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.
24 comments:
chris,
you're right on many accounts. the issue of abortion is extremely complex. in fact, it is so complex, that you will be hard pressed to find a legislator who adequately addresses all sides of the issue. as you have pointed out, obama's position is untenable for someone who believes life begins at conception... but in other ways, mccain is certainly not the paragon of virtue on this issue.
i think a true pro-choice position needs to honestly engage the question of how many "choices" someone gets to make about the consequences of their decisions...
abortion is almost always a "choice" that is made to erase consequences of another choice. this is the primary reason i have such a problem with those who argue for a woman's "sacred choice" about her own body.
that said... sometimes the only way to deal with these issues is to not vote for either if neither can earn your vote.
that's why i wrote in Rudd. :)
Chris,
Did you listen to the WOTM podcast yesterday where TJ argued your position? One of the counter points by his opponent was that before Roe Vs. Wade abortions were greatly reduced, and the legalization caused the number to grow exponentially. Also, he stated that another country (I don't remember which one)which very much has the social system that Obama is saying will work to reduce the abortion number and yet their abortions are at the same number as us with a smaller population.
I found the whole discussion to be rather interesting. I thought you might enjoy it.
Hey Chris,
Couple of questions for you:
1. In the OP you said, "I would also add that in no way does passage of this bill guarantee an increase in the abortion rate. What do you think is the effect this law will have on the abortion rate? Do you think it will cause it to go down or go up?
You also said 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. Could you unpack this? Are you against all war?
Also, you stated this decline has been partially attributed to the good economic conditions of the 90's.
If this statement is true, why are abortion rates even lower now when we have a terrible economy? This seems like a jump for causation. As I've said before it's like attributing the rise in drowning deaths to the rise in ice cream sales. Both happen at the same time, and have nothing to do with each other.
Lastly (for now), who are you most concerned about when it comes to the issue of abortion?
test
Chris,
A well thought out piece and food for thought, however I tend to agree with Joe that abortions were much lower before Roe, so the legality of abortion is certainly the #1 factor in the rate of abortion.
Your comment that "Democrats seem to be willing to forsake the angry rhetoric in favor of seeking common ground," falls flatly on my ears. For eight years I have witnessed nothing but angry rhetoric from Democrats. Tonight at Obama's rally I saw a number of signs about Bush that were dispicable. So I will wait and see on that one.
Joe,
Maybe abortions are even lower now because we don't have a terrible economy (except in Michigan and on TV). One quarter of negative growth (-.3%) does not constitute terrible... Last quarter the economy grew at 2.8%. The fundamentals of the economy are sound and Obama will benefit from the perceived rebound...
Well...it's over. He is now officially President-Elect Obama. I'm dismayed with many of my fellow Catholics who parted with their faith to elect the most staunch, unapologetic, pro-abortion president in our nation’s history. What's more, I'm furious with our Church leaders who were, with a few vocal exceptions, barely audible on this cornerstone issue. Those who did weigh in did so far too late in the game.
Here is the bottom line: a vote for Obama is an overt affront to the belief in the sanctity of life. Under his leadership, untold numbers of pre-born citizens will have no legal protection and will literally be discarded like garbage. If we choose to remain silent or complacent on this issue, we are tacitly complicit in the commitment of egregious sin. So, please...let's start our work immediately. Let us embrace John Paul II's plea to disavow any affiliation to politicians or to parties which promote a culture of death. Take our local and national Church leaders to task when they fail to speak in audible, timely, and courageous tones. Ensure that your local parish embraces the right to life as a prominent aspect of its social justice ministry. Create such a ministry where none exists. Never accept the reality with which we are now faced as an insurmountable status quo.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, do not be misled by our future president's eloquence or by his compassionate stances on other issues. Do not be deceived: His active support of abortion is a perpetuation of great evil.
Tonight, I pray for the miraculous influence of God’s Grace--upon Mr. Obama and upon all of us. Please help us find the wisdom and the words to change the hearts and minds of those who lead. Give us the tools to re-inspire those among us who have grown apathetic in the struggle to protect human life at all stages. Let us not be lulled into weary tolerance of repeated wrongdoing; we ask for insight to discern and to counter this insidious evil, cloaked in the disguise of popular will, clouded in the banality of day-to-day life.
On this issue above all others, we are losing our way. I pray for God’s strength and love to lead our citizenry away from befuddled judgment, cultivated and perpetuated by persuasive, popular leaders.
i want to respond to some of this, but i can't at the moment. one question though: how do we know what abortion rates were, nation wide, before 1973? or let me put it this way: how were underground abortions recorded?
You'd have to listen to the previously mentioned podcast, but that guy said he was using "liberal numbers" for the sake of charity and TJ didn't bat an eye.
i'm gonna write more, but i'll try to respond to these first.
1. In the OP you said, "I would also add that in no way does passage of this bill guarantee an increase in the abortion rate. What do you think is the effect this law will have on the abortion rate? Do you think it will cause it to go down or go up?
-i have no idea. it could be that everything that has happened since 1973 has affected the decline in abortion rates in such a way that they'll continue to decline or, who knows, maybe there will be a spike in abortion rates and it will have nothing to do with it's passage. my point is simply there seems to be an assumption that this WILL cause an increase when in reality that isn't it's purpose nor is it a certainty.
You also said 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. Could you unpack this? Are you against all war?
-a president who will only go to war if absolutely necessary reflects a belief in the sacredness of human life. One who sings songs joking about bombing a country killing thousands of people doesn't.
Also, you stated this decline has been partially attributed to the good economic conditions of the 90's.
If this statement is true, why are abortion rates even lower now when we have a terrible economy? This seems like a jump for causation. As I've said before it's like attributing the rise in drowning deaths to the rise in ice cream sales. Both happen at the same time, and have nothing to do with each other.
-i purposely used language that wasn't concrete for that reason, but i'm just repeating things i've read. maybe that analysis is completely off, but it does make seem to make sense. and how do we know what abortion rates are at the moment? is there a website with an abortion ticker that i don't know about?
Lastly (for now), who are you most concerned about when it comes to the issue of abortion?
all of us.
as you already know, i don't have time to respond more, but i'll try to later.
I'll only address the last one; It seems you are not all that concerned with the unborn baby.
Leah I don't know you but you are right on.
I don't understand how we can vote for a president that feels abortion is ok under any circumstance. I under stand McCain was not Pro life either. Either way it is so wrong. Those babies are human beings and it breaks my heart that people think for any reason it is ok to kill a baby. I know so many families wanting to adopt, a lot of them are in long processes trying to adopt overseas what would it look like if these people longing to have a child could adopt in their own country because we believe God's word when he says murder is wrong. What about the Preamble to the Constitution where we are for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness...? Does that baby who has a heart beat and is created in the image of God not deserve life?
I know some people believe that if a women is raped she should have the right to abort? I would ask "Did God fall asleep when that happen?" Can the God who redeems and reconciles all things to himself not do it in a rape situation?
I would say how a President chooses to handle the right to life should be one of our biggest concerns as not only a Christian but an American citizen.
Chris,
you said "I did so because I believe that abortion will only be solved when the debate ends, and people of varying opinions create solutions."
When has not talking or debating about something ever helped? Isn't that how people learn and process? Isn't "debates" how Americans choice their presidents?
"and people of varying opinions create solutions."
That is pretty easy... murder is wrong. That is the solution. Don't do it. Now I would agree with you that we could educate women that on their options if they give birth. The bottom line is if you want help you get it. If women talk about their problems but never do anything about it but the easy way out(abortions)then they are selfish. Life is full of problems, the only way to solve our problems is to realize we have a problem and then get help. I believe there is a lot of places a women could turn to for help. I believe they freak out, or they don't simple don't want a baby so they choice what they perceive as the easy way out.
Erica,
McCain was consistently pro-life in his 26-year voting record. I saw him on the View this year and he spent 5-10 minutes defending his reasons for his pro-life positions. I think you misjudged him if you believe he was not pro-life.
i'm gonna post this comment, and then call it a day.
my view is that this is something that is much more difficult than simply voting "pro-life" for several reasons. the primary one is that there is a fundamental difference in how one side views the fetus versus the other. for whatever reason, and there are many of them, the pro-choice side does not view a fetus as a human being who deserves the same rights a born human does. some of them say it's because the fetus is a "potential person," others say that it is simply too debatable and therefore the decision should be left with the woman. i don't agree, but that's what they believe, and in reality, that fundamental difference is not going to change any time soon.
therefore, i believe that we must stop demonizing one another. YES we can debate if debate means rational discussion rather than screaming and name-calling, but in the mean time i believe both sides should work towards the common goal of reducing unwanted pregnancies/bettering the conditions for women who have abortions because of poverty etc.../promoting adoption. this doesn't mean pro-life groups still shouldn't try and pass legislation that decreases the number of abortions. it is possible to work toward common goals on some areas, yet work in opposition on others. congress does it all the time.
joe,
i listened to that wotm podcast. i must say that i was impressed, and i thought friel was actually pretty fair and decent. regarding sweden, i'm not sure that is a good comparison because their culture is much more secular and liberal than ours. concerning abortion laws affecting abortion rates, my first question would be why laws requiring women under 18 to have a guardian, and bans on late-term abortions would dramatically decrease the overall number of abortions. the typical abortion comes from a woman above the age of 18, and is before 12 weeks of gestation, so those laws only affect a small minority of abortions. also, we're getting into that tricky area of proving causation.
in closing, abortion, as acknowledged by everyone who has commented, is going to be around for a long time. thus, the goal right now should be reducing abortion, and there are many ways to achieve that. out of all the ways, legislation is the only one obama does not support, and condsidering his policies on everything else, that was not a strong enough reason for me to vote against him.
one last point, going back to the slavery analogy, what if we all were abolitionists living in 1859 and there was a president running who supported slavery, but also industrialization. and what if his opponent was against slavery, but had policies that were not pro-industrialization. ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, who would be the candidate who would most greatly benefit the abolitionist cause? that's all i'm sayin. disagree if you want, but i don't think it means that i don't care about the unborn.
Hey Chris,
I agree Friel surprised me. The whole thing was decent.
I'm not all that concerned with how either side defines when a baby is a baby, I want to know when you think a baby is a baby. I see your closing statement as beign based on pragmatic reasons, not on right or wrong moral reasons. Do you believe that abortion is murder?
Sorry Chris,
I somehow missed your last paragraph about slavery. I don't agree with you that industrialization caused the demise of slavery and if I did agree with you, I don't believe it has anything to do with this discussion. One of things about this discussion with you that has concluded me to think your not that concerned with the unborn baby is that you seem to argue often for the woman's right to choose. This is why I am curious for your answers to my previous questions.
joe,
i'll answer your question when you tell me one time where i have argued for a woman's right to choose.
You'll notice I said "you seem" meaning you've never come right out and said it, but many of your arguments seem to be designed to minimize the fact that abortion kills someone. I have left a few of our discussions and been under the impression that you were arguing that, "Well, yeah abortion is bad, but it isn't that bad. An example would be one day we were at Urban Mill and I said to you that abortion carries with it a PTSD of it's own. To which you countered without missing a beat that adoption has PTSD too. Which by the way I've looked those numbers up on two different Psych journals at school and comparing them is like comparing a drip in your sink to flow of the water in the Amazon. I realized that many of our discussions revolve around the peripherals affects of the abortion. We never talk about the person affected the most by the abortion, namely the baby.
Then I started to catalog you're arguments to me and invariably they come back to minimalising the effects of the action.
This is why I ask the question. Even on this thread your arguments are so pragmatic: If abortion becomes illegal, women will still do it, so we should let them do it legally where it's safe." (I know I paraphrased there).
People chose to break laws everyday, many times that law breaking puts their life in danger. I really need a yes or no question to this question:
Is abortion murder. Is a baby dying?
If that is the case many of the peripheral, pragmatic driven arguments are moot. You are correct, I cannot point to one point in time where I think you actually stated you believed in a woman's right to chose, but the sum total of your arguments would seem to logically lead me there. Which is why I have to ask. I sort of hear you saying that you think it's wrong and you would never do it but you think other people should have the right to make up their own mind. I realize this perception could be wrong, which is why I asked.
Chris O, here is an example of my point: You said, "therefore, i believe that we must stop demonizing one another.
By demonizing, do you mean calling abortionist murderers? Because to me this is a logical conclusion if abortion actually kills someone. Much like we call a 38YO man who kills somebody in the commission of bank robbery a murderer. We don't allow that guy to say, "Well, hey I was poor, I needed money." We put him in jail (ideally).
Anyhow, I'm off to bed.
first i'll point out that your comments are rolling a bunch of different, yet related, discussions into one.
regarding the ptsd thing, you kind of latched on to that one effect, which came from a list of effects, war has that cause human suffering. this was part of a bigger argument where i said i think war causes, on the whole, more suffering than abortion. as far as ptsd and adoption, what i said was every person who has adoptions are assigned grief counsellors. i wasn't saying it was because of ptsd, only that some of the grief, sense of loss etc. that pro-lifers often say abortion causes also happen in adoption.
my argument in the thread has been this: we all agree that abortion will be legal in this country for an indefinite amount of time, therefore we all agree that abortion numbers, while the larger battle is being waged, need to continue to come down. all i'm saying is that there are all sorts of underlying factors as to why women have abortions (somewhat like industrialization was an underlying factor in demise of slavery) which, if addressed, will condribute to a drop in abortions. pro-life and some pro-choice dems are for addressing those issues, so i am for supporting them. do not mis-read what i'm i'm writing. i am FOR returning abortion to the states, but that is beyond realistic right now, so at this time i care about reducing the numbers which can be done many different ways.
as far as your question goes, i think abortion is killing an unborn baby. in recent years, as i've thought about if it should be condsidered murder, i've become less sure. abortion is done in a fog of ignorance. you and i grew up believing it was murder so to us, it's obvious, however, others didn't. can one commit murder if one doesn't know they are committing murder? doesn't murder imply intent? i'm just not sure, so i tend to refrain from using that word in this discussion. it's a big charge. i would say, make the argument that abortion is killing an unborn baby, and if the arguments are effective, the pro-choice person will come to understand the implications of abortion on his or her own. the word murder or murderer tends to just shut down discussion.
the OP was about obama and the impact the pro-life movement is having on the democratic party. to be honest, abortion was the farthest thing from my mind when i made the choice to vote for obama. why? because, to me, combating abortion is most effectively done on the grass-roots level, and not by electing a president. i also tend to think about the whole and the big picture, thus my concern was how much overall good for the country and the rest of the world i could get from my vote.
you also said: "I sort of hear you saying that you think it's wrong and you would never do it but you think other people should have the right to make up their own mind"
-i flatly stated twice, once at the beginning of the last paragraph of the OP and once in the thread that i do not believe a woman has the right to choose.
Chris,
In your original post, you said that Obama "is for fostering a society where abortion is rare." All the talk these days is that one of Obama's first executive orders is going to be to reverse Bush's order preventing foreign aid from being used for international abortions. Do you believe that this is an example of him "fostering a society where abortion is rare?"
You see, the problem Obama is going to have regarding the abortion issue is that his rhetoric and his actions on this issue are going to be completely opposed to one another. He is dependent upon the pro-choice community and will enact their agenda.
I think you have misjudged the Democratic party if you honestly believe that have "realized that it is imperative for them to become more open-minded toward the pro-life movement." They came to power in overwhelming numbers with a decidedly pro-choice position. They have no reason to change. Availablity of abortions will increase, as will the numbers.
Elections have consequences. Many innocents will bear the cost of this one.
Am I just too late to this conversation or is my comment not interesting enough? Where you at Chris?
there's not much more i can say except that we'll see what happens. the two certainties are that abortion is going to stay legal because most americans are moderately pro-choice and people are going to continue to have sex, therefore, there needs to be comprehensive plans to reduce the number of abortions.
now, i can point to several articles online from different sources about the movement of evangelicals, who are pro-life, voting for obama, and other pro-life and/or moderate pro-choice groups voicing their support for reducing abortions. with a lot of moderate/progressive pro-life catholics and evangelicals, that's where their concern is.
at the same time, these voters refuse to compromise their beliefs in social justice issues, environmental issues and issues of war and peace, and vote for a conservative republican just because he or she says he or she is "pro-life."
i think this movement of moderate/progressive pro-lifers will continue to gain momentum, especially among those from my generation and up and coming generations. and if the pro-life movement can continue to expand in both parties to the point where dems and reps are seriously competing for their votes, then great.
If social issues had driven the campaign, I might agree with you. But I think (and exit polls affirm) this election was really about 1 issue: the economy. Evangelicals who voted for Obama were not considering abortion.
There is no pro-life movement in the Democratic party, any more than there is a pro-union movement in the Republican party. They may pay lip-service to the pro-lifers (or union members) in their ranks, but enacted policy will do nothing but frustrate those who think there will be action on that front.
And for goodness sakes, (let me shout...):
JOHN MCCAIN IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN!
whew... glad I got that off my chest.
Post a Comment