DLC likes CC

Rod

Mr. Wilkie can count me out. This type of praise is the type of praise we can do without. Just curious why did you post this?>

I agree with the above: Toward the end of the review, I got the impression that he thinks crunchies are just near-swing voters with a twist(from an organic lemon).>

One could approach the review as the reviewer suggests secular liberals approach Crunchy Cons--"read it carefully for commonalities, instead of demonizing others who see differently."

Demonizing has its satisfactions, with which I'm well acquainted. But it's not good for you.>

Rod, you're getting just like Richard John Neuhaus. Lots of self-aggrandizing, self-promoting advertising.>

I'm an incurable (and uncurable) punster, so anything with more than two levels to it rates at least a chuckle for inventiveness. I find CrunchyCon reasonable and relevant as well.

As for common ground, with humor (not sarcasm) intended, I suspect that it can be found... period. I consider it a human endeavor, meaning it belongs on the list of social behaviors that any civilization should expect from its members. My POV is that I don't need to attempt to dehumanize (or demonize) anyone. The willful avoidance of any effort to find common ground accomplishes that for me quite sufficiently.

And I emphasize any effort. It doesn't take much to earn my respect. As I tell my children, effort counts for alot, especially when too many people have unreasonable expectations for results.>

John,

You ask a tough question, and ethics requires me to step back from my personal standards a bit and confess that there are "show stoppers" out there that make common ground well nigh impossible at times.

I have a personal example in my own life. My late mother was a Holocaust survivor (unlike most of her extended family) solely due to the grace and courage of the farmers and townsfolk of northern Italy (quite a few Jewish families could tell this tale). To the day she died, she held the utmost love and regard for (in quotes is as she put it) "the Italian, Catholic peasants". Sometimes in the same breath, she would assert "that there is something rotten at the core of German culture". I and my siblings would angrily remind her that she brought us up to eat bigots for breakfast, how could she be so hypocritical... but the look in her eye brooked no argument, because it is not and never can be subject to rational debate. Those were her feelings. Evidence to the contrary was a waste of everyone's time.

So, the best answer I can manage is what a marriage counselor might offer: pick your battles, and remember that while compromise is rarely pleasant, it can be tolerated.

Before I continue, using my labels of choice, I should tell you I am pro-choice. My views on taxation are quite complex (I used to be a tax expert, now I write automated systems for financial applications) and include a very jaundiced view of the Infernal Revenue Code and its demonic minions... ahem, but I've also had the privilege to work directly with IRS employees and a former Commissioner. They were and are mostly good people trying to do a very dirty job, with no illusions about just how dirty it can be. In some cases, if only Congress would listen to them for a vew moments, much that is bad about US taxation could be easily cured... but I digress.

I guess what I'm saying is while there are emotion-laden issues on which we may never come close, there are important issues that beg for a rational treatment in the face of spinmeisters playing on people's feelings like virtuosi, and that is, I hope, a worthwhile starting point for anyone's non-trivial common ground.>

John,

Your questions are fair, but your phrasing begs examination of the details.

For example, a strong implication of "What percentage of viable or late term abortions would move you to find common ground with our position...[?]" requires an explicit definition of terms. According to the CDC data, refering to Table 1 category "weeks of gestation", for many years now about 1.5% (less, for most of the period) of abortions occured after the 21st week, a bit more than half-way through the second trimester, but for the sake of argument I'll apply that to your "late term" usage. Following on to your usage of "viable", the correct question becomes of those 13,000 to 14,000 abortions, how many of them were performed with no medical decision involved other than the woman's "personal choice" to abort the fetus. I don't know about you, I'm very hesitant to guess, but my gut wants me to err on the side of nearly zero. Medical necessity is by far the only consideration in late term abortions, meaning the ability of the woman to survive her pregnancy as much as hours beyond the decision point (and for later in the third trimester, the fetus as well), let alone to a viability point or to full term. Will you insist on retaining this logic path in our discussion by claiming that a significant portion of the cited numbers is from a non-critical medical or personal decision?

I truly want to read your answer here. I would ask you to try to provide citations at least approaching the reliability and integrity of the CDC data I link to. I am trying hard to avoid making assumptions about your position, because it is my experience (over many years of engaging pro-lifers in this debate) that they go silent or switch to emotional rhetoric at this point... because the numbers don't lie, and the true number of woman's-choice abortions close to or after the viability point is very close to zero.

I invite you to read two threads in Crunchy Con. Use "abortion" in the "Search this blog:" box on the right side of the page, and follow the resulting links to "Bush and the culture of death" and "Culture of Death" (two separate blog entries and threads). They are both over 100 entries long, but I and many sincere people tried hard to engage these difficult subjects in those threads, and I was honored to make my contributions in a civil (well, mostly) atmosphere of mutual respect.>

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.>

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.>

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. :)>