Centrist Democrats will relate to Crunchy Cons instinctively. Secular liberals who won't should read it carefully for commonalities, instead of demonizing others who see differently. Or they can reread Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, whose deep faith sharpened their political point of view. Neither was a moral relativist. Both could distinguish right from wrong.
In the absence of such Democrats on the ballot, Dreher's "Crunchy Cons" will vote Republican. As one of them explains, "The Republican Party is at least somewhat hospitable to religious traditionalists, while the Democratic Party is hostile, or at a minimum has made itself unable to oppose those who are hostile. It's the difference between an unreliable ally and an enemy."
The key to winning elections is to have more allies than enemies.
DLC likes CC
Monday July 31, 2006
Here's praise from an unlikely quarter: a former Clinton speechwriter likes "Crunchy Cons." Carter Wilkie, who calls us "progressive reactionaries," writes:
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Top Features
- Seven Patron Saints for Healing and Comfort
- A Prayer for Children Going to School
- Accidental Blessings
- Inspiring Barack Obama Inauguration Quotes
- Don t Take Away My Coffee
- Other People s Beds
- We Have It All
- Multifaith Mealtime Prayers
- Man in the Mirror
- John McCain: Constitution Established a 'Christian Nation'
Franklin
I wanted to appeal to emotion and not statistics because I don t have time for statistics ;-). However, I do generally accept the CDC statistics in whole but I disagree with your interpretation. I purposely said viable or late term to distinguish between the two. It was a true either/or. I intentionally wanted to differentiate between the two. My understanding is that the 27th week is considered the beginning of the late term. Since I don t make the distinction, I gave you the choice to argue stats from the 3rd tri or viability > 21 weeks. Regardless CDC statistics will do. To make it easy round down to 40 million and multiplying by only 1% that makes it 400,000 late term abortions since stats were kept. This is about what I guessed.
My gut tells me that a lot of them were not strictly medically necessary. My understanding is life of the mother situations are rare. I am not saying that these children were healthy. I am saying that they are not strictly medically necessary (e.g. Down Syndrome). I know of a mom when diagnosed was immediately asked if she wanted to have a procedure to terminate the pregnancy. They were very careful to use language that might humanize her child. My gut tells me that many many late terms are due to circumstances like these, and performed on children who have conditions like Downs Syndrome.
This brings us to the scariest part of the debate, which is the legal definition of personhood and when does personhood begin and end? We believe from conception to natural death, hence we will defend this position because many people will, and have in the past, narrowed that definition of human life to suit their ends. I tend to refer to them as materialists. We should distrust any court or legislative body s decision to redefine human life.
Where we do have common ground is in the area of aid. I agree, that we must support those women who have the courage to carry their babies to term. We must help the weak. I wish not to have a government program do it, I hope that it can be faith based. If I could have all of my FICA back, I pledge 10% of my annual FICA for this type of aid. I suspect that by definition a secular state funded abstinence program would be morally bankrupt . However, faith based programs are not morally bankrupt. I have to go now, but if you like we can continue. Don t be cynical. Cynicism has a real dark side bordering on despair. Despair is bad. There is so much to hope for, and life is beautiful. Helping others find hope is the greatest joy. We ll find a way, just keep working.>
John,
I well understand, especially in a limited forum like this one, the desire to not get bogged down below a general level of detail... but this is also a case where statistics -- or more properly science -- must be give due weight and consideration.
Neither of us has the numeric breakdown of the second-half pregnancy statistics. I intend to do this search-for-research as soon as I get a free stretch of hours at home. While I agree with your intended distinction between late-term and viable, I suggest we stick with the after-21st week period for two reasons: it is the period in which the mother's health and survival are most likely to be threatened by a complication of pregnancy, and it is the period during which the possibility of the fetus not surviving to term or very far after delivery is going to be most accurately diagnosed.
I must point out, also, that finding out about a condition such as Downs after the sixth week is simple medical irresponsibility on the part of the mother, and if the physician involved has not prescribed the procedure to find this and other conditions by that point, then incompetency is involved as well. In short, there is very little excuse for a second-half abortion that is not directly, medically pertinent to the health of mother and fetus. You will, I'm sure, disagree with Downs (or anything?) justifying a 1st-trimester abortion, but I hope you can agree that ignorance is inexcusable with modern medical technology.
I find myself squarely on the side of life when a fetus is quite likely to come to a normal, safe birthing, but may be otherwise inflicted, such as Downs Syndrome. But, and I must emphasize this, I cannot sanction the use of laws to force a woman to carry such a fetus to term. There is one mitigating circumstance, and that is the "safe haven" laws in some places that allow a woman to give over her newborn to the state and simply walk away, no questions asked and no following her afterwards. Late-term "I can't have this baby" decisions do not have to result in the death of the child, and I would support a wider passage of this type of law.
There is the notion that easing the passage of a fetus or newborn who will not long survive no matter what medicine tries is itself a form of mercy... and in my head I can understand that, and in my heart I can imagine making that decision, because I was already faced with it with my mother, who left explicit instructions that she not be kept alive artificially. I took the lead with the support of my siblings, and I (figuratively, of course) pulled the plug with mercy and love in my heart.
There are those who will (and have) call me murderer. I can easily live with their opinions of me. I could not live with a mother whose mind and spirit had long since fled, just to satisfy my own child-like longing for one more cuddle. Mercy is not for the self.
I would reject both governmental and faith-based control of these things. It must be societal, it must be based in the commonly-held ethics, or it cannot avoid turing into a tyranny of the majority. That, no matter the issue, is something that I personally would fight against, no matter how closely I supported the issue.
Anyway, I digress, but I felt you deserved a glimpse into my psyche. I believe you've given me one into yours, and I appreciate the opportunity and admire what I see.>
BTW:
Cynicism has a real dark side bordering on despair.
I'm well aware of this. My cynicism is quite matured beyond this vulnerability; it gets "air time" in a very limited fashion, and only to acknowledge that my opinions are or may seem to some harsh. Indeed, it most often is used to emphasize my reaction to the "dark side" of decisions and actions of others who would be poorly served if that darker side were exposed. My view of abstinence-only is quite as much based on the hostage mentality it fosters (we'll give you money for health care, but only if you use it for abstinence-only sex ed), as it is for its disconnect from reality, as any open-minded and -eyed parent of a teenager could tell you.>
Thanks Franklin.
My own grandmother was removed from the apparatus. She struggled on brain dead for a few days and passed. We don't have disordered attachment to machines, when in doubt choose life.
It won't be surprising that my information is much different than what you are telling us here. And I disagree with a lot of what you are saying. Your information is coming from the liberal pro-choice camp.
I've picked sides. When making my decisions I look to God or try to trust those who looked to God for their authority. Who does the left look to? Usually the "smart people". Based on my experience with "smart people", and the left's sanctification of intellectuals and education, I will default to my silly faith in God.
Regarding your other statements, the question you are begging then is who informs the culture so we can get away from institutional views of morality?
It's a chicken-egg question. ;-)
Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I appreciate it.>
It would never occur to me to characterize a sincere faith as silly. Just a thought. ;)
...who informs the culture so we can get away from institutional views of morality?
Who indeed!! One hopes, that, perhaps, a multi-faith (including atheists) group brain trust would be the goal. Ethics are an eminently worthy effort to create and fulfill.
I'll take buffalo wings and an omelet with Swiss cheese and mushrooms. Once we arrive at a solution, we can sit back and enjoy good eating while we debate the philosophical underpinnings of it all. I'll bring the beer. :)>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.