More on Obama and Abortion

There has been a robust conversation in the comments section of my previous post on abortion.  There are clearly some policy wonks who read my blog, and I’m not one of them.  I mean, I’m not a policy wonk; not that I don’t read my blog.  Anyway, I appreciate those of you who can quote particular pieces of legislation and particular votes.  My interest is more on the overarching principles at hand, although it does seem to me that BO made it abundantly clear that his most odious vote to pro-lifers was because he thought the bill would be struck down as unconstitutional (HT: Keith).

I am thankful that my friend, Carla Jo, fought the good fight in the comments.  For those of you who don’t know her, CJ has a raft of evangelical credentials.  In other words, she’s no leftist idealogue.  She’s simply trying to deal with the complexity of the issue — I must say, much as BO does.

And I am particularly indebted to the two women who posted about their own abortions.  In the wake of that terrible decision, they’ve come to different conclusions about the issue, but their journeys to those conclusions, IMHO, seem a lot more honest than some others who commented.  Honestly, I cannot imagine either of them, though they stand on different sides of the debate, referring to someone as a “faggot” or “callous, selfish, and unrepentant.”

I was on the weekly O religious outreach call last night, and I again brought up the issue of abortion.  And, again, I was outnumbered.  But what I said there I’ll say here: I don’t expect any of you who are ideological about the issue of abortion to be swayed by my reasoning, or by BO’s for that matter.  You can go ahead and vote for McCain/Palin and assume that they’ll actually change things.  You can keep telling yourself, “We just need one…more…justice to overturn Roe v. Wade.”  You can keep throwing good money after bad and support candidates who pander to you on ideological grounds.  That’s your prerogative.

But for my part, I’m more interested in convincing moderate and progressive evangelicals to vote for BO.  So, to those of you on the fence, let me say a few things: progressive Christians don’t love abortion, they despise it.  It’s a terrible blight on our society.  But criminalizing an activity does not eliminate it from society, be it crystal meth, rape, or graffiti.  So when people say to you, “The point isn’t to reduce abortions, the point is to eliminate them,” you can say to them, “I think you need to go feed your unicorn and see if the leprechaun is still guarding your pot of gold.”

The point was made again on the call last night that BO is going to go straight after the systemic causes that all too often force women into the terrible predicament.  He is going to propose legislation that provides significant tax credits for adoption; he’s going to increase the funding to programs that aid single mothers (particularly young ones) in finding childcare and finding work; he’s going to make more robust education programs for ill-prepared moms; and he’s going to signifcantly enhance early childhood family education funding (a program that I’ve been involved with in my own community).

In short, it’s time to get pragmatic.  Let’s do something about this blight on our society, a blight that is inextriably tied up with issues of poverty, urban struggle, and sexual morality.

In other news, the O campaign today announced a “Faith, Family, and Values Tour” using surrogates to talk about BO’s commitments to the very issues that concern Jesus-followers.  One of the first such events will be in Colorado Springs and will be headlined by Don Miller.

[UPDATE: Abortions have declined during both the Clinton and Bush administrations.]

  • http://notes-from-offcenter.com Drew

    Obama’s position is a more holistic pro-life position as it seeks to mitigate the psycho-social factors that make abortion more likely. You cannot seek to make abortion illegal without looking at why it occurs and reducing those circumstances. The untenable outcome of overturning Roe v. Wade is that once the infant is born there will not be enough adequate social services to truly care for the child – especially when born to a mother who does not want the child or can not support him or her.

    To be pro-life you need to be pro-life all the way and that is what Obama’s position outlines. To mitigate abortion, you need to restructure the adoption process, foster care, healthcare, prisons, universal education and other areas that all play a significant role. But this means increased domestic spending which is something that the GOP has not been favorable to. I would favor broader state support with reduced federal oversight on all of these social issues since each state has a different set of problems and causes.

  • TerryD

    You said: “…progressive Christians don’t love abortion, they despise it. It’s a terrible blight on our society. But criminalizing an activity does not eliminate it from society, be it crystal meth, rape, or graffiti.”

    Are you suggesting that prohibitions against crystal meth, rape and graffiti should not be enshrined in law either? Since they are not eliminated from society by being criminalized?

    Abortion on demand is first a matter of justice, not pragmatism. Prohibition of the taking of innocent life must be part of a just society’s laws in order for that society to remain just. Deterrence is an important but secondary matter.

    If a fundamental commitment to justice—legal protection for the least of the least human persons—were in place, other worthy initiatives for compassion, prevention and education would no longer ring as hollow as they do in the rhetoric of BO and the evangelical left.

  • http://doxologica.wordpress.com Clint

    Tony,

    Thanks for pinpointing something I sincerely (and immediately) apologized for. You are very quick to point out my mistake, but not quick to point out the mistakes of your own movement. Unashamedly flirting with New Age spirituality is acceptable but my words that I repented for are horrible? Logs and specks, I suppose.

    Clint

  • tony arens

    “You cannot seek to make abortion illegal without looking at why it occurs and reducing those circumstances. ” Drew, I certainly hope that we don’t follow this process for other legal issues.

    If abortion were made illegal, the rate of abortions would be reduced dramatically. Of course, some would still seek abortion, however the “back alley” analogy is an exception, not the rule. There will always be doctors that are willing to perform the procedure, even if illegal. Laws do work to deter certain behavior.

    This is where you might apply your attempt to mitigate the psycho-social factors that make abortion more likely. Law combined with these efforts can work together to practically eliminate abortion in this country.

    “not be enough adequate social services to truly care for the child – especially when born to a mother who does not want the child or can not support him or her.” – - -I beg to differ… there are more Americans on a waiting list to adopt than you can imagine, and with an acute reduction in abortions via law, the social services in place today may be more than adaquate.

    If abortion is the killing of an unborn CHILD and the practice is as Tony suggests “despised and is a terrible blight on our society “, then why in God’s name would it be legal?

    The alternative is 9 months of discomfort, humiliation and pain. We can shift our resources to help women deal with this traumatic 9 months, and the result of this battle is healing, the comfort that the right thing was done, and there is one less couple on the waiting list to adopt.

    So very many women that have abortions are forever scarred and tormented by the decision that they made. The alternative is extremely difficult, but in the long term, will surely bring real healing, joy, and delight to Almighty God.

  • http://resilientemergence.com Snoop

    Tony,

    You said:

    “You can go ahead and vote for McCain/Palin and assume that they’ll actually change things. You can keep telling yourself, “We just need one…more…justice to overturn Roe v. Wade.” You can keep throwing good money after bad and support candidates who pander to you on ideological grounds. That’s your prerogative.”

    I am not an abortion voter, I never have been. I would prefer less abortions over the status quo, but that is not my issue with this line.

    The truth is that regardless of who is elected into the office of the President, there will be no significant change. McCain, Obama, they are the same. They are at the mercy of their parties… regardless of what we like to say to ourselves, the parties run the country, not the president.

    We can fool ourselves and through around words like hope and change, or pithy statements like country first… but the truth of the matter is that until the establishment parties are shaken up… until the democrats and republicans are stripped of their power and money, very little will change. The machines are in place, and I fail to see how either McCain or Obama have a history of really effecting change in their individual parties.

    Am I a cynic? Probably, but I do not see true change coming to this nation until we see the return of true statesmen who are less concerned about reelection and power bases than they are about doing what is best for this country.

  • Korey

    About this issue, over the past couple of months I’ve read and heard about Douglas Kmiec’s support of Barack Obama. Kmiec is a professor of law at Pepperdine University and served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Reagan and 1st Bush administrations. As I understand it he’s a committed Catholic and is unequivocally and passionately prolife. Anyway, he recently wrote a book called “Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Questions about Barack Obama” which may be helpful to any Christians who are honestly considering voting for Obama but are uncomfortable or uncertain about his stance on abortion.

  • http://www.takeyourvitaminz.blogspot.com Zach Nielsen

    Tony,

    You said, “But criminalizing an activity does not eliminate it from society, be it crystal meth, rape, or graffiti.”

    Right, I agree, but why do you think we have laws that do criminalize those things? I would say it’s because they are objectively wrong and the government has to work to curb

    I don’t know about you, but I sure glad we have laws against rape. Same goes for the laws we should have against abortion. Saying, “having laws against abortion doesn’t matter” has nothing to do with the issue.

  • lm

    I say we criminalize extra-marital sexual activity. Seriously. Most of us agree that it’s immoral, and harms our society, so let’s criminalize it. AND, we will eliminate 85-90% of abortions, since unwed mothers are the ones who most often have abortions. So, let’s quit going after Roe… let’s start going after the criminalization of sex (outside of marriage, of course) in general.

  • http://theologica.blogspot.com Justin Taylor

    A good post here from Jeremy Pierce (PhD candidate in philosophy at Syracuse) trying to understand Obama’s positions on abortion:

    http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2008/08/obama-abortion.html

    Tony: I hope you’ll join me in trying to help the various sides of this debate avoid the canard that “overturning Roe” means “criminalizing abortion.” The issue will simply revert to the states.

    I assume I was included in the wonkish label. But I don’t think I should feel bad about trying to understand FOCA, when Obama says passing this act will be the first order of business in the White House. And it doesn’t help that some commenters clearly don’t understand what the act–or Roe itself–entails.

    JT

  • http://www.takeyourvitaminz.blogspot.com Zach Nielsen

    It’s also interesting that all of BO’s campaign don’t want him to talk about it. Do you not smell something fishy there? Why do you think that is the case? Because we all know (themselves included) that when he opens his mouth about abortion, all the logical fallacies will be exposed and more comments that show his true colors will come out like, “above my pay grade”. Does this not point to deeper issues?

    z

  • http://www.cdugan.blogspot.com Chris

    Even as Tony smugly portrays those in opposition to abortion as fairy-tale believing imbeciles (“Leprechauns and Unicorns”) he betrays his own point.

    Tony thinks it futile to reduce abortion by means of law yet he’s calling for a massive governmental engagement of social services to reduce abortions. How will the government accomplish this without passing a few laws I wonder?

  • http://www.takeyourvitaminz.blogspot.com Zach Nielsen

    Let’s try and put this logic to a different issue than abortion. Let’s say we are not going outlaw stealing, we are just going to look at the factors that contribute to a persons need to steal and seek to eradicate those. Once we do that we’ll all be fine. Does that work? Of course not. If that was the case some people would change, but others will always want to steal no matter what, thus we have to have laws that serve as a deterrant. Does anyone want to live in a country where the above is the policy on stealing? I know I don’t and I grieve the fact that I live in a country that enables the killing of the innocent and defenseless.

    Here is the big problem: Killing an innocent life is worse than stealing.

    All those things that BO is proposing are great… for the mother. And we SHOULD have compassion on single moms that have been deserted by their deadbeat impregnators, but at the end of the day the mother will still have the legal right to kill the child. That is problem. Where are the laws that protect the child? BO is all in favor of helping moms, but at the end of the day is enabling her to kill as a legal option really true help? Legislation will not change anyone’s heart, thus we have to have real consequences legally in order to make the choice to kill an actual deterrent. Will laws against abortion make abortion completely go away? Not anymore than rape, stealing or child abuse will go away, but are not we all thankful that we have laws against these things that are wrong?

    One more question: In all this talk about helping moms and doing what is in their best interest…since when should we as a society say that it’s in the women’s best interest to be enabled to kill? Over and over again we hear about the weight of guilt that these women who have had abortions carry around with them day after day. I don’t want to enable that.

  • http://theoblogy.wordpress.com/ Tony Jones

    @Justin: No need to feel apologize for your wonkishness. Actually, I respect it. It’s just not my thing. And, I agree, far too many on both sides are ill-informed about the real implications of the Roe v. Wade decision.

    @Zach: It’s not his campaign staffers who don’t want him to talk about it, it’s some of his more liberal supporters. In fact, his staffers are asking him to talk about it.

    To get a little taste of how the religious outreach people in BO’s campaign feel, read Mark Silk’s post:

    http://www.spiritual-politics.org/2008/09/lack_of_faith.html

  • http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47 Keith DeRose

    Progressive Christians don’t love abortion, they despise it. It’s a terrible blight on our society.

    I’d count myself a “progressive Christian” — at least in most regards, and, in particular, on abortion: I don’t believe criminalization is the way to go. And I certainly don’t love abortion. And, yes, I’d call it a blight. So what Tony writes seems true of me. But there is a danger of possible misleading here. Some may read this as indicating progressive non-criminization-of-abortion-Christians hate all abortions as much as do strident pro-life Christians. And that may not be true in a given case — and certainly isn’t true in my case. (I’m of course not speaking for Tony or for any other particular progressive Christians here, but I would confidently say, in general, that I’m far from alone in this.) The very strident pro-lifers I’m thinking of here think, for instance, that you have a person of “full moral standing,” as it’s sometimes put (meaning moral standing equivalent to a normal human child or adult) “from the moment of conception on.” And I don’t believe that.

    I’ll add — provocatively — that I often wonder whether the strident pro-lifers themselves *really* believe that. One of my reasons for wondering is that if we say that full moral status begins at conception, it then looks like a WHOLE lot — probably more than half — of people of full moral standing die very early in pregnancy. I’m not talking about miscarriages that people know about, and often mourn. I mean *really* early: often involving failure to implant. [For some info, see, for instance, the testimony before the President's Council on Bioethics here: http://www.bioethics.gov/transcripts/jan03/session1.html . To get to the most relevant part, search for the first occurrence of "SANDEL": It's in answer to a question from Dr. Sandel that Dr. Opitz, the testifier, gets into all this.] Now if we have persons of full moral standing from the moment of conception on, then these very early deaths are as tragic as anyone’s, and we have a tragedy of TREMENDOUS scale going on here. Indeed, if more than half of the results of conceptions end in this very early way, as certainly seems to be the case, then very early fetal deaths [using "fetal" in a non-scientific, broad way, to cover a period that begins already at conception] outnumber human deaths of all other causes put together: later miscarriages, intentional abortions, cancer, heart disease, car accidents, AIDS, old age, crime, war, famine, *everything* else, all put together. I would think that if someone really believed that you have persons of full moral standing from conception on, this would be Earth-shaking news, and news that would call for drastic action — at least of an investigatory sort. I mean, maybe it would turn out that not much could be done about all these early deaths. But I think one would at least make it a *top* priority to find out exactly what’s going on, and do whatever is possible to mitigate this MASSIVE problem. Maybe there are things that can be done to prevent some of these deaths? But that’s now how those who claim to believe in “from conception on” tend to react, at least in my experience. That’s why I wonder whether they really believe what they say. (The most common explanation for why some might not spring into urgent action even if they fully believe “from conception on” that I’ve heard is involves the claim that these deaths are very natural. I don’t think that can really explain things, though: Many of the people in question place a very high priority on preventing other very natural deaths.) I should add that I don’t think they’re being in any simple way insincere or dishonest about their beliefs. I myself stand in a fairly similar relation to some of my so-called “beliefs.” I believe — or at least will often say I believe — that it is extremely bad for me (and for others in a position similar to mine) not to give a whole lot more money than I in fact give to relief organizations like CARE and UNICEF. I give more to such causes than I would have had I not encountered the arguments that “convinced” me of the moral demand on me, but still not nearly as much as I myself claim I ought to give. In some sense, I suspect, I myself don’t “really believe” that I’m morally required to give a lot more. What I have here is a funny state that has a lot in common with straightforward belief, but lacks some of the features of paradigmatic belief — most notably, certain connections with action. I act a bit, in some ways, as if I believed it [for instance, I'll say I believe it in certain contexts, and I do give more than I otherwise would], but not fully, in all respects. It’s in that same spirit that I suspect that at least most strident pro-lifers don’t really believe what they say. I realize that they’re in some state that is in some respects like straightforward belief, and that does govern some of their behavior (often including what they’ll say in a forum like this, and how they’ll vote). But I doubt this is a full belief. I’d be interested in folks’ reactions to this admittedly provocative claim.

    Anyway, I should also add that it’s certainly possible that there are Christians who do believe in full moral standing from conception on, but still think that criminalization isn’t the way to go. (Maybe that’s Tony? I can’t tell.) But for me, and for many others, that’s not the case: I do think of abortion as a dreadful blight, and I certainly don’t love it, but I can’t say I hate all abortions as much as do strident pro-lifers.

  • http://ochuk.wordpress.com/ Adam

    Thanks for hosting a really good discussion, Tony. This has been one of the better ones I’ve seen. Hope you don’t mind me weighing in…

    I think both sides of the political debate have to make a “faith choice” when it comes to picking a candidate with regard to seeing the number of abortions reduced.

    McCain supporters believe that Roe v. Wade guarantees a virtually unlimited right to abortion. This legal decision is an aberration that has provided protection to over 40 million abortions since it was ruled in 1973. Much could be said about this, but the basic position of the Republican pro-life side is this: they believe the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to put more legal limits on it (they will always say there are exceptions), and therefore hope a Republican win of the White House will ensure picks to the SCOTUS that favor overturning Roe.

    Obama supporters seem to have mixed feelings about Roe. Some think it is a bad decision that we have to live with, and other see it as a good one that protects a woman’s right to an abortion. Yet they believe the best way to reduce the number of abortions is by having other social policies in place that encourage a woman to choose life. These include things like tax benefits and economic policies that will create a better environment to raise a child. Therefore, they believe Obama’s leadership will provide that greater economic freedom and therefore hope women faced with an unwanted pregnancy will choose not to have an abortion.

    This is how I am reading the debate so far, and I have to say my lot lies with the McCain people. I think the best way to reduce abortions is to set legal limits on it. That starts with overturning Roe v. Wade and that will take a President with the opportunity to appoint SCOTUS Justices who are against it. I see the issue as somewhat analogous to slavery. The way to get rid of it was to make it illegal. The idea that there could be some sort of economic policy instituted to “reduce” slavery was nonsense. Moreover, I do not think anyone has a right to make an immoral choice just like Lincoln believed people did were not free to make up their minds about slavery (a very radical position for his time!). The function of the law is to protect human life more than it is to protect human choice.

    With that said, I will honor the choice of a fellow believer who thinks otherwise. There is no reason to disfellowship, nor should their be any claim to the “truly Christian position.” But there is a reason to believe there is a better option, and believe the McCain supporters have it.

  • Pingback: Abortion, part 2 « Life of Younkin

  • Dan

    Im,

    Let’s legalize slavery. Can’t stop it. Still today there are thugs holding girls as sex slaves and others using fear to enslave illegal aliens. The problem is more systemic than just the technical legal issue. Okay, I’m not trying to be argumentative (no, I kind of am), but seriously let’s compare apples with apples. Baby killing verses sleeping with your girlfriend. Not really on the same level.

    As far as this whole issue is concerned, this systemic approach idea is entirely valid. The overturning of Roe isn’t the only solution. But aren’t the statics (you know cold, hard, unchangeable facts) fairly clear. Pre-Roe back alley abortions were a speck on the radar. Now over a million babies a year are ripped limb from limb in their mommy’s tummy. Overturning Roe is not “demonizing mothers and doctors.” It is a strategic battle against one of the most heinous evils of our times. I’m all for helping the poor and fighting to reduce promiscuity, but if we think that will be more effective in reducing abortions than overturning Roe the statistics would say otherwise. You can argue that Roe going away is just a dream. Well then “I have a dream,” and who says dreams can’t happen. If anything Obama as major party presidential candidate says they can. It may not happen for fifty years, or longer, but most fights worth winning are hard to win.

  • Pingback: [donmillerfans.net] » Don a part Obama’s Faith, Family, and Values Tour

  • http://www.findingrhythm.com zach

    “Right, I agree, but why do you think we have laws that do criminalize those things? I would say it’s because they are objectively wrong and the government has to work to curb

    I don’t know about you, but I sure glad we have laws against rape. Same goes for the laws we should have against abortion. Saying, “having laws against abortion doesn’t matter” has nothing to do with the issue.”

    The reason your point is invalid is that the majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal. In a democracy we can only determine these things by way of consensus. Acts such as murder and rape are deemed wrong by an avalanche of public opinion. Abortion is not. While our religious convictions can inform our side of the debate, we cannot exclusively lean on our religious views when debating this issue in the public square.

    If 90% of Americans believed abortion should be illegal, then we wouldn’t be having this debate.

  • http://www.noplatform.blogspot.com/ carla jo

    Zach wrote, “And we SHOULD have compassion on single moms that have been deserted by their deadbeat impregnators, but at the end of the day the mother will still have the legal right to kill the child. That is problem. Where are the laws that protect the child? BO is all in favor of helping moms, but at the end of the day is enabling her to kill as a legal option really true help?”

    Compassion is a nice start, but what does it look like? Feeling bad for her but denying her anything remotely resembling help? We’ve taken away all kinds of pubic assistance so there won’t be any financial help for her. Childcare costs? Well she’s on her own there. So what would this compassion involve exactly?

    The mother is the one with the legal right to an abortion because once she is pregnant that is one of the two ways she can go about not being a mother to that child. Deadbeat impregnators make their choice and no one bats an eye because they don’t do the “killing,” but she doesn’t get off that easy. Maybe one of you could suggest a way to make sure than the fathers of these babies are somehow made to bear equal responsibility for the life of the child.

    If you want to protect the child, then vote for someone who will make sure that every pregnant woman has access to healthcare so that her unborn child gets what he needs to grow and develop in utero. If you want to protect that child, vote for someone who will make sure that every pregnant woman knows there will be affordable childcare so that she can work to provide for that child.

    And finally, we as a society put quite a lot of effort into figuring out how to reduce theft and rape and drug use. There are all kinds of local, state, and federal programs meant for just those purposes. Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean people stop doing it. Every blight on society demands systemic responses, not just legal ones.

  • sarah christoph

    I appreciate all the people who have responded – I really enjoy blogs of this nature because it causes all of us to think. As a woman who has had 3 miscarriages (one in the second trimester) and as a woman who was raped by 2 men taking turns with me… I have extreme feelings of compassion for unborn children, mothers who have lost a pregnancy, mothers who can’t seem to get pregnant and consider adoption, and rape victims… at one point in time I have been all of the above. I must say that it would be good in my opinion to incorperate more than one thing as a solution. For example, giving support to poor mothers, making abortion illegal- BUT instead of jail time, court ordered counseling, and make the abortion doctor do the jail time and have his license to practice evoked. I think you can help the poor and provide boundaries at the same time… like with the example of stealing above. yes it is illegal to steal, as it should be, but lets give food to the poor. Yes, you should not kill your baby, but lets stop the bad cycle by loving both the moms and babies. Protecting the babies as much as possible with the law in place and revising or making new laws and provision for those who are more likely to be in that situation- AND helping “want-to-be moms” have an adopted baby that they will love and be in a better position to take care of than the mother who didn’t want her baby. Also, since I have seen my unborn in the toilet bowl- I can tell you it was devistating to lose them! I am of the belief that if life ends with the last beat of the heart, it begins with the first beat of the heart- at 2 weeks gestation. (just thought I’d throw that in there for Kevin)

  • Diane

    I’m thankful for the likes of William Wilberforce, who spent his life fighting the battle to abolish the slave trade. He wouldn’t have settled to “reduce the number of slaves”. Where are those kinds of leaders? Vs. people who want to abandoned principles to win – whatever that means? Political gain, expediency, popularity. Wasn’t it C.S. Lewis in his essay the Abolition of Man who warned that our efforts to master “nature” will only lead to our triumph over ourselves – and who will have won?

  • Diane

    I think it is very important to point out too, that many pro-choice feminist writers are rethinking how abortion was less than “liberating” for women and some have said it is oppressive! Curiously, legalized abortion and the “pill” came on the scene about the same time and for the first time ever gave women “real choice”.

    Pro-Choice feminist Leslie Cannold states:
    “Feminists would contend that getting an abortion was no different from getting a haircut or a tonsillectomy, that the fetus was just a ‘clump of cells’ or the equivalent of a fish… many feminists have been wary of bringing ethics into the abortion debate because they know it means taking a long, hard look at their relationship with the fetus.” Cannold calls for a “thorough feminist discussion of the moral aspects of abortion”.

    Pro-choice advocate Celeste Condit says: “The human fetus is a living, growing thing, increasingly precious as it develops, gains substance, and builds relationships to the pregnant woman and, through her, to the social world. The pro-Life argument forces us to face the real violence in abortion, and their truths are necessary to keep us morally responsible. They prevent us from seeing abortion as a casual act of birth control; they remind us, powerfully, that we ought to take serious measures as individuals and as a society to reduce or eliminate abortions, even if we must do so through means that do not violate the rights of women” .

    A pro-choice feminist calling for an elimination of abortions. That wouldn’t go over well at any NOW cocktail party!

    Italian pro-choice authors talk about the “techno-rape” of the female body.

    We’ve so deconstructed sexuality, pro-creation, the female body that we need to put this all back together again.

    I believe the left and the progressives are at fault here as they’ve made political hay out of being the party of choice.

  • Pingback: Obama and Abortion « The Bravery of Stillness

  • http://www.takeyourvitaminz.blogspot.com Zach Nielsen

    zach,

    You said: “The reason your point is invalid is that the majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal. In a democracy we can only determine these things by way of consensus. Acts such as murder and rape are deemed wrong by an avalanche of public opinion. Abortion is not. While our religious convictions can inform our side of the debate, we cannot exclusively lean on our religious views when debating this issue in the public square. If 90% of Americans believed abortion should be illegal, then we wouldn’t be having this debate.”

    I am sure glad that this logic did not finally win the day with William Wilberforce in his fight to abolish the slave trade.

    You point is well taken, that is why I am spending so much time talking about it. We need pursuade and talk and talk about this abortion insanity.

  • http://www.takeyourvitaminz.blogspot.com Zach Nielsen

    Carla Jo,

    I agree with much of what you said. We don’t have to have an either or system that this discussion is usually framed in. Either we outlaw it and all the mothers get screwed, or we help the mothers and babies get murdered.

    We need both! The problem is that for all BO’s rhetoric on “limiting abortions” he simply doesn’t have a track record on this. He is going to fight to make abortion as legally as possible. Do the research and I’m sure we’ll agree.

    You said” The mother is the one with the legal right to an abortion because once she is pregnant that is one of the two ways she can go about not being a mother to that child.”

    This makes no sense to me, so you are saying, “Since she is pregnant thus she is then endowed with the right to kill the baby she carries?” That does not follow.

    You said “And finally, we as a society put quite a lot of effort into figuring out how to reduce theft and rape and drug use. There are all kinds of local, state, and federal programs meant for just those purposes. Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean people stop doing it. Every blight on society demands systemic responses, not just legal ones.”

    I agree. So let’s agree that we need to outlaw abortion AND provide societal structures that make is unthinkable as well just like we do with stealing, etc.

    z

  • http://www.takeyourvitaminz.blogspot.com Zach Nielsen

    On April 17th, 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act”. Here is Barak Obama on why he was disturbed by the Supreme Courts ban on partial birth abortion:

    I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.

    In what parallel universe do people (shockingly, Christian people as well) look at this procedure that Obama supported over and over again ( http://iwka.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/partial-birth_abortion.jpg – don’t worry its a drawing – If you don’t believe this picture is accurate or “propaganda” then walk down to your local Planned Parenthood and ask them to describe it for you.) and say to themselves, “Yes! I am voting for Obama!” I honestly don’t give a rip about McCain becoming president. He is probably the lesser of two evils. But anyone who supports the above process IS MORALLY DISQUALIFIED NO MATTER WHAT, RIGHT? Just like a president in favor of slavery would be. Slavery used to be legal too, so please don’t give me the majority rules argument.

  • http://www.takeyourvitaminz.blogspot.com Zach Nielsen

    I have been hearing quite a bit from folks who disagree with me in this discussion that “we can’t legislate morality”. I think MLK Jr. had some great comments about this stance. See if you think this applies to abortion:

    Martin Luther King Jr.:

    Now the other myth that gets around is the idea that legislation cannot really solve the problem and that it has no great role to play in this period of social change because you’ve got to change the heart and you can’t change the heart through legislation. You can’t legislate morals. The job must be done through education and religion. Well, there’s half-truth involved here. Certainly, if the problem is to be solved then in the final sense, hearts must be changed. Religion and education must play a great role in changing the heart. But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also. So there is a need for executive orders. There is a need for judicial decrees. There is a need for civil rights legislation on the local scale within states and on the national scale from the federal government.

    - Taken from Martin Luther King, Jr.’s address at Western Michigan University, December 18, 1963

  • http://opinionciudadano.blogspot.com/ Santiago

    On the topic of abortion, even many people who defend the possibility of legal abortions, they say they are not pro-abortion, but they don’t want to punish women who are in this difficult situation. In Germany a curious thing has happened. Something that reflects that legal abortion affects adversely to the country. And also that the change is possible: you can promote a culture of life with the support of the citizens, when really there is a real wish of avoid abortions. Since the liberalization of abortion in this country, the number of abortions is officially four million. For that reason, among others, children are seen as an unintended effect of having sex. Many people thought it was necessary to promote greater social acceptance of children in an aging society. And civil society acted, without waiting for action by the State to promote births. They joined several media organizations in a campaign. Interestingly, after the campaign, the birth rate has risen in Germany. The video is exciting. Look here: http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=SztG8JpxvHY
    Santiago Chiva (Granada, Spain)

  • Pingback: TONY JONES ON OBAMA ON ABORTION « the (re)blog

  • http://redemptionjunkie.blogspot.com Heidi Renee

    As an American living in Canada, and a full-fledged Obama supporter and a woman with a passionate ethic of all life being sacred I believe that one of the biggest contributions that can be made to reducing the number of abortions is universal medical care and decent parental leave laws.

    What woman can afford an unplanned pregnancy without medical coverage and the loss of work that comes from needing to care for a newborn? Complications in delivery can bankrupt a family with care and coverage – so how can we expect a woman without coverage to carry a baby to term while knowing she is going into massive amounts of debt, and that the debt will increase because of her need to be off work for an extended amount of time.

    Universal medical coverage and decent parental leave laws will be one of the most elemental building blocks to reducing the number of abortions in America. If you are truly pro life you should be pro universal health care.

    There will still be abortions, but the financial considerations some women must make will be lessened by the types of decisions that Canadian & European countries have taken to truly honor pregnancy and parenting.

  • Diane

    Heidi,

    I’m always worried when I see statements like this:

    “If you are truly pro life you should be pro universal health care.”

    Here are some stats on the rising abortion rate in Canada.

    http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml

    And another link:

    http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070713/d070713b.htm

    I don’t think you have any statistical argument to show that universal health care can be a big contributing factor in reducing health care.

  • Diane

    Sorry, I meant to say reducing the number of abortions!

  • http://notes-from-offcenter.com Drew

    Tony a,

    The wait list IS part of the problem along with a host of other problems. Unless you address how you will support unwanted child birth, making abortion illegal simply shifts the problem and the burden elsewhere. The issue is to reduce the number of people waiting for adoptions and reform how adoptions are done. There is no incentive for it. To wit, a good friend of mine who is infertile would like to adopt. Unfortunately her husband was called to active duty and she is now considered a single parent until he returns. As a result her chances of adopting are nil. Should her right to adopt not be more than a right for a mother to have a child that will not get the support and nurture it needs? That is the disconnect that needs to be resolved. My problem with an outright overturning of Roe v. Wade is that it does not address the problem of life support after the fact and shifts the obligation of life support elsewhere. The problem simply mutates and is not resolved.

  • http://redemptionjunkie.blogspot.com Heidi Renee

    Diane, I am no where near saying that universal health care will CURE or SOLVE the abortion problem – I am saying that people who truly want to live in a pro-life world need to provide women with health care.

    This is a wholistic problem, it’s not just about fetus rights – abortion hurts women. I am adamantly pro-life – and I believe that life is complicated, and the solutions aren’t going to be legislated away because we want them to be.

    One of the most important parts of helping a woman to carry her baby to term is to support her through the process. Health care is a huge missing link in this process in the states. To be fully embracing the ministry to women who are faced with this choice they will be much more able to make choose life without the financial contingencies clouding the issue.

    I don’t personally believe that we will ever be able to wipe abortions off this globe, but we can give women and their babies the best chance at life they could have together by providing them with medical care and real parental leave laws.

  • Joyce

    Diane claims a “rising” Canadian abortion rate but the Statistics Canada page she links to says the exact opposite. In fact it uses words like “fell” “declining” and “fewer” numerous times. Even her other source, an anti-abortion source, shows a steady decline in abortion rates since 1999. Canada’s abortion rate is about one-third lower than the U.S.

    It’s a fact that if women don’t have the financial resources to raise a child, they are far more likely to have an abortion. 75% of American women having abortions say it’s because they can’t afford to have a baby – http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html (and yes I checked first to make sure this website doesn’t say the exact opposite of what I claim)

    Universal healthcare is obviously a strong contributing factor to Canada’s relatively low abortion rate (abortion is fully covered) and we also have paid parental leave. Incidentally Canada has no abortion restrictions whatsoever, and it enjoys strong support for women’s rights and contraception. This seems to have helped reduce unintended pregnancy (and thereby abortion), as well as reduce the stigma of abortion and allow it to be more integrated into regular healthcare, resulting in fewer delays and better access – although there’s still much room for improvement of course.

  • http://mikevandrie.wordpress.com/ mikevandrie

    Hey Tony I believe that Christians should vote for justice. If we are going to live out the mission of God then in our vote for what is the best for justice. Now there is no Christian way to vote, whether it is the old Christian right, or the more liberal Christians always voting against the right.

    If I am concerned about justice then who I vote for has to be someone who will do things that will help justice. Now on abortion I believe that you are wrong. If abortion is made illegal it will reduce the number of abortions. Now you may ask why is this a justice issue. The reason why is where are most of the planned parenthood centers. The answer in urban areas, who is there African Americans and Latinos. Being a part of an urban church that concerns me. I am going to vote for those clinics to be made illegal. Now I am not naive enough to believe that this will solve the whole problem, however it will be a huge help. I think that it is wrong that there is a huge number of African Americans and Latinos that have been killed off.

    The next justice issue is on welfare. The welfare system is horrible for those who are in poverty. It really has been another form of racism. It has told the African American community “you are not good enough to make it, here is a handout.” This may sound crazy, however if you want to read more about it read some John Perkins.

    Tony I know Obama’s platform sounds great, yet it is not going to help out those that it is supposed to.

  • Diane

    Joyce -

    Sorry, but one year of a decline does not a trend make. And if the argument is for safer, fewer abortions because of access to government paid abortions and universal healthcare (which means access to birth control) why does Canada still have so many? And yes, so many as the numbers are over 100,000 each year. That’s a lot of abortions, isn’t it? I guess if your the one being terminated.

  • Joyce

    It’s a six-year trend so far, Diane (1999 to 2004, most recent year stats are available). After all restrictions were removed in 1988, abortions rose for 10 years, then started to decline. Why don’t you actually read the websites you linked to instead of inventing your own assumptions? Since even the anti-abortion site made that trend clear.

    Canada’s abortion rate is 14.6 per 1000 women. Not far off from the lowest rate in the world – western Europe at 12, while the U.S. rate is 21. So please get off your high horse, and while you’re at, it stop throwing stones from inside your glass house.

    The real questions that YOU need to answer are these:

    1) Why does the U.S. have such a high abortion rate when it is far more religious than Canada and western Europe?
    2) Why does Canada have a low abortion rate when it has no restrictions against abortion?
    3) Why do countries that have lots of abortion restrictions or that ban abortions outright have just as many or more abortions as countries with no laws or liberal laws? (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html)

  • Diane

    It’s amazing to me that figures of 100,000 are considered low when one discusses abortion but not if the discussion turns to war? I don’t understand that. I don’t think 100,000 is a number to have as our goal. Innocent life is lost no matter the statistics. It’s sad when a woman sees abortion as the choice/solution. Feminists for Life slogan – Women deserves better (and society, and children and even men!) Abortion politics have hamstrung the US debates so that everything is seen through the abortion lens. Even as we seek to enact parental notification laws – oh no! Roe vs. Wade is being infringed upon. We are losing our ‘choice’. The cloning and embryonic stem cell debates in the U.S. have to be filtered through abortion. Curious that Canadian law bans human cloning and forbids women to sell their eggs while having liberal abortion but in the U.S. these debates take place in light of the abortion debate. It’s like a union negotiation, where everything is seen as a take away. IMHO every sane piece of legislation gets stuck in the abortion gridlock as anything that restricts, limits, protects is seen as taking on the sacred cow – choice and rights.

    I’m not throwing stones but trying to engage in civil conversation. I’m not on a high horse. I just really do hate abortion b/c it kills innocent life and is not good for women (including me).

    My friend who is an African American pastor is terribly worried that in the U.S. 57,000 black babies are aborted every month. He says thats 1.3 every minute. We can throw statistics back and forth but the reality is stark. Some would even say it’s a holocaust. Is that being on a high horse? I still say, where is the outcry of injustice?

  • sarah christoph

    obviously a lot of people are passionate about this subject… Tony… you have anything to comment on those arguments? Just curious on any further thoughts you might have. It seems to me that everybody posting ANYthing is looking at this from a compassionate perspective- the focus on WHO to help first varies and HOW to help varies, but we all want positive changes- it is encouraging that there is discussion taking place. I think apathy can be deadly in and of itself. Just trying to find some common ground here- how else do we make our world a better place to live in and even be born in if we don’t seek this?

  • http://www.findingrhythm.com zach

    Zach N.,

    You wrote: “I am sure glad that this logic did not finally win the day with William Wilberforce in his fight to abolish the slave trade.

    You point is well taken, that is why I am spending so much time talking about it. We need pursuade and talk and talk about this abortion insanity.”

    I wasn’t trying to imply that the argument can’t be won. Folks like William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King Jr. won the debates of their day.

    But I do think that much of the talk coming from Christians about criminalizing abortions rings hallow when Christians aren’t also considering it a crisis that there are so many unwanted children in this country without families. If life is truly that sacred, then maybe caring for the children that are already here is job number one.

  • Joyce

    The reason abortions happen is that women get pregnant. Globally, about half of women who experience unintended pregnancies will get abortions – regardless of any laws or risks to their health or lives. There are 46 million abortions in the world every year. The key to reducing abortion is to reduce unintended pregnancy, but that can only go so far, because preventing pregnancy is a very tricky and difficult thing to do over a lifetime. For many women, it’s simply impossible for various reasons.

    Regardless of one’s moral view of abortion, it is a fundamental aspect of human life. It occurs everywhere in every country across every social strata and in every time period. It cannot ever be eliminated. (And when it’s illegal, 65,000 women die and 5 million are injured every year from unsafe abortion.) Even in ideal situations – i.e., prosperous stable countries with liberal abortion laws, that teach responsible sexuality, and that offer comprehensive sex-ed programs and free and accessible contraception – the abortion rate can’t go much below about 7 per 100,000 women a year.

    Abortion is also something that only women need, men do not get pregnant. Therefore, any restriction on abortion is by definition discrimination and a violation of a woman’s rights – a punishment for being a woman, as it were.

  • http://www.perlaetus.blogspot.com Nathan

    I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the simple fact that even if you’re “brass ring” of overturning Roe materialized it wouldn’t eliminate abortion. It wouldn’t automatically criminalize it.

    It would just return the issue to the states.

    Even without Roe there’s still going to be abortion and you’ll see organizations assisting women who live in states that do criminalize abortions getting to the states that still provide it.

    I think both sides are too Roe fixated.

    Also, there’s an increasing number of Roe opponents that are not tackling just abortion, but the issue of “the right to privacy”…saying things like this keeps us from living in an “open society”…

    Now THAT strategy is scary to me…

    just my 50 cents…

    peace

  • http://www.perlaetus.blogspot.com Nathan

    ooops…JT did mention that bit in #9

    oh well…I guess it really doesn’t matter…

  • Dan

    Get the facts. Links to Obama’s actual votes and transcripts from the Illinois proceedings on infants born alive protection.

    http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html

    Key paragraph,. quoting Obama.

    “As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?”

    He thinks it is an undue burden on an abortionist, who intends to deliver a dead fetus, to have someone else determine if the little guy who is not “limp and dead” is in fact alive. He wants the guys who were taking such infants and letting them gasp and die in a linen closet to be the ones to determine viability – putting the wolves in charge of the sheep.

    And then he has the “audacity” to tell Rick Warren that when life begins is “above his pay grade”.

    Just the facts…

  • http://www.perlaetus.blogspot.com Nathan

    ai yi yi…

    do ya’ll really want to start trotting out the “moral” problems of both candidates? gimme a break…

  • http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47 Keith DeRose

    Highly recommended for those interested in the topic: A lot of the relevant facts about Obama and the Illinois “born alive” bills are presented here:

    http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/bornalive.html

  • Pingback: More on Abortion and Your Vote

  • tony arens

    Which is worse – 65,000 women dying from unsafe abortions if made illegal or 46,000,000 babies dying? Joyce, your use of statistics do not present a very sound argument. I don’t think morality should be based on statistics.

    Isn’t the solution right in front of our nose? The alternative is 9 months of discomfort, humiliation and pain, however, in the long term a baby is saved from death, and a once pregnant woman can be in peace knowing that she made the right choice. Oh, and one more couple waiting to adopt falls off a now mile-long waiting list.

    Nine months, or an entire lifetime of potential grief and pain, not ever really knowing if you made the right choice? Now there’s a statistic.

    I know too many women that have had abortions that are still hurting 25 years later.

    If abortion is unjust, it should be illegal. And your “opinion” that abortion rates would not be reduced if the practice was made illegal is incorrect. There are sound statistical resources pre and post RVW that tell the truth.

  • http://www.findingrhythm.com zach

    For the society as a whole, it would be much worse for 65,000 women to die from unsafe abortions. How many of those women are already mothers who have kids who are dependent on them? Not to mention what they contribute to the economy, etc. I understand the point you’re making as far as number of deaths, but with so many kids in our country who are already unwanted, who have no family to call their own, moving around within the social services programs…….adding more to that number doesn’t seem to make sense from the perspective of the common good.

    I’ll make the point again, if those individuals who are so passionately pro-life and who want to criminalize abortions put as much energy into giving the unwanted children we have in this country a home, they’d be doing a lot more give their argument substance. If all life is truly sacred, then make room for those children who are already here, in our midst and unwanted.

  • Pingback: Hijacked! « a regular expression

  • http://www.xanga.com/truthserum Jim Henderson

    Here is the inescapable, fact based reason why Obama must not be President.

    Over the last fifteen years, 37 federal judges at all levels have been called on to decide the question of the constitutionality of laws prohibiting the barbaric, murderous “late term abortion.” Of that 37, 19 were appointed Republicans, 18 were appointed by Democrats.

    Of the Democrats, every single one ruled against the constitutionality of such statutes. Of the Republicans, a bare majority, 10, voted to sustain the constitutionality of such laws. Fortunately for the sake of eternal mercies, among those 10 Republican judges, five were appointed to the Supreme Court, and ultimately, the Mengelerific partial birth abortion was made susceptible to legislative prohibition.

    So, from this example we see that judges appointed by Democrats will strike as unconstitutional even those statutes that, by Democrats and pro-aborts own claim, affect a micro fraction of all abortions. Every single one of them.

    On the other hand, at the hands of Republican-appointed judges, just better than an even fighting chance of success is found for the prohibition of that gross barbarity.

    Remember, here, we aren’t talking about 5-6-7-8-9-10 week abortions. With partial birth abortions were talking about nearly completely delivering an alive, intact child. leaving only the head in the birth canal. The physician then punctures through the skull of the child, sucks the brains out with a aspiration hose, causing the skull to collapse for easier (for the mother) passage.

  • tony arens

    Zach – you missed the point – 46,000 vs 46,000,000 – they are both horrendous – for you to choose which one is worse says a lot.

    “adding more to that number doesn’t seem to make sense from the perspective of the common good” – OK Zach, what do we do when another segment of the population doesn’t make sense from the perspective of the common good? The elderly population in this country is sky-rocketing – people are living longer, need constant care and are a strain on the economy.

    Should we abort them too?

    What about severely handicapped children – those that cannot survive without around the clock care.

    Should we abort them too?

    Oh, if we could only identify those who would be a stress and a burden on society and our economy while they’re still in the womb – then the crime can all tidy and legal.

    I saw my daughter after 8 weeks with a 3D ultrascan – beating heart, eyes, fingers – a miracle performed by the living God.

    Read your reply again – dude, you sound like Joe Stalin.

  • http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47 Keith DeRose

    I’m a bit of a collector of examples of people comparing their opponents in an argument to Hitler and/or Stalin. (I don’t presume all examples of this are unwarranted. But I am trying to understand when & why this is actually done, & when it might be warranted.) So, just to be clear about the example:
    Tony, Is it in comment #51 that you’re saying Zach sounds like Stalin?

  • tony arens

    Keith – I’ve always been intrigued with Josef Stalin. Many of his quotes are interesting as well as some of his opinions with regard to human class structures (more – so in his later years when he became very paranoid).

    “One death is a tragedy – a million is a statistic.”
    “Death is the solution to all problems – no man, no problem.”

  • http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47 Keith DeRose

    But, Tony, my question: Is it in comment #51 that you’re saying that Zach sounds like Stalin?

  • Rick

    Zach -

    You wrote:

    “For the society as a whole, it would be much worse for 65,000 women to die from unsafe abortions. How many of those women are already mothers who have kids who are dependent on them? Not to mention what they contribute to the economy, etc.”

    If I take your theory to it’s logical conclusion, anyone who contributes to the betterment of the social sphere is worthy of life. Is that what you’re saying?

    You then posted, “If all life is truly sacred, then make room for those children who are already here, in our midst and unwanted.”

    I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. But I don’t know one pro-life individual who is not also pro-adoption.

  • http://www.findingrhythm.com zach

    Tony, I’m not saying your fundamental position is wrong. I, like you, am pro-life. All I tried to do was answer the question you asked. If that makes me a Stalinist, then I can see why folks such as yourself are having hard time getting through to those who disagree with you.

  • http://www.findingrhythm.com zach

    Rick,

    You ask, “If I take your theory to it’s logical conclusion, anyone who contributes to the betterment of the social sphere is worthy of life. Is that what you’re saying?”

    I do believe that. Furthermore, I believe that anyone who has life or a potential for life should be protected. In my opinion, the willful taking of a human life in any circumstance is wrong, be it abortion, the death penalty, and war.

    Also, being pro-adoption and actually adopting a child are two very different things. If everyone who is willing to throw women who have abortions behind bars actually adopted an unwanted child, they would be making a much more meaningful case that life matters. The tunnel vision focus on Roe V. Wade is really distracting from the larger set of issues that we must consider when reducing abortions.

  • tony arens

    Zach – lighten up a bit pal… I NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CALLED you a STALINIST! I said your comments “sounded” like Stalin. (did I answer your question Keith?) He advocated “the common good” even if the means were at odds with moral code.

    Actually Zach, I’ve have had many opportunities to talk to folks that disagree with me, and many of the results have been wonderful – and some not so good, but you have to try.

    I have often wondered if folks like yourself who tend to waffle on the fence, and only admit that you’re pro-life when challenged, couldn’t put a little more effort toward the cause – go out on a limb, take a chance – it can save lives.

    Here’s a story – I worked with a woman that I became close friends with several years ago. She got pregnant, had an abortion, and it has scarred her to this day. I decided not to try to convince her to take the higher road. To this day, she wishes that I would have tried. I’ll never refrain again, I will always state my case in as gentle and as caring a way that I know how.

    Jesus would have shown her compassion at the well, but he would have also told her to sin no more.

  • http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47 Keith DeRose

    did I answer your question Keith? No, why don’t you?: Was it Zach’s comment #51 that you were talking about when you said he sounded like Stalin?

    For future reference: When you tell someone they’re sounding like Stalin, or Hitler, they’re usually going to object. You then either defend your maneuver or apologize. After pulling a stunt like that “lighten up a bit, pal” just doesn’t cut it.

  • tony arens

    Sorry Zach -
    I get fired up about abortion – mainly for some very personal reasons. I don’t understand nor have compassion for those who take a victim status when it comes to unwanted pregnancy when is reality, the only victim is the unwanted child. Didn’t mean to get down on you…

    Keith – I guess I have a thicker skin than most. Taking offense to another’s comment (written or verbal) is so prevalent in society today, we’ve been forced to water it all down – that’s a real bummer.

  • http://www.findingrhythm.com zach

    Tony,

    My wife and I adopted. While sitting on our fence, we decided that would speak more to the issue than voting for McCain.

    And if anyone needs a little lightening up, it’s you Tony. You asked “which is worse?” and I gave you an answer. It’s totally possible that you could have disagreed with my answer without playing the Stalin card.

  • tony arens

    I hope you accepted my apology – congrats on adoption! That’s awesome. Actions are very effective, and so are words – especially when they’re combined. Oh, and I’m not a McCain supporter.

  • http://www.findingrhythm.com zach lind

    I don’t remember indicating you were a McCain supporter. I made that comment because, if I’m not mistaken, it related to Tony’s post on which candidate is the stonger “pro-life” candidate.

    But I do believe if you plan to vote for McCain, that is a form of support for his candidacy.

  • Pingback: Why I’m Voting For Obama - Part The Third « 9 Numbers


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X