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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!)
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because we don't believe that human beings have the same authority as God? There's an obvious answer for that question.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Premarital sex is even easier to hide than having an abortion--well, until you get pregnant anyway.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
