In my last post I attempted to navigate the difficult waters of the abortion debate. My arguments were rightly pointed out as being pragmatic. I readily acknowledge this fact, and make no attempt to argue otherwise because I believe they should be pragmatic, as is virtually every engagement in the political arena. Being pragmatic usually involves compromise, and, once again, I readily acknowledge that I made some compromises in my vote. This is because when a Christian, such as myself, must choose a political candidate I will always have to compromise, because a ruler of a kingdom of this world will always have some anti-kingdom of God policies. In this election I compromised on voting for a candidate who has the anti-kingdom view of being pro-choice. I did this because I believe abortion is the result of deeper anti-kingdom problems that I believe Obama has a better handle on. Only time will tell if made a good compromise.
Recently, Jim Wallis wrote a piece about a letter Focus on the Family put out about the election. In it, Wallis says: "Christians should be committed to the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of America, and the church is to live an alternative existence of love and justice, offering a prophetic witness to politics. Elections are full of imperfect choices where we all seek to what is best for the "common good" by applying the values of our faith as best we can." Wallis does a great job here articulating how Christians should approach politics. There should be a constant awareness that the only way the world can truly change is by the church enacting God's kingdom. The question then becomes what is the product of God's interaction in the world and the work of fallen human beings, and how can Christians promote policies and candidates that will promote God's kingdom that are also being favored by those outside the kingdom? In other words, where does the "common good" look like the kingdom, how can those areas be promoted politically, and how can those areas where the common good doesn't look like the kingdom be changed? For starters I would argue the areas where the CG doesn't look like KOG involves a change in deeply held values, and a change in values usually happens outside the political arena.
I am fully aware that what I just wrote might be confusing, but for the sake of not writing a novel, I won't go on. So if you're confused, you know where to comment.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Abortion. Obama. Need I say more?
Righteous indignation is cathartic, but, often times, isn't helpful. Oh sure, it can be helpful rallying people to causes, but in the end it usually incites war and division, rather than healing and reconciliation. Those, instead, come with dialogue, understanding, knowledge and finding common ground. The abortion debate in America is full of righteous indignation from both sides, but after all the yelling and rallying the debate rages on. Abortion still exists, and even if it were outlawed, would still exist in other parts of the world and in back-alley abortion clinics. Conservative Republicans have used the outrage Christians feel about abortion to woo them into a sizable voting bloc. As a former voter in that bloc, I have come across increasing debate, and have come under questioning about my decision to vote for Barack Obama. And as someone who continues to believe that abortion shouldn't exist in America, but also views the issue as something much more complex than: "abortion is murder and a vote for a candidate who supports Roe is a vote for murder", I feel compelled to better formulate my views in a way that is easy to articulate, and promotes discussion rather than debate. I also feel compelled to respond to posts I've read online written by thoughtful friends whom with I disagree. So that's what this post is about.
Recently, Mr. Rudd wrote a great post presenting his reasons for not voting for Obama based on his belief that an Obama presidency would increase accessibility to abortion, thus increasing the number of abortions. He bases this claim on a statement from Obama saying he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Mr. Rudd also expresses frustration with Obama's "centrist talk concerning life issues" and his alleged desire to make abortion "as accessible as possible." I believe these are legitimate arguments as FOCA and Obama's pro-choice stance are troubling for me as well; but as someone who views the abortion issue with increasing complexity, I do not find these arguments convincing enough to deter me from voting for Obama. So, to begin, I want to explain how I see the abortion situation, then look at FOCA and Obama, and other pieces of legislation being supported by democrats.
Pro-life groups often compare their cause to the abolition of slavery. I tend to think that this is a helpful analogy because, like slavery, the issue of abortion has two components: a moral component and an economic component. Abolitionists worked courageously and creatively to thwart the evil of slavery, yet their efforts might have failed if not for the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution moved our economy from being labor intensive and agrarian, to capital-based and industrial. This shift eliminated the need for slaves. So the solution to slavery was more complex than winning hearts and minds and courageous tactics such as the underground railroad; economic change was crucial as well. Likewise, there is a relationship between abortion rates and the economy, as well as, other factors. In the 90's abortion rates made a sharp decline. Because one the main reasons women get abortions is for lack of ability to care for a child, this decline has been partially attributed to the good economic conditions of the 90's. Other factors, such an increased access to contraception and education, have also played a role in decreasing the abortion rate. In sum, when the reasons women have abortions decrease, abortions decrease. Legislation has some effect, but the solution will ultimately come from other forces, as well as, a change in hearts and minds.
Regarding the Freedom of Choice Act, I want to flatly state what is reality: Barack Obama is pro-choice and he has never said otherwise. This means he supports the decision of Roe v. Wade believing a woman should have the choice to terminate her pregnancy if she desires. FOCA is a piece of legislation responding to efforts of the Pro-Life movement to limit the rights granted to women by Roe. It seeks to: "establish a federal law guaranteeing reproductive freedom for future generations of American women. This guarantee will protect women’s rights even if President Bush and an anti‐choice Congress are successful in reversing Roe v. Wade or enacting even more restrictions on our right to choose." It should, therefore, come as no surprise Senator Obama would support such a bill. This is not about a desire to increase accessibility; it is about Obama's beliefs about Roe. There is much debate over what exactly this act would do in regards to rolling back abortion restrictions, however, the line I posted above describing the purposes of this bill implies there could be further restrictions. I would also add that in no way does passage of this bill guarantee an increase in the abortion rate, nor does it stop a creative pro-life movement from combating abortion in any number of ways.
Finally, there is a movement among pro-choice groups and pro-life democrats to reduce the need for abortion, thereby decreasing abortion rates. The Prevention First Act, which has the support of Harry Reid and Senator Obama, seeks to decrease abortion in a number of ways including access to family planning, realistic sex education, and access to emergency contraception. Another plan, the 95-10 initiative, seeks to reduce abortion by 95 percent in 10 years by various ways, including abstinence education and promoting adoption. This plan is promoted by the pro-life group, Democrats for Life, and according to Donald Miller, also has the support of Obama. In the end, Obama wants abortion to be legal, but is for fostering a society where abortion is rare. On the topic of abortion Obama has said: "We can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion...And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children...and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. Source"
Today I voted for Barack Obama in good conscience, despite my disagreement with his belief that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion. I did so because I believe that abortion will only be solved when the debate ends, and people of varying opinions create solutions. The Democrats, in recent years, have realized that it is imperative for them to become more open-minded toward the pro-life movement. They have altered their platform, and are willing to work towards decreasing abortion outside of limiting Roe v Wade. Aside from the issue of abortion, I support Barack Obama when it comes to issues of war and peace. I believe a McCain administration would be much more willing to seek military solutions over diplomatic solutions. War is a life issue as well, and it's important to keep in mind that the sacredness of human life is about more than abortion. Democrats seem to be willing to forsake the angry rhetoric in favor of seeking common ground, and, for me, that's a reason to give them my vote.
Recently, Mr. Rudd wrote a great post presenting his reasons for not voting for Obama based on his belief that an Obama presidency would increase accessibility to abortion, thus increasing the number of abortions. He bases this claim on a statement from Obama saying he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Mr. Rudd also expresses frustration with Obama's "centrist talk concerning life issues" and his alleged desire to make abortion "as accessible as possible." I believe these are legitimate arguments as FOCA and Obama's pro-choice stance are troubling for me as well; but as someone who views the abortion issue with increasing complexity, I do not find these arguments convincing enough to deter me from voting for Obama. So, to begin, I want to explain how I see the abortion situation, then look at FOCA and Obama, and other pieces of legislation being supported by democrats.
Pro-life groups often compare their cause to the abolition of slavery. I tend to think that this is a helpful analogy because, like slavery, the issue of abortion has two components: a moral component and an economic component. Abolitionists worked courageously and creatively to thwart the evil of slavery, yet their efforts might have failed if not for the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution moved our economy from being labor intensive and agrarian, to capital-based and industrial. This shift eliminated the need for slaves. So the solution to slavery was more complex than winning hearts and minds and courageous tactics such as the underground railroad; economic change was crucial as well. Likewise, there is a relationship between abortion rates and the economy, as well as, other factors. In the 90's abortion rates made a sharp decline. Because one the main reasons women get abortions is for lack of ability to care for a child, this decline has been partially attributed to the good economic conditions of the 90's. Other factors, such an increased access to contraception and education, have also played a role in decreasing the abortion rate. In sum, when the reasons women have abortions decrease, abortions decrease. Legislation has some effect, but the solution will ultimately come from other forces, as well as, a change in hearts and minds.
Regarding the Freedom of Choice Act, I want to flatly state what is reality: Barack Obama is pro-choice and he has never said otherwise. This means he supports the decision of Roe v. Wade believing a woman should have the choice to terminate her pregnancy if she desires. FOCA is a piece of legislation responding to efforts of the Pro-Life movement to limit the rights granted to women by Roe. It seeks to: "establish a federal law guaranteeing reproductive freedom for future generations of American women. This guarantee will protect women’s rights even if President Bush and an anti‐choice Congress are successful in reversing Roe v. Wade or enacting even more restrictions on our right to choose." It should, therefore, come as no surprise Senator Obama would support such a bill. This is not about a desire to increase accessibility; it is about Obama's beliefs about Roe. There is much debate over what exactly this act would do in regards to rolling back abortion restrictions, however, the line I posted above describing the purposes of this bill implies there could be further restrictions. I would also add that in no way does passage of this bill guarantee an increase in the abortion rate, nor does it stop a creative pro-life movement from combating abortion in any number of ways.
Finally, there is a movement among pro-choice groups and pro-life democrats to reduce the need for abortion, thereby decreasing abortion rates. The Prevention First Act, which has the support of Harry Reid and Senator Obama, seeks to decrease abortion in a number of ways including access to family planning, realistic sex education, and access to emergency contraception. Another plan, the 95-10 initiative, seeks to reduce abortion by 95 percent in 10 years by various ways, including abstinence education and promoting adoption. This plan is promoted by the pro-life group, Democrats for Life, and according to Donald Miller, also has the support of Obama. In the end, Obama wants abortion to be legal, but is for fostering a society where abortion is rare. On the topic of abortion Obama has said: "We can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion...And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children...and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. Source"
Today I voted for Barack Obama in good conscience, despite my disagreement with his belief that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion. I did so because I believe that abortion will only be solved when the debate ends, and people of varying opinions create solutions. The Democrats, in recent years, have realized that it is imperative for them to become more open-minded toward the pro-life movement. They have altered their platform, and are willing to work towards decreasing abortion outside of limiting Roe v Wade. Aside from the issue of abortion, I support Barack Obama when it comes to issues of war and peace. I believe a McCain administration would be much more willing to seek military solutions over diplomatic solutions. War is a life issue as well, and it's important to keep in mind that the sacredness of human life is about more than abortion. Democrats seem to be willing to forsake the angry rhetoric in favor of seeking common ground, and, for me, that's a reason to give them my vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)