma's face, you don't have to worry about whether your classmates are laughing behind your back, etc. The social stigma comes into play only so far as the person has internalized it.
Whereas with bankruptcy the public shame element, which is the "enforcement" arm of social stigma, is present.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think you're still missing the point. Nobody knowing is only advantageous if there is a stigma. If there is no stigma, then it doesn't matter if anyone knows. He is not talking about the stigma of abortion, but the stigma of pregnancy. The contention (which I can hardly believe) is that if the stigma of pregnancy is removed, then abortion rates go down.
People not knowing = people knowing and not caring
I suppose what I'm having hard time believing that all the rhetoric and passion of pro-abortion activists is inspired by a desire to help people save face.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Ah -- you're conflating pro-choice activists and the reasons they think abortion should be legal with the reasons individuals actually have abortions. Those are not necessarily the same.
Which is also the reason many pro-choice people are in favor of working to reduce the number of abortions and object to being called "pro-abortion." Because they recognize that a large number of current abortions are for reasons like "saving face." But they also recognize situations where the decision is much more complicated and the reasons far less trivial and think it should be legal and the choice of the people involved*.
*and are operating from the belief that the fetus is potential person, not yet one of the people involved.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I liked all of your post except the condescending tone of the first sentence.
I think separating the reasons people have abortions with the reasons abortions should be legal is splitting hairs morally. If the first is true, then for all the justifications for abortion, people have them because pregnancy is embarrassing. Whether or not that is the intent, then keeping abortion legal is abetting that. That may be an acceptable compromise, but ignoring the reasons people have them and emphasizing in the abortion debate the outlying reasons people should be able to have them makes the rhetoric disingenuous.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The first sentence wasn't meant to be condescending, it was a lightbulb moment for me -- "A ha, I think I see the difference (or one of them) here."
If one of the reasons you have for believing abortion should be legal is that you believe the responsibility for weighing the decision and deciding when it is morally justifiable belongs to the individual, then you are forced to deal with the probability that some individuals will make decisions you would not consider morally justifiable. It is morally consistent to work to reduce the number of people making what you consider the wrong decision while still believing that it is their decision to make.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
If both pro-life and pro-choice believe that "saving face" is a lousy reason to get an abortion, why don't we make abortion records public? If the records were made public, people who need abortions for reasons most people support will still be able to get them, and the motivation to have an abortion just to keep Aunt Helen from knowing (about premarital sex or pregnancy) goes away. Of course, medical privacy is pretty ensconced as a core individual right, so such a solution would never fly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that in order to say that it is up to the person pregnant to decide what happens next, then it is necessary to believe that abortion isn't harming anything and that the moral ambiguity of the decision comes from the avoidance of consequences. If the abortion does harm something, then standing aside is consenting to harm.
Not acknowledging the convenience and face-saving reasons allegedly for which the majority of abortions are performed damages the credibility of people advocating for abortion to be readily available. It is interesting to be to note that the contention that it is a prominent reason came in this thread from someone who does not support abortion.
I think one of two things are happening: 1. That's not a reason which occurs often enough to be statistically signifigant. 2. It's the elephant in the room that abortion-should-be-available advocates ignore deliberately.
If that's the reason, then no amount of support for single mothers and readily-available child care and whatever else pro-life advocates are accused of failing to do while advocating to make abortion less of a convenient option would make a difference in the abortion. They'd still be good things to do, but the central goal - fewer fetuses/children dying - would not be lessened signifigantly.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I think that in order to say that it is up to the person pregnant to decide what happens next, then it is necessary to believe that abortion isn't harming anything and that the moral ambiguity of the decision comes from the avoidance of consequences.
I disagree.
In a somewhat seperate disagreement, if abortion wasn't harming anything, then why would the avoidence of consequences be morally ambiguous?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wrote the above because of a belief that we are responsible for the help/protection we do not give but could have when we see harm occuring. Not solely and not as much as the person inflicting the hurt, but consenting and aiding it when we could instead try to stop it seems iffy.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There is a whole specturm of beliefs between "nothing is harmed" and "from the moment of conception the fetus is a full person with rights equal to those of the mother." The majority of people, IMO, are somewhere between those two.
How much harm has to be happening before one is morally compelled to step in? Certainly if one believes that abortion is equivalent to murder, one is compelled. But not everyone does. However not everyone who doesn't would say nothing is harmed, either.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)