Barack Obama's Call to Renewal Keynote Address Part 2
Go to YouTube and watch the whole speech. If you are suffering from an attention deficit and can't sit still that long, at least watch this excerpt.
I don't know if he is going to run or not. And I don't know if he would be the best president for America. But I do know that I haven't seen this kind of authentic faith, or heard such genuine words from a politician in a long time.
58 comments:
He is amazing!
Americans might be too bigoted to have him as a President. Even the media doesn't seem to know how to address his name and appearance without acting cute.
Even CNN is knocking his clothing style.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwDlTkWtJZ4
You may be right. But I have to believe that sexist, racist, xenophobes wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.
The good news is that if McCain gets the GOP nomination, and Obama gets the Dem, we will get a good president either way. At least that's the way it looks from here in late 2006.
Amen to that. Although I have never liked a presidential candidate as much as I like Obama. As you pointed out in the post, I don't know if he would make the best president, but the idea of someone authentic in the white house is enough to give me some hope. - Jennifer
I'm not even sure it's possible to get elected anymore with out selling your soul to the deep-pocketed oligarchs. The only way out of this slide, in my mind, is in massive Campaign Reform.
According to the Chicago Tribune, Obama will announce next week.
As much as I would love to see him in the White House, it might be too soon - not because of his color or his name, but because of his lack of solid experience. I think that if he runs this time it will be to test the waters and set the stage for 2010, when he would have a real chance of winning.
I love him though, he is so compelling - I think he has is able to connect with people in a way that other Dem potential candidates cannot.
i like mccain. i think he's actually fascinating. i think he appeals to people across the spectrum, and it's in (liberal) people's minds that he has so vocally dissented from the current administration. although obama is (in my humble litle, non-political mind) not where i wish he was on some issues that are important to me, i like him. and by "him," i mean anyone that isn't john edwards. i think edwards shot himself in the foot by running with kerry, but i might be totally wrong. however, he's hot, and america certainly likes hot (JFK). what were we talking about again?
On the experience issue, Obama could point out that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld administration brought nearly unprecedented experience to the office, yet managed to screw it up as badly as anyone.
I like McCain too. There was a time I would have voted for him over a number of his Democratic opponents. He has shown an interest in looking out for the good of the country over the will of his party (telecommunications act, big tobacco, give away of the digital spectrum, etc.). However, recognizing that he has to win over the conservatives to take a primary, he has started making hard shifts to the right to please the hounds. Also, his recent enthusiasm for militarism is disappointing to me. I still like him over most of the Republican options, but I worry that the race and the seduction of the office have already begun to change him in unfortunate ways.
Edwards is hot. I still haven't washed the hand he shook in 2004. Also, his "webisodes" (see johnedwards.com) are a pretty ingenious way to get himself back in the running.
Look for Al Gore to launch a sneak attack this spring.
Yeah, Gore has been positioning himself for a sneak attack for quite some time, using unconvential methods. But he's still Al Gore and people remember him either as the boring guy who got beat by GWB or the guy sat back and let GWB steal the election.
Edwards is hot, I'll concede that. But, so is Obama . . . . And I still love Clinton regardless of her electability (or lack thereof).
I have the same concerns as reacher about McCain. I haven't quite known what to do with him recently.
I might be okay with Gore running again, although I don't think it is all that likely -- not this election anyway. After seeing "An Inconvenient Truth," I did remark to others "who knew? he has a personality -- and he's funny!"
At this point I'm far more interested in the Republican primaries. I think the Democrats can hold their own with decent candidates this election season. - Jennifer
Apparently there's a Barack Obama Christmas Carol.
I kid you not.
McCain's always been a war hawk, always, he's just been more willing as a veteran to really examine the options first.
Clinton put it best in a speech several months ago when talking about McCain when he said (paraphrasing here), "Evidently all you have to do is want to balance the budget and be opposed to torture to be considered a moderate in the public's eyes. The man's conservative, always has been."
I think he got that "moderate" label from being something of a party maverick, willing to let his conscience lead him where it will, even away from the party line. I always admired that about him.
It seems to me, though, that that started to evaporate after his presidential primary defeat. Then a man who, for instance, denounced Jerry Falwell (in my mind correctly) suddenly started making all nice and cuddly-like, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This is only one example, and none of the examples I could site are terribly egregious, but it's enough to make me question him.
Mostly I think it's politics and he's just going through the motions in order to court the paleocon conservative base, and overall I still think he'd more than likely make a decent president, but to my mind he pretty quickly used up all of his "Straight Talk Express" cred after he lost the party's nomination to Bush and slowly began revealing himself to be yet another Insert Politician Here. Business as usual.
Obama has yet to do that to me. I suspect he will someday, but for now I'm just enjoying believing that there's someone in Washington who might, just might be different.
Two points I'd like to raise...
1) For those of you postees who claim McCain as a conservative - you're nuts! Stop listening to CNN prep him and Hillary as their dream moderates and look @ the disasterous "gang of 14" and "Mc
Cain-Feingold", et al. He has destroyed conservative movements with the sway he holds in the senate via the media's love affair with him. He's a lib and won't stand a chance of getting the Rep. nod...mark my words.
2) You can't see the forest through the trees...the problem with this great speech that someone wrote for Obama, is that social progressives won't listen to it's content. They despice social conservatives, in particular, Evangelicals. And, thus, they'll fight the discussion of faith in the public square standing on the gallows they have built for themselves, the "Seperation Clause". Obama is a wise man, he is trying to warn them, but it will fall on deaf ears. This is unfortunate if you're a progressive who values faith, because you've allowed the secularist to overrun your party of choice-the Democrats.
I predict Obama won't run - as one post pointed out - CNN loves Clinton/s. Always have, always will. They'll be on board to discredit him ASAP. Just today, they apologized for mistakingly running the header, "Where's Obama - when it should have been, Where's Osama" Look for a resurgance of the "gravitas"/experience red herring argument they tried to bury G.W. with.
Ah yes, give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves.
He has destroyed conservative movements
No offense, anonymous, but I'd like a citation of that. That's a bold statement that has no basis I'm aware of.
He's a lib...
I would love a citation of this.
A liberal? Perhaps in Texas, Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia. Nowhere else in the galaxy. Hell, even here in Prayse Jee-huh-zuss, Arkansas, he's considered no further left than center. In fact, the only real issue he's parted ways with the GOP on that I can think of over the last four years is when he took the anti-torture stand.
He's very pro-war, and though I don't believe he'd have invaded Iraq if we'd elected him, he's been a staunch supporter of the war from minute one. He's anti-abortion, though he favors going after doctors and not women. He's a small-government fiscal conservative (one of the few these days). Though the man's no ideologue and seems to temper his beliefs with some compassion and common sense, I don't see any real liberal mark on his record -- unless, again, you want to count opposition to torture and fiscal discipline as purely liberal values (which many would consider an insult ;) ).
Personally, I think you overestimate the influence of cable news. Fox has only a couple of million viewers in the US. MSNBC has about a quarter of a million. More Americans read The Guardian online, a British newspaper, than watch CNN.
Just thought of another way he's parted with the GOP: campaign finance reform (duh). But that's hardly an ideological issue, more of a "we're the better-funded party, so suck it" issue. Democrats would be saying the same thing if they were the wealthier party.
One's definitions of "liberal" vs. "conservative" are all relative to their definition of "center". That's a subjective call, and one we obviously don't agree on. The "campaign-finance" reform legislation he introduced will be used to stiffle free speech under the guise of fairness. Apparently they didn't pass out that memo at the Kool-Aide convention. McCain stymied many a good federal judge nomination w/his "centrist" gang of 14 crap. He is not a friend of conservative ideals. And, you are right, he is only playing "war hawk" to veer center prior to the '08 election.
We have different views, but thanks for exposing your bigotry towards the South. That's nice and well informed. Did you take that from the Kerry camp? It worked well for them as well.
>>>The "campaign-finance" reform legislation he introduced will be used to stiffle free speech under the guise of fairness.
Because free speech isn't "stiffled" now?!!!! "Free markets" are not free. They belong to the privileged who can pay to enter the game. The real problem with campaign finance reform is that it is only a gesture. If you limit the spending of the campaign, outside "independent" (read: swift boaters) organizations that play unrestricted will just boost their influence.
I agree with Anon that McCain is playing games to appear more conservative (just like Hillary), except for the war hawk posture.
I wish someone would get a set of cojones and quit acting like conservative is sacred. Sure, it's not all bad, if practiced in a Gerald Ford/Bill Clinton (remember Clinton balanced a budget and reduced abortion rates...sounds a hell of a lot more conservative than Bush) sort of way. I'm not suggesting that liberal is de facto good, but nobody runs a campaign trying and look more liberal. Well, I guess Bush did when he lied in the 2000 election about being a compassionate conservative.
Let's those of us in the unwashed middle take politics away from the liberal screeders and the conservative jackasses. The only way civil discourse and governing will ever happen again in the US is if the voices on the fringes lose their volume. And the only way that will happen is if we quit listening to them. I'm sick of entertainer progressives doing comedy where they smugly malign the right as if they alone possess the truth--the very thing they despise about the right. And, for a long time I've been sick of the right that drives the media machine (from Drudge to Couric via Limbaugh and Hannity) on a daily basis.
Here's a test for you: If the polarization of political discourse in America doesn't bother you, or you think the problem is exclusive to the "other side," YOU are the problem.
I don't know what all this has to do with anything, just felt like saying it. And...I can do that. It's my blog.
yeah.
what he said.
We have different views, but thanks for exposing your bigotry towards the South.
I live in the South. I married a Southerner. I come from the Ozarks. I absolutely adore the goddamn South. I'll capitalize the word until the day I die.
But loving something doesn't mean you're blind to its warts or misled about its tendencies. The South is a wonderful place that the North doesn't have much on, far as I'm concerned, but social politics down here run very, very conservative. Acknowledging that isn't anymore bigoted than acknowledging that the sky is blue. It's an irrefutable fact.
This is beginning to remind me of a conversation I had last night where I was asked "so, Jennifer, what are your politics?" and was then interrogated. Definitely reminded me how polarized things are -- no discusison of any kind took place. I was looked at as a bizarre creature from an entirely different planet as I talked about my dedication to social justice issues (whether inside or outside the political arena).
It frightens me that people seem incapable of having a civil discussion about political matters (I did have a more pleasant discussion with another person present after leaving the company of Mr. Interogation -- with someone who thinks differently than me. Gives me some hope). I'm trying to learn to be better at such discussions myself. - Jennifer
It frightens me that people seem incapable of having a civil discussion about political matters...
Like, say, calling someone a bigot or accusing them of "drinking the Kool-Aid?" I'm honestly not trying to go after you here, anonymous. All my intention was was to challenge your point that McCain's a liberal. And I got called a bigot and a sheep in the same response. That's swinging pretty wide of hoping for civil discourse.
It occurs to me that we may have two different anonymi in this thread. If that's the case, then Jennifer, please accept my apology for attributing words that were not yours to you and conflating you with someone else.
To cut down on the confusion, if you choose "Other" instead of "anonymous" when you comment, it will actually allow you to type a name to post under that it will use for the comment header. That way you won't have to sign your posts.
Anyway, sorry, if that's what happened.
I had an incredibly awkward conversation right after the election with this Pentecostal woman I'm friendly with -- we sing in a choir together and usually chat during the break. We'd never spoken about politics or religion before, though, and I'm not sure which one of us brought it up this time. But she started talking about how scared she was now that the Democrats were going to control Congress, and how she thought a lot of people who voted Democratic did so out of anger and would end up regretting their choice. (She said all this very calmly and politely, no references to Kool-Aid or any of the other button-pushing words we all love so much.) I felt really bad for her -- she was so genuinely worried. I really wanted to just reassure her that no, now the good guys would be running things, and it was all going to be better, really, and she just needed to quit listening to talk radio. I had no idea what to say -- that vague "mm-hmm" agreement thing that gets you through most strained conversations was out of the question, since I was ecstatic about the election and she knew our politics differed. But our conversation got to the heart of a big part of the problem -- she and I wouldn't even be able to agree on what the most pressing issues facing the country are, to say nothing of how we'd fix them. She's scared of abortion and gay marriage. I'm scared of losing civil liberties and global warming and the ever-growing gap between rich and poor. I don't even know how you start agreeing on a list of priorities when you start with so little in common.
On the other hand, I absolutely believe she's a good person and sincere in her beliefs, so maybe that's where. Believing the other person's motives are as sincere and unselfish as your own goes a long way, and I think that's a major obstacle to a lot of conversation, especially online.
Yeah, you know who else said that?
HITLER, THAT'S WHO.
>>On the other hand, I absolutely believe she's a good person and sincere in her beliefs, so maybe that's where. Believing the other person's motives are as sincere and unselfish as your own goes a long way, and I think that's a major obstacle to a lot of conversation, especially online.
You said it there, Sister Tool. All of us could learn to expect the best from others, rather than turning them into objects we attack. I'm not sure where we go from there--once we've SEEN and HEARD each other--but, you know, that's relationships for you.
All we need is love.
Give peace a chance.
I wanna hold your hand.
Hey, Jude.
How exactly did Bill Clinton lower the abortion rate? Did he spearhead some legislation of which I am unaware that mandated a decrease in the frequency of abortion? Or did the abortion rate decline while he happened to be president?
If the rate declined between 1992-2000, I would have to think it had more to do w/the advances in technology, which continue to make it more difficult to believe the child in the womb is anything other than a child.
Also, was the budget balanced prior to Republican control of Congress in 1994? I realize they've made a royal mess of things since 2000, but you mentioned the Clinton years...
Abortion rates declined because of sex education (opposed by conservatives, because they would rather champion abstinence programs that don't work than teach young people how to avoid pregnancy) and economic relief to the poor. Abortion rates are strongly related to the economy. When you help the economically disenfranchised they feel less compulsion to abort their children. So no, Clinton didn't pass explicitly pro-life legislation. Again, conservatives want to overturn Roe so they can feel like they've won the culture war, even if global evidence is quite clear that illegal abortions and maternal death rates would stay level or increase.
As for the budget, I'll give you that it may have been as much the Republican congress as the president. But the president's involvement made it possible. They were able to collaborate toward a mutual end. Our current president is so consumed by Cheneyian and Rovean ideology that he will oppose Democrats and create gridlock no matter what (oh, while creating record deficits, larger government, and deeper spending than any administration in history). The burden is now on the Democratic congress to resurrect the potential of bipartisanship.
I would never argue that Clinton was a superior president or a saint, but what he had that is head and shoulders above the Bush administration was the ability to talk to his opponents and come to agreements through negotiation and compromise--words Bush does not understand. Calling dialogue appeasement and bombing people does make you look tough, but it fails as policy.
I've never heard that abortion rates are related to the economy. Assuming there is a clear correlation, I think we would have to credit Bush Sr. for reducing abortion rates, as the economy was percolating when Clinton took office.
In truth, I don't think you can credit any president for a reduction in abortion rates. I think the reduction comes from a change in perspective in our culture. Certainly I think it is incorrect to hand credit to Bill Clinton; he seemed to me as pro-abortion as any president in memory. Didn't he nix an bill to ban partial-birth abortion? "Health" of the mother, I think.
I would not argue the Republican congress has shown the fiscal principals we should have expected from them. It has been very disappointing, from a conservative standpoint. That said, I don't have much hope that the new congress will do much better.
You're right, it was not my intention to paint Clinton as the savior of the unborn; my point (even though I forgot to make it) was that pro-life Republican presidents since Roe v. Wade have done less during their tenures to reduce abortion rates than a Democratic who had not even identified it as a priority. So, what do pro-lifers get in voting for one of their fellow culture warriors? Nuttin' Honey. We have to move beyond election rhetoric designed to rally the faithful by demonizing the other and start electing leaders who appear to be interested in governing (see top of the original post).
I have to respectfully disagree. What we get when we vote for a "fellow culture warrior" is an opportunity to change the Supreme Court. And hopefully, in time, the opportunity to end this state sponsored mass murder of innocents.
I don't consider myself a culture warrior. You may. I do consider that someday I will stand before the judgement seat (I think Petra called it the Bema Seat) and if in the course of my appearance there I have to admit that I voted for someone who staked out a position of pro-abortion, well, I believe I will find that very uncomfortable. And heartbreaking.
If Obama is pro-life, I very well might vote for a Democrat (shudder). If not, I cannot, unless the opponent is also pro-abortion.
My voting conscience begins with a candidate's position on abortion. It does not end there, but it must start there. Don't blame me- you are the one who convinced me in 1984 that it was murder.
Pokey Joe,
I say this respectfully: You lose me when you put "health" in quotation marks when talking about a woman who facing probably the most agonizing decision of her life. I am as of today 12 weeks pregnant. I want this baby. Even if I didn't, abortion wouldn't be an option for me. However -- *my* health and life matter too. I have no idea what I'd do if I was faced with a choice like that, but to have ANYONE but myself, my husband and my doctor involved in that decision -- especially someone who would put my "health" in belittling quotation marks -- is completely unacceptable to me.
I would also ask you to consider what other methods the government/churches/social service organizations can use to lower abortion rates. Demanding an all-or-nothing solution and failing to address the reasons WHY girls and women have abortions just results in a lot of wheel-spinning when there's *so* much room for change without changing the law.
Mrs. Tool,
Congratulations on your new baby. That's very exciting.
I put health in quotation marks because as currently defined it has no meaning. If the wording was changed to "life of the mother", or in some way defined health to mean serious health issues, that would be more palatable. (Although, from what I understand, partial birth abortion is never medically necessary, nor is it ever the best option. Medically.) As it stands, "health of the mother" is so open ended as to have no practical meaning. Hence the quotation marks.
With regard to the all or nothing solution, I can only say that my beliefs tell me that child in the womb is exactly that, and allowing that life to be terminated (for whatever reason) seems to me to be punishing the innocent. I have several friends (I can think of three couples w/o even thinking about it) that would love to adopt children. The expense, combined w/the legal hoops, make that either impractical or impossible. Why not change the law? The initial victims of abortion have done nothing wrong. And my friends who have chosen that option have later expressed regret and sadness. Changing the law would save some people (not everyone) from making a tremendous mistake.
Pokey Joe,
Thanks. We're thrilled, and scared to death -- although I think we've finally gotten past the panicky urge to press the "rewind" button. The strangest thing is realizing how utterly common this experience is, at the same time that it's so momentous for us.
And now back to the topic at hand. :)
The key phrase in your comment is this: "My beliefs tell me..."
Beliefs are just that. They are not proof, and they are not justification for changing laws that affect people who disagree with you (a majority of U.S. citizens, in this case, including who knows how many women who've had abortions and NOT regretted it later -- they do exist). You and I both probably believe a lot of stuff that would have Congress rolling in the floor if we ever suggested they try to legislate any of it.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that your beliefs are wrong, or even that I personally disagree with you. But I think it makes more sense, and would be more effective, to treat the disease rather than the symptoms.
As for the medical necessity/advisability of late-term abortions -- I can't imagine doctors would ever recommend or perform them, or women would CHOOSE them, without them being either necessary or the best medical option. I don't know where your information comes from, so I can't make any judgments on whether it's objective or not.
Finally -- I just want to say thanks for having this conversation/argument civilly. You and I really do have common ground here -- we just disagree on the best solution.
Mrs. T,
According to the research I've seen, over 75 percent of Americans believe abortion is at the very least the taking of a human life. Almost half (49 percent) think it is murder. So you can remove the phrase "my beliefs" from my previous post if you'd like, and replace it with "the vast majority of Americans", or somesuch.
I am not a debate coach, nor do I play one on tv. In fact, I really don't have any patience for it. A child in the womb is exactly that; medical science tells us the DNA of a baby is different from the DNA of the mother, with obvious conclusions to be drawn from there.
So, given that 75 percent of Americans see the baby in the womb as, strangely enough, a baby in the womb, and yet right around half of Americans as a whole think abortion is okay (they may not like it, but in certain circumstances see it as a necessary evil)... that is what truly frightens me. It's a baby, but it's okay to kill it. Sometimes. Depends on the situation. Yikes. That attitude is what scares me and I think that is the disease you mention. But, can't we treat the sympton while working on the disease? Can't we outlaw abortion and continue to educate people so they view that life in the womb differently?
I don't really understand a position that says something like "I don't believe abortion is right for me, but I cannot judge you. You do what's right for you." What is that? If someone doesn't believe it's murder, okay. But if that person does believe it's a baby, and they do believe it's murder, how can they then say 'you do what's right for you'? Seems really nuts to me.
With regard to your comments on late-term abortions, frankly, I think you are being naive. I know personally of one such abortion that was performed in the late second-early third trimester. The reason? Denial, primarily. Seriously. No hint of medical necessity anywhere to be found.
I hope this post doesn't seem harsh. It's late, I'm tired. I sense this is your first child. It is the most wonderful thing, parenting. I wonder, too, if down the road some of your "beliefs" will be affected by the road you are beginning to travel. I read something recently that you will soon realize as being profound: with toddlers, the days are loooooong, and the years fly past.
Okay, I promise not to try to convince you of anything else. Blessings to you and your new family.
Tool, while this discussion was days ago, thought I'd clear my name anyway. When I post, I sign my name at the end.
Kool-aid anonymous may or may not be concerned about civil discussions. And I certainly don't think you are either a bigot or a sheep (unless we are talking biblical metaphors, in which case we may all be). - Jennifer
Pokey Joe- the 75% statistic.. What research did that come from, do you recall?
mrs. tool - congratulations. :)
(Thanks, Jennifer, that's what I figured. Again, my humblest apologies. We now return you to your regularly scheduled abortion debate.)
The 75 percent statistic comes from a Gallup poll that was supposed to be the most thorough survey ever conducted on American attitudes toward abortion. The poll is several years old but I would think if anything, given the advances in sonogram imaging, etc., the numbers would stand.
P.J.- If they do stand, then the discrepancy is odd. But the thing is, I do know a lot of people who have the "I don't like abortion, but.." mentality. I just think that saying abortion is "unfortunate," at least in some way, implies it's immoral, right? The notion that it's a necessary evil but that it's somehow the lesser of two evils perplexes me. If you believe it's a life, or even a potential life, then how ending it could be the lesser is difficult to grasp. I appreciated B*sh's "culture of life" thing.. Why do I get that odd feeling I'm about to get struck by lightning!? :)
Ooooh, Annie. Tread lightly when praising the W in these here parts...
The "lesser of two evils" mindset (if you can call it that) was pretty much the focus of the article I read. The Gallup information, however, was simply recording attitudes. I think, at the end of the day, most everyone will agree it is a baby. But if the baby is coming at a bad time, or out of difficult circumstances, people will convince themselves it's okay to terminate. Self-delusion to accommodate the desires of self.
One other thing we should always remember: the pro-life movement has no real financial incentive to continue the fight for the unborn. On the other hand, the pro-abortion movement has a huge (and I mean, huge) financial incentive to keep the law as it stands. Abortions create an enormous amount of income for some. I ran some figures on this back in the mid-90s and I want to say the annual cash flow from abortions (including late term, which are much more expensive) ran something like $750 million. That's strictly from memory (which is admittedly fuzzy) and maybe on the light side. In either case, a lot of money.
And Reacher, when you get your power back and can read this... of all of the abortions with which I am familiar (and I can without really thinking about it name at least five) none had anything to do w/economic empowerment. All were by choice, all were essentially used as post-conception birth control, and all were chosen by relatives or friends who knew how to avoid pregnancy and chose not to play it "safe". Five abortions: anecdotal I know, but still, not a single one that involved the health or life of the mother. Only the life of the child.
Thanks, P.J. and Annie. :)
Can I chime in about the lesser-of-evils thing? I have come to the point where there are very few instances when I would feel a woman is truly justified in having an abortion. None of those instances involve when she's pregnant through consensual sex. Birth control ain't rocket science.
However: The thought of telling a 12-year-old who's been raped by her father or brother or a stranger, or even a 30-year-old who's been raped, that she has to continue the pregnancy and extend that unimaginable pain any longer than absolutely necessary... I just can't stomach it. At least when we're still talking about a bundle of cells smaller than a pea.
Here's part of my thinking process: when we're talking about embryonic stem cells (and I realize that abortions are performed past this stage) -- these are fertilized eggs, or however many cells they let them develop into, that can be FROZEN and thawed without destroying them. At some point, it is no longer possible to do that -- there is something beyond just cells involved that is irretrievably lost. (I'm really not expressing myself very clearly here -- sorry, insomnia and pregnancy brain.) That, to me, is evidence that "life" in the way that we understand it -- possessing a soul, I guess I mean -- is not present at the very beginning. And I don't know when it starts. When there's a functioning heart? I don't know. Early. But it leaves just enough of a question mark that when it's balanced against such an enormous amount of real, human, unimaginable pain -- I've counseled rape victims in the emergency room, so I've seen it up close -- I just have to come down on the side of the woman.
Mrs. tool, I like hearing your thoughts about this! I think you're sensible and rational and I really respect your opinion, especially knowing you have counseled rape victims.. I can't imagine what it would be like to go through something like that.
Regarding when life begins: You said there's "enough of a question mark" about it that you have to come down on the side of the woman. But for me, it's the opposite.
There is enough of a question mark for me to come down on the side of the baby. That's my primary reason for being pro-life. Isn't there at least "enough of a question" that it's a life for a rape victim to consider adoption? Rape is evil, but a child/potential child definitely isn't!
One more thing: I do think it would be a totally different circumstance to have to literally choose between the mother's life and the baby's, which in my understanding is very rare, right? I think most "pro-life" and "pro-choice" people view that situation as something outside the realm of the debate.
Man, thoughts on this are so intense. It's crazy to think that similar people can have opposite views on something so delicate. :)
Thanks, Annie -- I feel the same way. I'm not surprised that Reacher's blog is the place where I've had probably the most sane, civil discussion about abortion ever. :)
I do understand your position, I really do. And there are rape victims who DO choose to continue their pregnancies for just that reason. I might very well make the same choice if, God forbid, it ever happens to me. There's just no way to know unless you're the one going through it, though, and that's why I couldn't ever presume to tell someone else in that position what she has to do.
About the choosing between the mother's life and the baby's -- I honestly have no idea how often it happens, but I think you're probably right, that it's not that common (neither are elective late-term abortions, though -- VERY few doctors peform them, from what I understand). I can say that I've heard/read people argue that when a woman becomes pregnant, that's just the chance she takes -- she has no right to ever place her own life above the fetus/baby's, no matter what. Three more kids at home? Too bad. How common that viewpoint is, I don't know.
And also -- I really don't think you and I have opposite views on this at all. On one small part of it, maybe, but we both agree that abortion is too common. As I said to Pokey Joe earlier -- there is soooooo much we can do to change that without making it illegal, which, as Reacher has pointed out, probably wouldn't reduce the number of abortions by that much but would just drive them into the back alleys.
The problem is that too many people on both sides refuse to engage in a productive discussion about it.
So yay for us. :)
Thought I'd pop in and say howdy. We just got power back a couple of days ago. I have checked in from time to time. Twice I had long comments of pure brilliance composed ready to send (powered once by my car and a power invertor and later by my pretty new generator), and the DSL connection went out. Rather than try to reconstruct all that, I'll just say, look at you all--talking to each other like humans and everything. Huh. Warms my heart.
The only thing I have left to say is to Pokey, regarding his comments about my influence in 1984: Never trust a man with a mullet. 'Nough said.
Reacher-
Who said I trusted you? Trust you? (Hmmm... I think you're reaching because you like me.) You convinced me because your arguments were sound. By the way, the BEST mullet I ever personally witnessed parading around town. Business in front...
Dear Mrs. Tool (and Reacher-type dude),
With regard to the "back alley abortion" myth, it is exactly that. Below is an excerpt of the article I mentioned previously, which was first published in Christianity Today in May of 1999.
""" Myth #1: One to two million illegal abortions occurred annually before legalization. In fact, the annual total in the few years before abortion on demand was no more than tens of thousands and most likely fewer. For example, in California, the most populous state where it was alleged that 100,000 illegal abortions occurred annually in the 1960s, only 5,000 abortions were performed in 1968, the first full year of legalization.
Myth #2: Thousands of women died annually from abortions before legalization. As a leader in the legalization movement, Dr. Bernard Nathanson later wrote: "How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always '5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.' I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the 'morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?"
In fact, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistics in 1972 show that 39 women died from illegal abortion and 27 died from legal abortion. """
Sixty-six? Each one a tragedy, truly, but sixty-six? There is an agenda, motivated by money.
"Word up" to you all. I've been away from cyberland for quite a long time (moving from SWMO to Chicago, trying to sell two houses amidst a ridiculous ice storm), so it's good to finally check back in. I read through all the comments, and have to agree with Reacher and others that i'm pretty impressed at the level of civility. Not squeaky clean, but relavitely so.
I really don't have much to add, b/c others (from both sides) have reasoned pretty thoroughly. The only point that has been neglected (or else I overlooked it) is with regard to the nature of law, in particular, due process. Mrs. Tool found err in Joe's reliance on belief vs. fact. However, she also proved in recent comments to rely almost solely on her emotions in the formulations of her opinions where they differ from the consensus held/portrayed on this post.
Explanation: "The thought of telling a 12-year-old...I just can't stomach it."
This debate is so difficult because it evokes so much emotion that it clouds our ability to be reasonable... myself included. But when we're discussing policy/law, it's important to listen to what law has to say. But what does law have to say about this?
It has been brought up in latter comments that "we just don't know when life begins". And the whole thing hinges on that ambiguity, right? This ambiguity is the finger in the dam of Roe v. Wade. But public officials and the American people have allowed their emotions to take precedence over good law. What is good law when it comes to the taking of human life or the punishment of individuals?
To start off with, our law views it more evil if one intentionally takes the life of another, and even moreso the longer the person had to think it through. But there are exceptions, especially when defending oneself against an attacker, or in the case of war (I'm not referring, of course, to the instances in which war crime occurs). In both these exceptions, according to law, the intentional destruction of innocent life is not taking place. And according to the definition of abortion, it is the intentional destruction/termination of an unborn fetus (child). Otherwise, it's called miscarriage.
But again, who's to say he/she is human at conception?
Which brings me to another key aspect of our law. It is very sound reasoning to infer the law-making process employed in criminal prosecution and punishment onto this situation. In the realm of prosecuting and punishing those accused of a crime, due process is the rule (with the underlying reasoning being "burden of proof"). The accused are considered innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser, according to our rule of law. So how does this apply to the abortion delimma? Well, parallel reasoning applies when deciding the status of a fetus, whether he/she be living or inanimate. If we don't know, then we have to employ some sort of method by which to determine our most educated (and humane) guess. And what method might that be? Innocent until proven guilty, or alive until proven lifeless. If you can't prove that a fertilized egg isn't a human life (What is a human life, but an organism with 46 homo sapien chromosomes?), then we must--legally--assume, until otherwise conclusive proof presents itself, that he/she is fully human, albeit in his/her earliest stage of development. (You could come back with the argument that no side holds the burden, except that, if the pro-abortion side is wrong, then murder is taking place, which is against the law.)
Thankfully, we have a rule of law that provides a humane way of determining conclusions when their is ambiguity (and there is virtually always ambiguity with ANY lawmaking decision). I just pray and ask that we utilize it rather than using our feelings to determine policy.
Hopefully (if anyone's still following), these ideas contribute something to the conversation. Let me know if and where my reasoning breaks down.
Grace.
mrs. tool: you are right, i we do agree about a lot of things.. this is helping me keep an open mind.
matt: my sentiments as well. i hope someone argues, so i can see what they say.
ah, i love this place.
You know, I've heard some people say, when we discuss controversial issues, that it doesn't really matter whether we come to any kind of consensus... All that matters is that we're friends at the end. And while I would agree that it is extremely important that we would remain friends at the end, I also think we give up too easily on collaboration when we're faced with difficult differences. Part of people's lack of iniative to work for real consensus is an underlying belief (I think) that our conversations really aren't all that important. It's not the message that counts, but the medium. I would like to see faith reinstilled in "we the people", where we realize the power we do hold over the fate of our nation... when we realize that politicians (unless the recent legislation proposing to limit grassroots organizations' access to Congress passes) play more into our hands than we think. What got me thinking about this last night was the original "message" of this post. I wondered to myself if Obama learned a thing or two (heaven forbid) from GWB... that playing the religious card (in this case the religious progressive card) will give him a shot at the election, considering the results of the midterm elections. Sure, Bush and Obama have different sets of suppositions in their "Christian" belief systems, but I imagine the authenticity of their faith (to them) is on a similar plane. Not that Obama isn't wittier...
Reacher,
I apologize that I do not get to check in more frequently than I do. Riding the engines of commerce and bowel management have kept me occupied.
I read to your comment lamenting the restriction of free speech via campaign finance reform only emboldening the likes of "swiftboaters". I'm sure it was merely an oversight on your part to omit MoveOn.org.
I also was perplexed at your interpretation of Civics. The faulty public education I was afforded taught me that the Legislative Branch structured spending measures and the Executive Branch merely signed them or sacked up and vetoed them. As I recall, Clinton was the first sitting President to loose control of Congress in his first term in over 40 years and that Newt Gingrich guy and his cronies enacted the Contract With America, thus balancing the budget.
I'm also mystified that you repeated an erroneous claim that you had corrected previously on your blog. Please see this link:
http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/001323.htm
This leaves me with only two conclusions to draw from:
1)You're memory is failing and you need medical help
2)You won't let the truth obstruct your agenda......
Gosh Reacher, Say It Ain't So....You're a Hack!
I'd say you had some bowel management problems all right. I guess when you're full of crap you just have to let it out sometimes. Sorry, couldn't resist. You left yourself wide open for that one, whoever you are.
I have no argument with you on the MoveOn dealy. Not a fan. Never have been. I hate political hatchet jobs of all brands.
Your legislative/exec branch argument is funny. Really funny. First of all, you apparently did get a faulty education if you think government operates as depicted on Schoolhouse Rock. There are constitutional responsibilities and there are the pragmatic realities of governing. People of your ilk are going to blame the president when your party is not in the White House and congress when it is. It's a hackneyed political trope that has grown old. Before you are tempted to accuse me of the same, riddle me this: if the Rep. congress is responsible for enacting policies that helped the poor (really? Republicans did that?), how come a Republican president with a GOP congress couldn't do the same? Didn't a Democratic president have a little to do with it? Isn't it all more complicated than that? I guess I shouldn't ask you, since you must think a bill becomes a law when a big white cartoon scroll dances up the Capitol steps.
As for the numbers, I'm not disputing specific figures (I've come to terms with the fact that none of them can be trusted...especially from lifenews.com and National RIght to Life, come on...) other than to say that the flavor of the president hasn't seemed to influence abortion much. Certainly, Republican presidents have not created any significant reductions.
Now, I would recommend you print this out and use it strategically in further bowel management enterprises.
By the way, Anonymous Bowel Manager, you and yours need to get together on your arguments.
This is from the site you sent me to:
"Dr. Randy O'Bannon, director of education at the National Right to Life Committee, says most of the abortion decline in the 1990s occurred during the first few years. That's when the first President Bush was in office and shortly thereafter -- before Clinton's economic policies would have had an effect."
Oh no, what do you do? Do you change your argument and claim it was actually Bush that caused the decline, or do you stick with your argument that presidents don't make economic policy? Actually, the decrease in abortions did slow around 1995, but then picked up the same speed through the end of Clinton's administration.
Dear Reacher & Anonymous Bowel Manager,
1) Did you compose your reply and then set it aside for a day or two, to give yourself proper time to reflect on it, Reacher?
2) So what's it like to manage a bowling alley, ABM?
By the way, should someone annointed Anonymous Bowel Manager be allowed to use the word "loose control" (which strikes me as an oxymoron) in a posting?
Thank you for the entertainment...
Now, now, Pokey. Reflection? Would this place really be any fun if we engaged in reflection? Come on. Think about it.
But reacher, I saw that cartoon bill in American Government at the fine institution you work for. It MUST be true!
- Jennifer
When is you being going to right sum thing else so we kin beet it tu deaf?
Allrightythen, I is right it meself.
Dogs or cats?
Ginger or Mary Ann?
Dark or milk chocolate?
Tequila or vodka?
Dogs. Or cats. I'm firmly on the fence with this one. Unless the cat is evil. Then it'd have to be dogs.
None of the above. I choose The Professor.
Dark. Because it's good for me.
Tequila. Definitely. Preferably the good stuff.
Post a Comment