This post is back. I originally sent it to a newspaper, but heard nothing; so I put it up here. The newspaper eventually published it, and I took it down from the blog until it ran its course on the paper's website. Now it's back here for posterity. I'm sure you don't care about all that, but I said it anyway.
Last Sunday a few dozen evangelical pastors across the country defied the IRS by publicly endorsing John McCain from their pulpits. I will leave the constitutional implications of that move to other commentators and the courts for now. What I found interesting was the exclusive emphasis on abortion as the central issue prompting many of these congregations. It is not my intention to question their moral stance on abortion; however, it seems important to examine the practical realities under a McCain presidency.
There have been six terms and 23 years of Republican presidents since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973. Abortion is still legal. The most significant declines in abortion rates were during the George W. Bush and Clinton administrations with the steepest increases coming under Carter and Reagan. When we consider the historical trend and the fact that, according to the National Right to Life Committee, Senator McCain has only voted pro-life 66% of the time, it seems highly unlikely a McCain presidency would outlaw abortion.
Even if McCain developed some uncommon resolve to change this law, let’s examine the likelihood of court action. If McCain were to nominate activist judges committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, they would have to pass confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Not going to happen. The Democrats will solidly control the committee after this election. Even if a nomination made it through committee, all indications suggest the Democrats will have a nearly filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. It is very unlikely the balance of Senate power would shift during a first, or even a second McCain term, since Senators serve for six years. Perhaps it’s worth mentioning that a constitutional amendment is also out of the question, since both houses of congress will be in Democratic hands. It is virtually impossible that any serious threat to Roe would come during a McCain administration.
So, voting for McCain will have no impact on the availability of abortion in this country.
None.
That leaves Christian pro-life voters two alternatives: continue to fight a culture war to the serious neglect of other important issues, or vote for Obama.
Barack Obama is a follower of Christ. He recently told Christianity Today, “I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful.” Obama went on to say he was committed to reducing unwanted pregnancies and making abortion less common.
A McCain vote is not a vote for life, it is a vote for a futile hope. It seems to me, if we care about faith, peace, the environment, our family’s economic health, a culture of life, and caring for “the least of these,” Senator Obama represents a hope worth believing in.
A hope that behaves like this.
28 comments:
Well said. It articulates my sometimes difficult-to-articulate stance on abortion. I do not question the sincerity and intentions of those that are staunchly pro-life.
What frustrates me is their continued focus on it to the detriment of other social issues, when in general the candidates they vote for have done nothing to outlaw abortion, and often the candidates they oppose support ways of stopping or reducing teen pregnancies before they happen.
But you already said all that. To return to your first paragraph, regarding endorsements from the pulpit: This is one of those issues that often the core question gets lost amongst a lot of cultural rancor.
Personally, I have no problem with endorsing a candidate to one's congregation. Free speech is free speech. But I don't think, should your church choose to do so, it should be tax exempt.
This can't be hammered home enough, and I find the news reports on this to be lacking on this point: As I understand things, it's not about anybody's "right" to endorse; it's about their right to retain a convenient tax-exempt status. That's all.
It seems to me the "least of these" should include those who are not quite ready to be born. Who needs an advocate more than the unborn, who needs someone to stand up for them more than the unborn? I don't disagree that other social issues are important. But they pale in comparison to the infanticide that our government sanctions and so it is simply impossible for me to lay down that cause because it's not popular. Who will speak for those babies if not us?
I do not believe voting for John McCain is a futile hope. Giving in, allowing Obama and his ilk to stack the Court w/his appointees, that is futility.
I know we'll disagree about this, Joe, but I think you'll get pretty much the same judges with either one. McCain will be constrained by the Dems, Obama has never talked about judicial activism the way McCain has. I really feel that Obama would seek to appoint moderate judges.
At the end of the day, however, it comes back to that question of what's most important, actually saving lives or fighting a culture war? I am absolutely convinced that an Obama administration will be more life-friendly than a McCain administration. Add to that the fact that McCain could not change abortion law if he wanted, it seems more reasonable to vote Obama.
I know you disagree with my assumptions. That's the nature of culture wars.
I also don't understand why most conservatives limit a pro-life stance to abortion. The death penalty, war, poverty and health care are ALL life issues. Life IS important and worth fighting for -- but it shouldn't be limited to lives of the unborn.
I pray for the day when "pro-life" isn't just a slogan for the culture war you mention, but is a true dedication to protecting life wherever it is unjustly threatened.
Do you find it at all interesting that you frame the discussion thusly: I'm "fighting a culture war" and you're "actually saving lives"? When all I'm trying to do is save lives this strikes me as disingenuous at best.
I am absolutely convinced that an Obama administration will be less life friendly, more pro-infanticide, than a McCain administration. No one becomes President in a vacuum, and Barack didn't come this far w/o accumulating debts to Democratic Party powers.
For the record, this is not all directed to you, Joe. Your comments just made me think about it.
When I get time I'm going to write a critique of the current GOP rhetoric. In effect, conservatives are now resorting to calling Obama a baby killer, a traitor, a terrorist, and a betrayer of our troops. It's not too hard to imagine some unstable fringe-dweller taking those claims as a call to arms. If Obama is assassinated, the inflammatory discourse of his opponents may be the source of the motivation.
Don't get me wrong, pointing out real differences in policy and expressing strong disagreement is fine. But, when you basically claim someone is responsible for infanticide, or terrorism, and will continue being responsible for it, that's a de facto justification for violence.
I have never said McCain will kill people, only that he won't fulfill the promise to save them. If I have suggested otherwise, I'm sorry.
In the last 24 hours, supporters at McCain/Palin rallies have shouted that Obama is a "terrorist," and that we should "kill him." Supporters in Clearwater, Florida booed and cursed the media when they set up, with one man calling a black sound man an n-word, saying, "Sit down, boy."
I'm not particularly happy with Obama's ratcheted up negativity either. The difference is his attacks are about policy-relevant issues. They may be a bit inappropriate at times, but they don't incite audiences to violence. The desperation of the GOP is turning people toward a mob mentality.
This is where we get when we are primarily interested in fighting CULTURE WARS. You don't save lives, but you do threaten them.
If it really is a matter of life and death, then I guess people should be honest and say they want Obama, and all like him, dead. Otherwise, they should be ashamed of themselves and try to become citizens in a democracy again.
Like you, I dislike the tone of modern day political culture. Like you, I would be horrified if Barack were assassinated. Like you, I would that our country was kinder to those that are without. Unlike you, I do not view fighting for the rights of those who cannot fight for themselves as a "CULTURE WAR". I view it as the right thing to do. And to continually insist otherwise requires (imho) great chutzpah.
I have a patient who immigrated here from the Soviet Union in 1979. If you let him, he will talk your ear off about how this is the land of opportunity. He came here with nothing, could not speak the language, and has made a life for himself. He cannot see why people who have lived here their entire lives cannot do the same. I am hard pressed to disagree w/him. As he said, there are no poor people in the United States.
It's a culture war because it's "cultural:" It's about a power struggle over social hegemony, not real outcomes, since I have proven repeatedly on this blog that a McCain administration will have no power to change the issue, and even if they did, the global evidence is quite clear that abortion (and maternal deaths) would stay relatively stable. It'a "war," because there is little interest in talking about common ground--even acknowledging that the other side might save lives--only interest in victory.
I have said before--I don't know that this necessarily applies to you--that most pro-lifers seem more hellbent on winning the culture war than saving lives.
It's compelling that while we have written here, I received an invitation to join with the Matthew 25 organization at www.prolifeproObama.com. They don't seem to be interested in winning, primarily. They seem interested in building a culture of life. Are they infanticide-supporters?
By the way, your last paragraph seems like a non sequitur. I'm not sure what your point is, unless you are suggesting the Hannitized argument that Obama is a socialist that wants everyone to get a free ride. The same braintrust that argues a small merchant is free to compete with Wal-Mart, even though W-M gets billions of dollars in tax breaks and infrastructure incentives from local and state governments every year, not to mention federal incentives to seek manufacturers overseas. Surely you don't think it's all that simple.
If you mean to imply that making abortion illegal in THIS COUNTRY would have no net effect on the number of abortions performed in this country I think you're nuts. (Is it okay to say that in an online debate? Unfamiliar with these rules, am I.) If you are implying that by supporting abortion I could save lives then I can only look at you blankly and wonder.
As far as the non sequitur goes, yeah, it came from way out in left field. Sorry. Free form typing when time limitations preclude editing.
By the way, I would take issue w/your claim that you have "proven" that McCain would have no power to change the issue. That is categorically wrong. Of course he would have the power to change the issue if he wins and openings come up on the Court. To state otherwise is nonsensical.
I'm not sure what your argument is about the uniqueness of THIS COUNTRY. The evidence from the Guttmacher Institute is quite clear: abortion rates do not significantly decline when the practice is outlawed. In fact, the increase in maternal deaths from botched illegal abortions often wipes out any reduction. New evidence on global abortion rates this last year show dramatically stronger decreases in abortion rates for developed countries where abortion is legal, over countries where it is illegal.
If you have some competing evidence, I want to see it.
On the issue that McCain can't change abortion...really? I think I proved it pretty well. If by proof we mean, a supported and thus far unrefuted claim.
Let me say again, McCain will not be able to appoint activist pro-life judges to the bench. See: Robert Bork, Harriet Miers, etc.
Of course, I think the technical barrier is unnecessary. Six terms of GOP presidents have failed to deliver on the activist judge promise. Even the conservative judges on the Court now are unlikely to seriously consider a complete nullification of Roe. And, I don't think McCain is actually hardcore pro-life.
Seriously? You list the Guttmacher Institute as primary support for your arguments regarding abortion? A branch of the largest abortion provider in the United States? If that's the kind of "evidence" you're looking for...
Over 90 percent of the abortions performed in this country are done for social reasons, i.e. matters of convenience.Do you seriously think if it were more difficult to undertake this course of action that the rates would not drop? I have so many friends who would love to adopt a child. I absolutely believe making life a higher priority in this country would result in more adoptions, shorter waiting periods, less expense for those who want children but cannot have their own.
Regarding the bench, had William Jefferson not been elected I believe we would have a less activist Supreme Court, one that would be less interested in misinterpreting the Constitution. And one that would have undone the damage done 35 years ago. Because judges serve for life (unfortunately, for us, I think) changing the nature of the court is a slow, slow process. To wit, McCain very well may be able to appoint judges who are less likely to impose their viewpoints on the Constitution. And even if he cannot, he can hold the line against the activism that gave us Ruth Bader Ginsberg, etc.
Don't look now but Barack's community organizing compadres are back in the news, possibly continuing w/their voter registration fraud from days gone by...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/163023
Yeah, I'll hold off on the Guttmacher argument until you supply competing evidence. Remember that cognitive dissonance dealy?
Would "social reasons" include not being able to afford a child because your savings are gone, your house is gone, and you can't afford gas? Has anyone ever committed a crime due to their economic situation? Hmm.
You get no argument from me about adoption as a positive alternative to abortion. Don't start assuming that I'm supporting abortion. I think it would be wonderful if women would give those children to loving families. That's the problem with the abortion debate, when the parties make it about ideology and not about policy realities. Neither you nor McCain has a magic wand to make it all work out that way. I prefer a pragmatist who makes a way for dialogue and progress than idealogues who please their base, but accomplish nothing. It makes for good sermons, but does not change (or save) lives.
I can actually respect the argument that McCain might appoint more balanced judges, if you don't trust Obama's judgment and are afraid of him. That's a long way from thinking something will be done to stop Roe.
As someone who has registered many voters, Republican and Democrat, I have nothing to say about that situation, except that I hope they rectify it and we have as fair an election as possible.
I hope every citizen of the U.S., rich, poor, black, white, privileged, or not, has the opportunity to cast the ballot they choose.
Abortion is a HUGE industry, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to providers. If you want to believe a mouthpiece that is so sorely compromised... what was that you said about cognitive dissonance?
According to government figures in Sweden, abortions are on the increase despite the ready availabiltiy of the Morning After pill. Which means making abortions easy does not necessarily make them more uncommon. Not exactly what the good people at Guttmacher would have us believe, hmm?
Since you asked (so unsnidely), here are the social reasons for having an abortion:
Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
- Feels she can't afford baby 23%
- Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%
- Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%
- Feels she isn't mature enough 7%
- Interference with education/career plans 4%
- Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%
- Other reasons <6.5%
TOTAL: 93%
I think I'm pretty clear on your stand on abortion so don't worry about being lumped. I just can't see the disconnect that allows someone to terminate a life because of external circumstances. If you read that list, the underlying reason for almost each one of them is convenience.
And, by the way, while it sounds nice to talk about supporting a pragmatist, in truth (at least on this subject) pragmatist is just another way of saying he won't do anything and so nothing will change.
Joe, you are hoist with your own petard. The fact that the abortion industry is so huge is one of the reasons it won't go away. Prohibition? War on Drugs? Also, show me the competing evidence against Guttmacher's. I have no problem conceding they have a dog in the fight and have unfairly interpreted data before. I have not seen any evidence that the actual data are corrupt. If so, I'll quit consulting their research.
As for the "social reasons," economic reasoning is the second largest on your list. And, are all the other ones outweighed by a law? We haven't even mentioned that if Roe were magically overturned (with the wand), abortion would not be outlawed, only defederalized. Most states would still offer it, and the ones that didn't would likely border at least one that did. 'Cause remember, well over half the American people do not support completely overturning Roe.
By the way, where is your evidence coming from? If we're going to indict sources, let's have a look-see at yours. It's not James Dobson is it (to be read with a sing-songy accusatory Church Lady tone).
Your understanding of how someone could terminate a life is a moot point in the policy discussion. I can't understand (truly) how someone could vote for the McCain/Palin ticket, but I'm willing to respect that there are reasons I don't understand. Also, convenience may have a very different meaning to a white, middle-class, male than to these women. I can't begin to say that I understand all the situations these women face. I'm not justifying their decisions, I'm saying that they will do what they will do whether I like it or not. How about we try to change the moral and social culture to make that decision less common?
Your disregard of pragmatism ignores a strong American tradition. Bill Clinton was a pragmatist, not an idealist. He ended his term with a budget surplus, relative peace, and a business community that was pretty happy with his administration. I know you'll say that all the good Clinton reaped was Reagan and all the bad Bush is reaping was Clinton, but...
Whatever happened to the personal accountability Republicans used to be so proud of? They like accountability when they can use it as a weapon to skewer their foes, but don't feel so good when their own potbellies are being pierced by the tip of the spear.
Hoist mit mein own petard? Methinks not. The abortion industry funnels a lot of money (a LOT of money) to a relative few. And yes, I know that money=power, but there are times when power and money too densely concentrated creates a backlash. It will never go away, you're right (we can still buy pot, right?) but it can be greatly reduced. Hey, aren't you the guy who thinks we can change the culture by the power of our words?
As far as Guttmacher's goes, your choice to blindly follow them. I don't imagine you've made any effort to check the validity of their "facts", hmm? And am I to suppose that until you see actual evidence that Hitler might be a little off, you'll continue to believe what Goebbels has to say? Okay.
The data regarding the increase of abortion in Sweden is from the Swedish government, circa 2000-2007. The social reasons for women having an abortion is attributed thusly:
*Source: Lawrence Finer, et. al, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives" Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 37 No. 3 (Sept., 2005) p. 110.
From what I can tell, neither of those entities have a dog in the hunt. And I think you could easily make the case that the Swedish government would, if anything, want the data to show a decrease in abortions when they are easily obtained. Compared then to Planned Parenthood's propaganda machine, I think my sources stack up quite nicely. To be kind.
Your interpretation of the social reasons is skewed; it's a matter of convenience. Since when is convenience (or in your words "economic reasoning") a justification for murder?
Anecdotally speaking, if I stop real quick, I can count... five abortions people I love chose to have performed. In each case, it was a matter of "I can't have a baby right now." Convenience: overwhelmingly the underlying cause of abortion, however it might otherwise be justified. Sadly, if I took more than 10 seconds I'm sure I could count others I know who've gone down this path.
With regard to Bill Clinton, spare me. We both know the executive branch has less influence on the economy than almost any other national factor and yet they get credit or blame. Which means Barack may very well be elected because the economy sucks and yet he'll have no power to do anything positive or negative about it. So Bill Clinton left us w/a budget surplus and a decent economy? He inherited a good economy and the Republican legislature forced him to balance the budget. (Which they subsequently raped. Idiots)
Bill Clinton also left us w/a raging madman in the sands of the Sudan who brought down two rather tall buildings in New York. Relative peace? That is to laugh. The seeds of 9/11 stop squarely with Billy and his zipper. Relative peace. (Said really rather sneeringly, w/a sardonic harumph)
I don't respond to overwrought Hitler references. Refute the evidence or concede. You are embracing a dangerous form of skeptical populism (being advanced by the McPalin campaign now) that supports nihilism. Since everyone who disagrees with us, from Guttmacher to the MSM, is biased, we can know nothing...except of course what we manufacture or choose to accept. Communication breaks down and real progress is impossible. It's no wonder they oppose talking to our enemies. There is nothing to talk about. We can only know what we know.
The Sweden argument you offer is incomplete. First, you've likely gotten this reference from a pro-life source, which cherry-picked the evidence. The World Health Organization, the Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, and, yes, Guttmacher all show Western Europe, where abortion is more available than anywhere, to have the lowest abortion rates over the last decade or so. Sweden, in particular, has seen a little upward tick in a general downward trend. But, what's interesting about the data, is that among native Swedes the rate has continued to drop. The increase was among immigrants who generally come from countries where abortion is illegal. The most notable group was 11% from Iran.
Oh, by the way, your source on the convenience argument, Lawrence Finer? Associate Director of Domestic Research for...wait for it...the GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE.
Petard. Still hoist.
Riddle me this, Batman: When does "economic reasoning" justify murder?
By the way, I do not see the Hitler reference as overwrought. I was not labeling you or pro-abortionists as Nazis. No, really more like blind sheep following the wolf's soft voice. The point remains unanswered: have you done anything to ascertain what Planned Parenthood is telling you is true?
While it's embarrassing to find out that I listed someone from Guttmacher to support my postion... did you read the data? Does it bother you at all that 93% of abortions are performed based on convenience? We can talk until we're blue in the face about rates trending up here or down there, all of that is superfluous to the central tenet: When does "economic reasoning" justify murder? And the answer is it never does.
There is no petard. And I am certainly not hoist. This is not a debate to be won or lost and in my mind this issue could not be more black or white: When is it okay to kill the most innocent of all?
I understand your desire, Reach, to term abortion as a "culture war." Please allow me to offer some evidence to the contrary. Abortion has very real, pragmatic effects on country.
Right now we are facing huge economic shift in the housing market, consumerism, and the workforce. Who is to blame for this? My generation - the rotten Gen X'ers.
There are 4.5 million fewer X'ers to buy homes, jeans, and cars right now. For every 2 people exiting the work force, only one is entering. Because we are such a small buying power, it could take up to 20 years for the housing market to correct itself. This according to The Age Curve by Kenneth Gronbach.
Now follow me here. Why are we such a tiny generation? "Since Roe V. Wade in Jan. 1973, there have been 45 million legal abortions performed in the U.S. This has had a significant impact on U.S. demography - specifically by reducing the size of Generation X" (National Center for Health Statistics).
Whether it is for economic, social, or convenience reasons, each time the government steps in to bail the general public out of dealing with the consequences of their actions, there is a huge impact on our society. The problem is, no one examines the long term effects of a short term solution.
Once again, helping the least of these is a moral, personal way of life - not a federal mandate.
I challenge you, Reach, to call a single not for profit in Greene County and ask if they are struggling this year. The very organizations designed to help our community are scrambling to stay afloat due to lack of funds, corporate sponsors, and personal donations.
Every crisis facing this country is a "culture war" as you so flippantly phrase it. There has to be a shift in the hearts of our citizens, not in the way government rescues us. Quite simply, they can't. And shouldn't.
Does anyone else notice what is happening in this latest influx of comments/arguments? We have drifted from the point.
Let me be as clear as I possibly can--On this blog, I don't think I have ever made an argument justifying abortion under any circumstances. I have taught public speaking and debate for 20 years. Do you think I would be stupid enough to wade into an argument that is among the most polarizing and futile arguments in human history? Let me say it again, I am not justifying abortion (or murder) or anyone who argues for or against abortion. I don't deny the generational demographic impacts of abortion. Right now, I don't care. I care in a broader sense, but FOR THIS POST AND THIS ARGUMENT, it is not relevant.
The arguments being made PERFECTLY ILLUSTRATE MY POINT. When fall back into arguing for or against abortion, we are engaging in a...yep, you guessed it...a culture war. By definition we are fighting over ideology, not reality-based policy.
There was a glimmer of dialogue when Joe raised the issue that his distrust of Obama led him to believe that worse judges would be appointed than under a McCain administration. That is absolutely a fair point and on topic.
But, to make this about whether abortion is bad or wrong, is to miss the entire premise of my original offering. My position is that (from a political perspective) the morality of abortion is moot if nothing can be done about it. My perspective is that a platform committed to making abortion less common through social action and economic reform is more pragmatic than holding to an ideological position that prevents any real change happening.
If you reply to this by arguing that abortion is immoral and should be illegal...or is a choice and should be legal...I will not post it.
Deal with the topic.
Let me break it down:
1) Republican presidents have historically promised action against Roe, then done nothing.
2) John McCain has an inconsistent record on pro-life issues. Their is reason to question if his pro-life stance would persist past November 4th.
3) The Democratic majority will not confirm an anti-Roe judge appointment...or a constitutional amendment.
4) Obama is a Christian who believes abortion should be less common...put it in the platform (GOP took it out of theirs).
5. It certainly seems at least as likely that an Obama administration would reduce abortions as a McCain administration.
Those are the issues to discuss.
Discuss.
And entirely missing my point - when the general public looks towards the government to change the social environment, there are damaging effects.
A platform that states it can and will make abortion less common through social action is a flawed platform. You can mandate people give to the government to help the poor, however, you cannot make them care.
"Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and unto God that which is God's."
With every move we make and vote we cast to depend on the government to solve social ills, the further we move from giving to God that which is His.
I would argue that a vote for the Obama administration would be a terrifying first step on that steep slippery slope. Render more money unto the government to help those in need. Therefore having less resources to have a personal impact. And absolving yourself (not you specifically, don't get offended) of the moral obligation to help those less fortunate. The government will do it for you.
What happens on Nov. 4th when there are still homeless, still people without health insurance, still people dying in other countries under tyrannical governments, and still women having abortions because they feel they have no other option?
Will you be giving out blankets, donating to Aids Project of the Ozarks, and counseling young woman about birth control? Or will you sit back and relax because, hey, you voted for Obama. He will save us all.
Republican presidents have historically promised action against Roe, then done nothing?
I disagree. It takes decades to change the Court. All Republican presidents can do is nominate judges who will take a Constitutionalist stance. Progress is measured in baby steps, but progress has been made.
The Democratic majority in Congress is a fluid situation. You can't assume that won't change.
A Democratic president is far more likely to nominate a judge that will appease his liberal masters. Combine that w/the Democratic majority currently in Congress, and many years of progress can be undone in one term.
I believe something can be done about abortion and I believe it will. To compromise my belief that it is an unspeakable evil because of a need to be pragmatic is to deny truth. Can't do that.
i think if we legalize murder and theft, then these problems will be reduced. if we remove all speed limits, there will be fewer crashes and deaths. if we allow minors free reign of alcohol, they will learn how to drink responsibly (oh wait, alcohol causes brain damage to minors), or better yet, they will just abstain of their own volition. the human will is inherently good and, if given free reign to act out of conscience, will perform righteousness and create justice.
ok, back to reality.
arguing against the legislation of morality is arguing for anarchy. no such morality-free gov't exists. there are only competing moralities and ethical theories, deontologists and consequentialists.
america is going down in flames. we may rebound, but we will not recover... ever. socialism will ultimately win the day, upon either the complete collapse of the economy or the takeover by a more powerful nation. the national debt cannot grow ad infinitum. the american people cannot buy themselves out of the current crisis. soon we will be slaves—to the one master or to the other. but i will go down swinging... and preaching the good news.
Yep. That news you're preaching there...sounds real good, what with the love and the hope and the...Honestly, I have no idea what you are saying.
Do you have an argument for how McCain is going to stop abortion?
McCain is not going to stop abortion. Electing him is going to prevent it from getting worse, since Obama promises to virtually eliminate restrictions on abortion... and he will do it with a Democratic congress (and moreso if he has the opportunity to appoint new, young liberals to the S.C.). But really the issue is a long-term issue (and worth waiting for the liberal judges to die during a pro-choice controlled Congress and White House). The problem of abortion is not a problem of politics, but a problem of public opinion, and of personal conviction. The real problem is the perverseness of the minds of people who believe that anything at all warrants the intentional taking of innocent life. The "war" is a moral war, and the political war is simply the most expedient means (perhaps) of winning The Argument in front of the nation.
The second issue regards the issue of which ethical theory we follow for ethically-oriented policy decisions. The reason we (the citizenry of this nation) cannot follow a consequentialist ethic (the ethic to which you are appealing by casting the debate in terms of results) is that the argument that ends always justify means is unspeakably dangerous. In defending moral right politically we are working to protect our society from the destruction that logically follows necessarily (and thus almost certainly will follow) from consequentialism.
To put flesh on this, fighting abortion by fighting to eliminate the reasons for which people have (or claim to have) abortions fails to correct the real problem, which is the moral problem of attitude toward the sanctity of life. A society which devalues human life is destined for self destruction, for it devalues itself. Therefore the battle is not whether, in the next four to eight years, abortions will decrease, but rather how to change public and personal opinion about the sanctity of all human life. Again, this is a long-term battle. And it is a battle that will be lost if we concede to people's immorality (devaluing of human life in its own right) by (a) giving them the right to act accordingly, and (b) working to fix their problems on which they blame their immoral decisions.
From another angle on the issue, consider the real reasons people get abortions. Acc. to Guttmacher's longitudinal study ('96, '03, '05):
60% of women getting abortions are white.
64% of women getting abortions have never been married.
1% of women getting abortions do so b/c of rape or incest.
6% do so b/c of potential health problems of either the mother or the developing baby.
93% do so for what Guttmacher and Planned Parenthood call "social reasons", i. e. "the child is unwanted or inconvenient."
The first stat debunks the myth that this is a minority problem. The latter 3 stats substantiate my point that the real battle is a moral battle (on a # of diff. fronts), and the moral battle is lost when this particular immorality is upheld by civil law. Now, are there other ways to fight the moral battle? If the Church was united on the issue of the morality of abortion (in particular, the issues of when life begins as well as the definition of personhood), then the political problem would be far less acute... that is, assuming people act from their convictions. But that goes back to my earlier point about the purpose of government: to force people to do what they know they ought to do, but will not do unless they are forced to do so. I.e., gov't exists to prevent human sinfulness from having free reign on earth.
But how many churches are willing to engage this issue heartily until the "in house" moral battle has been won? The larger, societal battle cannot be won until Our House stand united.
Post a Comment