What's McCain's abortion position?

My own mother was strongly advised to abort me, and, frankly, my life, and her life, hasn't been without a few bumps in the road. But she had my father to make sure she was taken care of for the nearly three months she had to stay in bed to carry me to term, and she had the grit and determination to help me get into adulthood despite multiple physical disabilities.

I like being alive. I'm glad she had the courage to give birth to me. But I'd also like to think that there is a life greater than this one, and if she hadn't had my father to take care of her while she stayed in bed, earning their living, paying their doctor bills (this being in the late 1940's), insulating her from the questions of people who were too quick to offer condolences on the loss of the child, I think I could forgive her for not bringing me into life. Before we are in our mother's wombs, the Scripture implies, God knows us.

I agree with Rob that it's far more important to support a pregnancy than it is to condemn an abortion, and that's done one woman at a time. It's hubris to assume we can take care of all babies for all time with law. We have to trust God and do our service one woman at a time.

Heather, it can be tragic. I had an aunt who had an illegal abortion in 1928, and who never recovered emotionally (she had successive bad relationships with men, always setting herself up to get hurt) or physically (she had gynecological problems until she died in 1979, and she was never able to bear another child). Medicine has advanced dramatically since 1928, but the black market abortifacients are still likely to be very dangerous.

But there's another danger in the criminalization strategy, a spiritual danger. I think it's just plain un-Christian to push for laws that condemn others faced with choices we don't face, while ignoring the support of the women who face them. I believe that as long as abortion is not required, as it is China, it's far more important to support mothers than it is rally support for or against politicians on the basis of some litmus test.

How much confidence can pro-lifers realistically have?

Well, the last 30-odd years should answer that.

Personally, I don't think abortion matters much to [McCain] one way or another.

Based upon stuff from insiders that I've read over the years, the same is true about Bushes 41 and 43. Certainly their actions have indicated that they care only to the extent that it gets them votes. Ditto the majority of major GOP pols--real pro-lifers are few and far between. As I've said many times, the GOP uses abortion to manipulate their base, while doing nothing substantial about it and at the same time mucking everything else up beyond all recognition.

Rob and Heather: Yours are two of the best posts on the topic I've read. Kudos! I think it's slowly getting better, but still it is all too true that too much of the pro-life movement is fixed on abortion as an abstraction, without really caring much about the child once it's born, or the mother before or after she gives birth. I think Rob's post particularly gives all of us our marching orders!

I also like Heather's distinction between opposition and criminalization. I wish that at least some bishops in the U.S. Catholic hierarchy could think with a little bit of of the subtlety you show, without either squishily brushing it off or thundering that abortion trumps all other issues under all conceivable circumstances and implying that those who vote, however reluctantly, for a pro-choice candidate are hell-fodder. But given the hierarchy's behavior in other areas, what would one expect (sigh)?

As for the "pro-life" people, they're really just anti-choice

When the "choice" involved killing a pre-born child, heck yes, I'm "anti-choice". I don't think people should be allowed to make that choice.

Do all the "pro-choice" people think that I should have the "choice" to beat my wife? To keep someone as a slave? To steal something if I don't feel like paying for it?

If you're so worked up about "choice", please explain why I shouldn't have the right to make these "choices"?

If "choice" is the holy grail, why don't you support my right to make any "choice" I want, in any area of life?

Bottom line: In a civilized society, there are some "choices" that people must not be allowed to make. And terminating a pregnancy because you don't want to have the child is a choice that I don't think you should be allowed to make.

Do people really think that the pro-life movement is all about the law and not about women?

I'll offer this one story as a recent example of the way this usually plays out in real life:

tinyurl.com/63kejo (add the http:// to the tinyurl link).

From the story in the link:

"Later that same day, Clyde called and said Heather did not have the abortion. She wanted to meet and discuss how we could help. Clyde, Heather, Ed and I all met at a local restaurant. We told Heather about the pro-life centers that would help her during and after the pregnancy. She was grateful and ended up going to Life-Choices in Camp Hill...."

Pro-life Americans want abortion to be illegal as a matter of principle, the principle that abortion is wrong because it is the direct and intentional taking of an innocent human life. But I know more wonderful stories of pro-life volunteers helping women than can be told here! Just one more: in 8th grade one of my classmates was one of seven or eight children whose father had recently died and whose mother, a nurse, was supporting the family. She helped a young lady not only not to have an abortion, but she opened her own home to this young woman. The lady's eldest son and this young woman fell in love and eventually got married, and he adopted the child as his own. I always think of them when I hear the typical pro-choice line about how we pro-lifers don't care about the child after he/she is born.

Just to clarify, killing the born is fine right? Like for your national interests? Which is really just a collection of self-interests?

Treating abortion as a right has contributed to a culture that sees sex outside of marriage without consequences as a right. The reality is that most abortions come about through casual sex, and many very prosperous and independent women who do not need money or support have abortions (and sometimes multiple abortions) because they simply do not want to be burdened with a child (or with a pregnancy followed by giving the child up for adoption).

So while I'm all in favor of supporting women who are pressured into abortions by lack of resources, I really don't believe that doing so will make a big dent in the number of abortions. Look at the statistics put out by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood's research arm) and you will find the following: most of the women having aborions claimed that they were using contraception; and the most frequently cited reason for having an abortion is that they didn't want the changes that come along with having a baby; most were in their 20's.

The reality is that we've done everything we can think of to separate sex from procreation, and pregnancy is now viewed as an injustice if the couple didn't "plan" on creating a baby. The idea that penetration is the same thing as planning on having a baby is seen as a form of oppression of both men and women.

How about this -- if you are in a situation in which having a baby will create such a crisis for you that you must kill your child to avoid it, how about NOT having sex in the first place? How about supporting women and men (yes, adult women and men, and not just "teens") faced with such potential crises to not have sex? Focusing only on teen chastity sends the message that chastity means nothing to adults, and thus once those teens deem themselves adults, they can get on with the boinking.

I think that banning abortions would help to resurrect the idea among the great majority of people that sex is intimately bound up with procreation. Because most people don't want to acknowledge this, and the behaviors that must follow from this premise, it is extremely unlikely that the majority would adopt such a ban even if Roe v. Wade were over-turned today. But at least it would be within the realm of democratic argument, and perhaps without Roe, we could incrementally over the generations come back in line with reality. Without this first step, we will never get to a place where unborn human beings are respected as having inherent human dignity.

So yes, I'm in favor of banning abortions. But I don't believe I will live to see that day. The most I can hope to accomplish is chipping away at Roe and then hoping those little cracks will eventually be filled with the truth and expand inch by inch. And at the same time, that people will be encouraged to think about the reality of what abortion means, and alter their own behavior accordingly. And meanwhile millions of babies are killed, millions of women are harmed, millions of men are harmed and our culture is degraded.

Whatever John McCain thinks of abortion, at least he isn't a champion of it, as is Obama. Perhaps that's the most we can hope for in our politicians, given the reality of our culture's devotion to the great idol of sex.

Hello Kelly,

Way to keep the tone of discussion elevated here.

In many ways, Sally, I'm an old-fashioned guy. So I understand the frustration you feel as the caravan moves on, leaving you behind. The reality is, I'm afraid, not enough Americans share your views on the nature of sex and what it can be used for. We're now two generations into "if it feels good, do it." I've read enough history to know that you can't turn back the clock to happier times.

Any attempt by any national politican to outlaw abortion will essentially end his career. Reversing Roe won't do that, so most people yawn, roll over, and go back to sleep. But to do as you suggest will create an alarm that I don't think you want to hear. If push comes to shove, you'll be disappointed to learn that too many Americans won't see the fetus as a baby but as a mass of unwanted cells. And if the majority doesn't see abortion as wrong, you aren't going to be able to outlaw it.

Hello David,

"What, exactly, do you think should happen to doctors that provide abortions, and women who get them?"

I'm pro -life. I would be happy to answer your question.

Twenty years to life for abortionists, those who assist them, and anyone who actively procures an abortion. That should put George Tiller away for life.

For the women? As a general rule, no jail time. This may seem inconsistent. But it is my belief that 1) most women who have abortions are pressured into them, and 2) it would be counterproductive to incarcerate them. In certain extreme cases (multiple abortions, etc.) I might favor some kind of punishment.

At the end of the day, I believe a human life is being snuffed out. There *must* be a price for that.

But I do agree that criminalization can't be the whole answer. Women must receive support when carrying their baby to term. Even if that means spending a good deal of government money (although I still think private/parochial clinics, churches and families will be more effective emotionally).

"Culture of life" is not just a trite phrase. It has to be reflected not only in the law, but in how we act - everyone of us.

Another thing the "pro life" people haven't considered is the amazing in-vitro procedures we can do because doctors don't have to worry about being thrown in jail if something goes wrong (and of course this is about criminalization and jail time. That's the whole point of making something illegal).

Since abortion has become legal in the U.S., there have been great strides fetal surgery. If a heart defect is detected, for instance, the surgeon can go in and fix it while the fetus is still in the womb; the child is then born completely healthy and will never know the trauma of childhood heart surgery. But there is a risk that the fetus will be accidentally aborted, so when parents choose fetal surgery they have to sign a waiver.

If abortion was to become illegal again, we'd lose access in-vitro surgery, amniocentesis, and other pre-natal services that Americans now take for granted. Parents-to-be aren't going to put up with being told they can't have those services.

What's McCain's abortion position?

Check his record, not his rhetoric.

McCain votes pro life every time. His position has changed on embryonic stem cell research, and this is troubling to many pro lifers.
Rob, you wrote...

"Looking for tough enforcement of anti-abortion laws without the support system that sustains life just sends women back to the alleyways."

I have never met a pro lifer or even heard of one who would want a woman punished for having an abortion. Most understand that a woman chooses to abort when she finds herself in a desperate situation.

Abortion was made illegal around the time of the civil war, when it was discovered that a fetus was a fully formed human person before 'Quickening,' when a woman could feel the fetus move within her. Never in all that time has any woman ever been prosecuted for having an abortion. The laws prosecuted 'back alley' doctors, who not only murdered fetuses, but through poor sterilization practices and sloppy work, killed the women after taking their money.

Linda, you wrote...

"I'm afraid that if McCain is president, he'll get us into more wars we can't finish. (Speaking of which, what's the "pro-life" position on war and this "military industrial complex" we've gotten ourselves into?)"

There is no pro-life position for war. Unless soldiers are being drafted they are willing participants. Human fetuses most likely, are unwilling participants in abortion. But we can't know that for sure because they are not sufficiently physically developed to communicate their position in the matter.

Pro life positions are taken when a human life ended through abortion, embryonic stem cell experimentation or euthanasia. There are many, though not all, pro lifers who also oppose the death penalty and genocide, which is consistent and reasonable.

I challenge you to discuss the issues people who are pro life. I believe you'll find that most are thoughtful, compassionate individuals.

It is simplistic to demonize those with differing points of view and people on both sides of any controversial moral or political issue are guilty.

Linda: the key word is "accidentally". I don't see why anything would change, they have to sign a waiver now, they'd have to sign a waiver then. Murder was still illegal last time I checked, but I don't see surgeons refusing to perform medical procedures in case they lose a patient and get thrown in jail (unless the fear of a malpractice suit has gotten so bad that surgeons will no longer do anything riskier than removing an ingrown toenail).

Portugal has (or had) an interesting approach to abortion regulation. It's illegal, but it incurs no criminal or civil penalties on the parties involved.
(This may have changed, but I haven't had time to check. I first read about it in Mary Ann Glendon's "Abortion and Divorce in Western Law" which was published in 1989.)

Doug, given all the good-hearted things you have to say about Obama, am I wrong in recollecting that he has said he believes abortion is a "human right" that must be protected and furthered by the government (through federal funding, for instance)? People can have wonderfully good hearts and still be wrong and do bad things as a consequence of believing something that is false. Abortion is not a human right. It is the most striking denial of human rights.

Linda - stigmatizing bad behavior is generally a good thing, in my opinion, because it helps to prevent that bad behavior from becoming normalized. But of course I agree that it's better for teens to not abort their children. It's even better if teens are helped to avoid the behavior that led them to become pregnant in the first place.

And by the way, Rod - now that you've deleted Kelly's comment, you might want to delete my response to her. It looks a bit random hanging out there without a context (and it may put off any potential dates I could be picking up off this board!)

Finally, anyone who thinks that there were 60 million abortions among American women during the 30 years prior to Roe v. Wade (1943 - 1973), as there were in the 30 years after Roe would do well to provide some shred of evidence for such a claim. I've never seen anyone in the abortion statistic business who disputes the fact that legalization led to a drastic increase in the number of abortions.

"If abortion was to become illegal again, we'd lose access in-vitro surgery, amniocentesis, and other pre-natal services that Americans now take for granted. Parents-to-be aren't going to put up with being told they can't have those services."

There's just no logic to that oft-heard argument. Surgery or other invasive procedures on slightly larger people isn't illegal or unavailable on the grounds that "something could go wrong" so the doctors might get accused of murder. There's a plain distinction between surgery, and a lethal attack.

Linda, wars always happen so far away from here, and rarely do we hear hear reports about the loss of innocent by-standers. Thanks for the reminder.

Sally's 2:13 p.m. comments hit the nail on the head. Yes, most of the work pro-lifers need to do, and in many cases are doing, is about providing support to pregnant women and changing hearts and minds about casual sex and abortion. But there is a political dimension to all this as well, and legal restrictions on abortion would have a big impact in reducing their numbers. In our culture, all of this I have mentioned is an uphill climb. But lives are at stake and it absolutely must be attempted, even in the effort takes decades.
The Republicans in general and John McCain specifically leave much to be desired with this issue. But in spite of his rhetoric or whatever he feels in his heart, the policies Obama have endorsed make him the most hostile candidate to the pro-life cause the Democrats have ever nominated. For pro-lifers the choice between McCain and Obama is a choice between rhetorical support and tepid actions on the one hand and outright hostility on the other. I can certainly understand pro-lifers who opt to vote third party or stay at home instead of voting for McCain. But how any pro-life voter can cast their ballot for Obama is beyond me.

rr

"Just out of curiosity, Rob, how do you come to the conclusion that the mainstream of the pro-life movement wants to put women who seek abortions in jail?

Uh, logic? Abortions illegalized=abortion is a crime=women who have abortions are criminals=they get incarcerated.

Or maybe you agree with your attorney general that all illegal acts are not criminal, as long as they involve members of the Bush regime."

Anishnaube, that's a fair question.

There was a proposal in Louisiana a few years ago, whether or not one should have taken it as justly intended, that would have jailed women who get abortions. Criminalizing abortion wouldn't result in a penalty on the order of a parking ticket.

But here's my thinking in general.

Each and every abortion absolutely without exception is a tragedy.

On rare occasions, an abortion is morally justified. This would be especially the case when the abortion is the only alternative to save the life of the mother. It might be the case when there is a high probability the child would be stillborn and carrying the child to term would result in the mother's inability to bear children in the future.

That's where I would draw the lines. The thing is, I don't have confidence in the political process to define the wisdom of when an abortion might in fact save a life.

I would agree with Rod that a "feel good" provision allowing mothers abortions to preserve their mental health is immoral--but I don't want any legislative body anticipating medical situations and drawing up laws that might actually kill some mother.

That means that the law might allow some abortions that are immoral (and it would be quite the task to define the morality). What I am saying is care for women, support them, give them the alternatives that preserve life. That, to me, is the moral approach.

As for the Bush administration, that's another set of issues. Sorry, not going to take the bait.

I have a feeling most of the posters are pro-life, but I will say that the GOP will never seriously work to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Why? Because that would mean the GOP will become a permanent minority party. Survey after survey, whether on Fox News or Gallup, shows that most Americans want abortion to stay legal and Roe v. Wade to stay. Most independents who lean Republican and moderate and "country club" Republicans are pro-choice. Many, if not most, Republican politicians in the Northeast, West Coast, and Upper Midwest are also pro-choice. The GOP used to hold a majority in all 3 branches of government and was abortion really challenged? Not really.

I think it is very interesting how some of the same people who endorsed Mitt Romney are now saying how critical it is to have a prolife veep nominee. The gang at the corner and National Review generally, Rush, Hannity - ALL endorsed a candidate who came to the prolife position and many other more conservative positions just in time to run for President. I do not really understand this.

The only supposition I can make is that the phony social conservatives (NR, Rush, Hannity, etc) are (a) trying to reestablish their prolife bonafides and (b) they want to keep the prolife voters (and social conservatives) in the republican camp without any real results and this way they can cynically claim a prolife victory when their interest is only prolife votes and not prolife policies.

Steve, so you're supposing Republicans use pro-lifers for votes...the same can be said about Democrats using the poor.

Perkins? Ugh. Apparently, he doesn't realize the Republican brand is in trouble, because it tilted way to the religious and right direction over the past few decades. Ever since then, the GOP has lost previous "red states" and has never won a landslide like it did under Eisenhower, Nixon, or Reagan. When I saw Perkins on TV, he struck me as sort of a hypocrite and I was once again proven right by Wikipedia..

Perkins has urged Congress to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment which would ban same-sex marriage throughout the United States. He has also criticized civil unions. [2] In Perkins' own words, from a July 21, 2006, column in the publication Human Events:

"The definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is rooted in the order of nature itself."

Connections to White Supremacists

In 2001, Perkins addressed the Council of Conservative Citizens (successor organization to the anti-integration White Citizens Council) - a known racist group with an agenda of white supremacy. [3]

Political Endorsements

The Nation claims that in 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for use of his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was campaign manager for Louis E. "Woody" Jenkins, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the Jenkins campaign $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke."[4]

The Family Research Council says Blumenthal's claims about Perkins connection to David Duke are false. They say Duke's "connection was not known to Mr. Perkins until 1999. Mr. Perkins profoundly opposes the racial views of Mr. Duke and was profoundly grieved to learn that Duke was a party to the company that had done work for the 1996 campaign." The response to the Nation article does not address the appearance before the Council of Conservative Citizens. [5]

"Christopher Shays, Sherrod Brown, Arlen Specter, and others, who would either be persuaded or not and tell you why without flip-floppery."

A President like McCain or Rudy would attract more "Rockefeller Republicans" into office, making cooperation easier in Congress. Americans are tiring of partisan politics and extremists on both sides.

"McCain will deliver tough lines to their votes, but if he becomes president, he'll take the majority's side over that of a small special interest group every damned time. You can trust me on that one."

That goes for any President. Even during the general election, candidates will move towards the center. McCain and Obama's recent remarks have angered many conservatives and liberals respectively, though centrists are pretty okay with it all.

That might be unfair to poorer women. Make it three months salary instead of a flat $10,000. An abortion doctor who performed a 100 a year would have to pay 25 years salary so likely end up going to jail instead.

If [McCain] thinks migrant workers get $50/hr, he'd probably offer me $200 (but I still wouldn't vote for him).

Granted, I wasn't at the event in question, but I don't think McCain's necessarily saying migrants get $50/hr. He was probably responding to the view - earlier mentioned in that article - that Americans would be willing to fill migrants' jobs if employers were to "pay a decent wage".

I bet he figured, "Well, I'll name an unreasonably high wage - something that nobody would be willing to pay. Say, $100k to pick lettuce for a year. And when I get no takers, my point - that migrants do work Americans aren't willing to do - will be made."

Then, of course, he gets takers...heh. Then there was his lame comeback of questioning Americans' work ethic.

Given that the audience ended up calling his bluff, I suppose you could say he was "out of touch" in that sense. But that's not the same as him thinking that migrants get $50/hr; I seriously doubt he does.

MI
Is the imposition of such lenient sentences for doctors & mothers who (respectively) perform & procure abortions an end in itself?

Or are such sentencing provisions merely a way station to a world wherein abortion really is treated like premeditated murder (i.e., a high-level felony, with women who procure abortions being prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder)?

And if the former, then how do you reconcile such statutes' relegation of the unborn to second-class citizenship with the prolife argument that, because the unborn are "persons" equally-deserving of rights, abortion is therefore morally equivalent to premeditated murder?

That's the thing that gets me, too. There's a bit of a logical inconsistency saying something is the deliberate unlawful killing of people (Aka, murder. That's what murder is defined as, intentionally and unlawfully causing the death of a person.), and thus...the people involved should be fined. Or one of them should be imprisoned and one of them should get off scott free.

If abortion is murder, than the doctors and the women should both be charged with murder (Technically, the woman with murder for hire and the doctor with murder.), and the staff of the abortion clinic and, for example, the person who drove the woman there, should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Society doesn't think of embryos as human beings, and thus won't accept the same penalty for killing them. But pro-outlawing-abortion people think that they can get around that by defining them as human beings...who, somehow, it's nowhere near as bad to kill. So they're 'people', but, you know, not very important ones.

So either there's some serious failure of them to grasp what 'equal protection under the law' means, or this is, indeed, just a first step to having the same penalties as the murder of other people.

"So they're 'people', but, you know, not very important ones." David TC

TR: From a legal perspective age and competence is already dealt with in terms of rights. Ten-year-olds do not have the right to vote, negotiate certain contracts, smoke cigarettes, marry, drop out of school, or take varied jobs. A comatose person is restricted based on their physical/mental situation.

In any case intent and competence is a factor. Many to most abortions occur in cases where the person does not have the intent to kill a human person. This makes them more like manslaughter. Yet I'd be willing to agree it's unlikely such cases would ever be seen as manslaughter because of disagreement. Still I think it can be legally justified as something between "killing an ape" and manslaughter of a child. Religiously it is simply manslaughter or murder if the person has intent. If you desire you can see this as how Jains would consider eating meat to be murder, but even in India the law can't.

"The pro-life cause has largely lost in first world countries, so they're getting more desperate." SR

TR: I'd agree with this if you'd agree that the Pro-Choice cause has also largely lost in first world countries. Most first world nations have legalized abortions, but they do not allow it to be as unrestricted as Roe allows.