Smoke and mirrors, all of it. These are all "solutions" which no self-respecting conservative can consent to. The price is too high, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Ben Wheaton | July 9, 2008 11:03 AM

"The price is too high, I'm afraid."

And that is the problem. The conservative pro-life community wants the problem solved but does not want it to cost them anything. They would be happy making abortion illegal and putting doctors (and in some cases, the pregnant women) in jail. But they do not want to spend a penny to try to deal with the economic and social realities that these women have to face.

I am happy that Tony and others are trying to do this with the Democratic platform. I wish them success in their efforts.

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 11:09 AM

Vineyard: "As I said before - 95% reduction in abortion is not enough. It neds to be 100% no abortions."

So how to propose to do that? Outlaw coat hangers? Seems there are at least two naysayers on this thread who just can't stand the idea of a Democrat being an activist against abortion. If you want to criticize Tony's post, find something of substance to criticize. If he's working to reduce abortions, you should be cheering him.

Then again I'm probably just playing the lute to a cow (as the Chinese would say) by writing this.

Posted by: I and I | July 9, 2008 11:20 AM

"Smoke and mirrors, all of it. These are all "solutions" which no self-respecting conservative can consent to. The price is too high, I'm afraid."

I hate to say it, but if this is true, then no self-respecting conservative can be a Christian.

I think it was Tony Jones who said that poverty is the cancer on our society, and abortion is the symptom. Trying to address the symptom without treating the underlying problem is like putting a Band-Aid on cancer. Thank you, Tony C., for taking the cancer seriously, and challenging other Christians to do so.

Posted by: Another nonymous | July 9, 2008 11:31 AM

These are all "solutions" which no self-respecting conservative can consent to. The price is too high, I'm afraid.

I'm not sure what qualifies Ben Wheaton to speak on behalf of all "self-respecting conservatives." Perhaps he can enlighten us.

It's really ironic how a move within the Democratic party to loosen its unwavering stand on "abortion right" can be treated with such hostility by some pro-lifers, considering that they for so long have complained that the Democrats refuse to accept fellow Democrats who do not adhere to their rigid stand.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | July 9, 2008 11:34 AM

Thanks for this post, Tony, and for your work on the Democratic platform. It's unfathomable to me that these measures aren't in place yet and I hope and pray that they are soon.

Posted by: JEM | July 9, 2008 11:52 AM

"I hate to say it, but if this is true, then no self-respecting conservative can be a Christian."

Oh, please. Simply because we don't take Tony's argument for a liberal solution to the abortion at face value does not mean we cannot be a Christian.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 9, 2008 12:15 PM

"It's really ironic how a move within the Democratic party to loosen its unwavering stand on "abortion right" can be treated with such hostility by some pro-lifers, considering that they for so long have complained that the Democrats refuse to accept fellow Democrats who do not adhere to their rigid stand."

That's simple...it's because the pro-life conservatives are not really interested in saving the lives of children. They want to elect Republicans, and are simply using the pro-life issue to energize voters. If the Democrats put together a credible, effective response that actually helps reduce the demand for abortions these conservatives lose a mobilizing tool.

David Kuo hit the nail on the head...it's about power, not life, with these folks.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 12:25 PM

"When over 70% of the abortions are for sex selection or terminating a downs syndrome or other 'defected' fetus, it doesn't look good."

Where does this statistic come from?

Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2008 12:29 PM

kevin s. "Their stand remains unchanged. Are we supposed to applaud a mere change in rhetoric?"

How much would you be willing to increase your tax bill to save 200,000 babies each year, Kevin? 1%? 2%

What are 200,000 babies lives worth to you?

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 12:33 PM

Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2008 12:29 PM

Where does this statistic come from?

Any number of Gov't or secular websites. 70% is on the low side according to some. There was an article on PBS about 9+ years ago that had simular stats.

Blessings-
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 9, 2008 12:36 PM

Rick: 'Here's the question: Given that at this point you cannot have both, would you rather take serious steps to end abortion or simply win the rhetorical war? As a dedicated "pro-lifer," I'll take the first any day.'

Exactly! Thanks for stating this, Rick. For too long the conservatives in the GOP have been content sacrificing the lives of 4000 children a year on the altar of political victory. Now that the Democrats have the temerity to suggest that there might be a way to reduce abortions, their real motivations come to light.

They don't want to save lives...they want to WIN!

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 12:39 PM

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 12:31 PM

Whoa - decaff?

Let's just take one, Birth-control.

Just about any female can go to a Planned Parenthood clinic and get 'the pill' so that she will not get pregnant. If you look at the dosage of the perscription in the majority of the cases - it is what OBGYN's give to a pre-menopausal women to assist her. The dosage will do little to prevent her from getting pregnant. This was in the PBS special and you can ask most drug reps that sell to PP clinics. Higher failure rate means repeat business. Kind like a Dr perscribing a pill for your heart but giving you a low dosage so that you have to keep coming in for further tests and pay for his new car. But it seems to be OK for PP to do it.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 9, 2008 12:47 PM

The gung-ho Rush/Hannity inspired know-nothingism that pawns itself off as conservatism has zero to do with Christianity. It doesn't love its enemies, it has to constantly create them and having done so, demonizes them non-stop.

The immoral minority of these media megaphones broadcasts a kind of faux patriotic hypocritical moralism while thumbing their noses at morality with extreme prejudice in their own personal lives of wealthy self indulgence and opulent splendor. Although these cons are often Francophobes on the air, Rush himself lives in a gilded imitation of the Palace of Versailles.

Liberalism's grandiose failures are well documented. But these professional bellyachers are making merchandise of the good instincts of their listeners, turning that common sense into useless tilting at windmills. And then laughing all the way to the bank and to K Street.

Anyone who is a genuine Christian won't see anyone working in a political party other than the GOP as a pawn of Satan when they seek to do good.

What Campolo points out is absolutely the truth about the rubber-meets-the-road realities about what confronts girls who get pregnant.

We see, at long last, that certain "conservatives" have no shame - for them, right-wing economic elitism trumps pro-life compassion - as it did all along. Financial conservatives have ALWAYS been mostly pro-abortion and have made sure that nothing other than stirring up a voter base to win elections for what they really wanted ever occurred to disturb it.

Christians, you have been gamed.

Should Campolo and others succeed, these faux conservatives might actually have to do something pro-life for real, or lose the votes of the "whackos" (as they term us in the White House).

Posted by: N.M. ROD | July 9, 2008 12:51 PM

I wonder if Ben is talking about dollar cost or ideological cost--or both? But in either case, Another nonymous is right.

D

Posted by: Don | July 9, 2008 12:55 PM

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 12:39 PM

They don't want to save lives...they want to WIN!

BULL!

In 73 there was a 'winner take all' attitude on the left that said we won - $%^& off.

We have been consistantly lied to -

it is victimless - BULL! - tell that to the woman who is so depressed being post abortive. That is why most of my money goes to helping these women under that there is forgivness and grace.

the fetus feels nothing and beside the medication given to a 3rd trimester abortive woman kills the fetus anyway - BULL! To kill the fetus with drugs given to put a woman to sleep is murder and anistesologists will tell you that is not the story. The fetus can be OK even with the mother in a chem. induced sleep.

There have been so many lies put forth as truth by those in the abortion industry - that is why I am suspect of what they have to say. Less abortions - I am in support. Abortion on demand - now you are loosing me. Abortion for sex selection of to terminate a 'defective fetus' - no way!

So - if we are to come to terms about working together to reduce the number of abortions - we need to define terms and conditions of our involvment on both sides.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 9, 2008 1:00 PM

finally figured it out: you're visiting here from Dogpatch in Htrae. There's no other logical explanation to make sense of the data. I can now rest easy.

LOL!

Posted by: Don | July 9, 2008 1:23 PM

If conservatives were at all serious about truly ending abortion they would have long ago reached out to those of other political persuasions and in the process linked abortion to a consistent "sanctity of human life" stance, which I personally have done as long as I can remember. However, as Ben insiunated above, doing so will cost money and, more importantly, authority -- which probably most conservatives crave more than anything else. See, it's easy to raise sand about abortion and just demonize the likes of Planned Parenthood; it's another thing entirely to look at the bigger picture and consider other ancillary issues that lead to abortion.

Posted by: Rick | July 9, 2008 1:37 PM

If Tony wants to truly compromise on this issue and reduce the abortion rate, why not offer to join pro-life Republicans in criminalizing abortion after a certain point in pregnancy as long as pro-life Republicans sign on with his anti-poverty initiatives? That is true compromise.

Except that probably most pro-life Republicans themselves consider compromise beneath them. As has been mentioned above, the Republican Party has for decades used abortion as a political battering ram for the sake of votes, plus the "culture warriors" have never had any interest in doing so anyway. The "partial-birth abortion" bill, to give an example, represented little more than a cheap political point; as Wallis said in another entry, the bill criminalized only about 2,500 abortions nationwide.

Posted by: Rick | July 9, 2008 1:45 PM

Posted by: carl copas | July 9, 2008 1:08 PM

Mr Carl - you are smarter than that.

You mean you believe that it is proper to perscribe a low dosage so that the failure rate is high and provides future income - regardless of the health issue?

As for lining in Gogpatch - I will soon if I don't get a job. You see there is very little help for those of us that have paid into the system over the past 30+ years. You have to loose almost everything then the state will give you more money. The UI in MN will not even cover the cost of my house and I have a modest one at that. But if you are on the system - there is money for you at several state agencies.

Anyone want to purchase a kidney - going to the highest bidder soon.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 9, 2008 2:13 PM

Rick - Tony said that pro-life Republicans must join him in his efforts. If what you say is true - that most pro-life Republicans wouldn't want to compromise when there's an actual compromise on the table - what makes Tony think they'd take him up on his proposal when he doesn't offer them any compromise?

Posted by: Eric | July 9, 2008 2:27 PM

sometimes i think that we Christians hope that some sort of magic legislation will eliminate the need for us to love our neighbors.

do your part and vote. it's important and a privilege. but don't depend on the government eliminating the hurt or fulfilling the needs of broken people.

Posted by: nashville | July 9, 2008 2:34 PM

I believe the real answer is just to tell people to stop having sex

oh, I think the Dobson crowd tried that, didn't they?

so why should North American Christian young people listen to their parents on that bit of Christian morality when affluent Christian parents are as materialistic and possessions oriented as everybody else, opting to totally ignore or disregard Christ's significant directives regarding the power of the material to sap the spiritual?

good on you, Tony!

and, for what it's worth, CanWest/Global is reporting today that 65% of Canadians either strongly support or generally support the decision to recently award Dr. Henry Morgentaler (who almost single-handedly orchestrated the abolition of any abortion law in Canada back in '88) the Order of Canada; I'm not pleased by that statistic, nor am I expecting the spiritual sky to fall-in anytime soon, as many social conservatives consistently warn

Jesus had far more to say about wealth than matters related to sexuality,no?

Posted by: canucklehead | July 9, 2008 2:44 PM

"I would be willing to increase my tax bill to save 200,000 babies. I disagree that Tony's plan will do so. I don't believe that economic redistribution alleviates poverty."

To extend my earlier analogy, there's also no guarantee that chemotherapy, radiation or surgery, or even all three together, will extend a cancer patient's life. Nevertheless, given the choice, most cancer patients would be willing to spend a considerable amount of money to take the chance, even though a Band-Aid would be cheaper.

Posted by: Another nonymous | July 9, 2008 2:52 PM

I wish sojourners would talk about something besides abortion .

Nat

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 2:57 PM

I've read through the majority of the comments and, forgive me if I've overlooked this, but why isn't anyone discussing adoption as an answer?

Posted by: chris | July 9, 2008 3:27 PM

I've read through the majority of the comments and, forgive me if I've overlooked this, but why isn't anyone discussing adoption as an answer?

Two reasons that come to my mind: Today 90 percent of women who give birth out of wedlock keep their babies, often because they cannot bear to part with them; there's far less shame than before in being an unwed mother. In addition, in the black community there's already a glut of available children.

Posted by: Rick | July 9, 2008 3:37 PM

Oh goody, Tony Campolo has discovered the old play of using the life issue to leverage support for a minimum wage increase and expanding medicaid coverage.

I got a sneaking suspicion you guys would support all that even if it didn't do a thing to abortion rates.

But that's okay, I have my own plan to lower the abortion rate:

1. Reduce the minimum wage so that unskilled workers -- both men and women -- can at least find jobs. (I realize that's counterintuitive, but a crappy job is better than no job, if only because one can build a work history that one can use to land better employment.)

2. Charterize and voucherize education so that all Americans will have a chance to have a decent education (improving their earning potential)

Hey, what do you know, those are the kinds of things I've supported before too. Amazing how that works.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | July 9, 2008 3:37 PM

Moderatelad dodges giving a source for his statistic with: "Any number of Gov't or secular websites. 70% is on the low side according to some. There was an article on PBS about 9+ years ago that had simular stats."

Laziness and dishonesty about on the conservative side in this argument. When pinned down on such wild statistics, often the answer given is "everybody knows it" or "it's published everywhere" simply masks a known lie.

Well, Moderatelad, here are some sources for you to consider in future estimations of why women have abortions.

www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

As you can see from this (assuming you can read) economic reasons for abortion come in as first or second reason, depending on which survey you look at. Health of the fetus comes in at less than 5% on ALL of the surveys. Sex selection DOESN'T EVEN SHOW UP.

But of course, that doesn't support your particular position on this issue, so you resort to some nebulous citation of a PBS show that you cannot even name or specify when it was broadcast.

What a joke you are, Moderatelad. I'd laugh if it weren't for the fact that there are so many like you who trade on disinformation to prevent any meaningful progress in decreasing the number of abortions in this country.

Enjoy your tax refund, Moderatelad. Jesus will ask for an accounting of it at the judgment seat.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 3:48 PM

Mod'lad: "Mr Carl - you are smarter than that.
You mean you believe that it is proper to perscribe a low dosage so that the failure rate is high and provides future income - regardless of the health issue?"

Of course it would not be proper. But, having been married to a physician for over 20 years and knowing dozens of M.D.'s, I'm not aware of a single instance of what you allege.

What I am aware of are many many doctors, including my wife, giving samples to patients who can't afford prescriptions or health insurance; many many doctors, including my wife, actually paying out of pocket for patients' prescriptions, in particular elderly ones, who can't afford to pay; dozens of doctors, including my wife, who went to the hospital last night and worked until well after 3 a.m. without financial renumeration because patients in another local hospital had to be evacuated due to encroaching wild fires. Then she got up at 6 a.m. to begin the regular work day.

Posted by: carl copas | July 9, 2008 3:53 PM

Mod'lad: "Mr Carl - you are smarter than that.
You mean you believe that it is proper to perscribe a low dosage so that the failure rate is high and provides future income - regardless of the health issue?"

Moderatelad finds it profitable to believe this lie, and to spread it widely. It effectively de-fuses any real discussion of addressing poverty and its connection to abortions and, instead, turns the discussion into a wild goose chase.

Meanwhile, Moderatelad must find it comforting to have children dying in abortion centers at the levels they do today. Otherwise he would be more interested in addressing any kind of program that would save even a portion of them.

How much is the life of a fetus worth to Moderatelad and his ilk? Not one more penny than they are already spending.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 4:06 PM

"The folks who send their kids to the better schools don't want kids from lesser means attending them because it defeats the purpose of putting their children in those schools in the first place, which is the real reason vouchers almost always get voted down."

This is a valid point, but not one that argues against vouchers. I would be for eliminating opt-outs. Typically, special provisions to charter school and voucer programs are fought for by teacher's unions. I'll do some research and see if this was the case in Cleveland.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 9, 2008 4:12 PM

While I like Tony Campolo, I don’t agree with his politics. (Nor do I agree with the term “God’s Politics” which does the exact thing they accuse the Right of doing: hijacking God for political gain.)
The “”Abortion Reduction Plank” leaves out the absolute part of being pro-life, that abortion is murder, to be oh-so-politically correct (and watered down). In criticizing Pro-Life Republicans, the focus is taken off the real issue and it becomes a smokescreen to camouflage the fact that the Democratic Party has catered to Planned Parenthood and its ilk, plain and simple. Now the public, yes, and especially the Evangelicals, will be treated to a promotion of “kinder, gentler” pro-life Democrats who have a better idea and the better way. Really!
The thing about abortion is that a spiritual problem has become the norm in our society. The mindset has become total acceptance in many circles because it is not only legal, but considered a right and a main point of the feminist movement. It is not merely “economic problems” that drive women to abortion, nor is that what needs to be addressed here – it is so much more! The philosophy of death to the unproductive members of society, the ideology of non-personhood, is the real issue. Throwing money at the problem, asking the government to become even larger and to tax its citizens even further, in an attempt to assuage guilt over this situation, is futile.
Mr. Campolo seems to have forgotten crisis pregnancy centers and other institutions created by private and religious organizations (even Pro-Life Republicans) to aid women the event of an unplanned pregnancy. He would ask the government to step in and take the place of the church as a charity organization, creating a mire of red tape and hoops to jump through, no doubt. To say “It is not enough to advocate the overturning of Roe vs. Wade” in referring to Pro-Life Republicans is true to an extent; but to use it as if the Democratic party has done more, or is morally superior to the other party regarding this issue, would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic!

Posted by: Rosemary BuShea | July 9, 2008 4:14 PM

I've noticed my question has gone unanswered up to this point so I'll repost it. It probably got lost in a lot of the name calling.

My question to Tony Campolo (and any one else who shares his policy solutions) is: Why should we be trying to reduce the abortion rate? I understand why we want to reduce poverty rates and increase education about contraception, but why abortion rates?

Posted by: Eric | July 9, 2008 4:16 PM

Roseymary,
You bring up an important point. We need to change the culture here. Neither reducing poverty nor outlawing abortion will change the hearts and minds of people who would abort their baby. Justice hasn't been done if a woman who would abort her baby because she wasn't, in her mind, making enough money to support a child, suddenly comes into money and doesn't abort her baby. Her mindset is still the same: "my financial status is what determines whether or not my baby lives or dies". We need to change this mindset. A start would be for changes in our laws to protect these babies for their sake, but in order to create a truly just society we also have to change hearts and minds along with laws.

Posted by: Eric | July 9, 2008 4:26 PM

Typically, special provisions to charter school and voucher programs are fought for by teacher's unions. I'll do some research and see if this was the case in Cleveland.

Given the contempt the public has generally for teacher unions, it wouldn't matter.

Posted by: Rick | July 9, 2008 4:32 PM

Also, it is utterly disingenuous to claim that we have a conservative court. Five of the nine Supreme Court justices have blocked any challenges to the central tenets of Roe v. Wade. Campolo knows this.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 9, 2008 4:36 PM

"Also, it is utterly disingenuous to claim that we have a conservative court. Five of the nine Supreme Court justices have blocked any challenges to the central tenets of Roe v. Wade. Campolo knows this."

Nevermind that the GOP held control of both Houses of Congress and the White House for four years, but never once moved the Human Life Amendment from committee. Nor did they even schedule it for debate.

But, you can guarantee that they will have it in their platform once again this year, and will mention it in campaign ads throughout the election season.

Then, once the election is over, the amendment goes back to languishing in committee, never to see the light of day until the next election cycle.

And the conservatives eat it up, never suspecting how they are being played as fools by the GOP.

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 4:46 PM

"You might want to check with the Plain Dealer; my own paper ran a wire story on it. Anyway, the program was declared unconstitutional back in 1996, which is how it became news in the first place."

That decision was later reversed. Whether it was declared unconstitutional is irrelevant. I searched the Plain Dealer and could not find the article, or any evidence, of what you describe.

Can you perhaps provide a link to some text of the provision itself that allows suburban schools to opt out of the program?

"Given the contempt the public has generally for teacher unions, it wouldn't matter."

Well, it did matter, because the Unions were the ones who crafted the initial lawsuit on Constitutional grounds.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 9, 2008 4:49 PM

That decision was later reversed. Whether it was declared unconstitutional is irrelevant. I searched the Plain Dealer and could not find the article, or any evidence, of what you describe.

Well, it did happen because I remember when it did (perhaps the Associated Press ran something, or perhaps the Columbus Dispatch). But, as I said, Cleveland's voucher program did have an opt-out clause for suburban schools.

Anyway, I remember reading a front-page story about vouchers in the Wall Street Journal about three years before that, and one woman in suburban San Francisco was livid that they were being considered -- I learned from that story that suburbanites have a vested interest in maintaining the reputations of their respective school districts becaus they went to keep their property values high. And to do that, sad to say, folks know they need to keep certain types of people out. This is the real reason why they oppose vouchers -- that is, that benefit the poor. Because they will learn something that the teachers already know -- the problem never was with the schools themselves.

Posted by: Rick | July 9, 2008 5:05 PM

"Anyway, I remember reading a front-page story about vouchers in the Wall Street Journal about three years before that, and one woman in suburban San Francisco was livid that they were being considered"

I'd be interested to read her viewpoint, though I'm not surprised an affluent SF type opposes vouchers. Do you have a link to the article?

Honestly, I can't discuss any of this without seeing what you are referencing.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 9, 2008 5:15 PM

I'd be interested to read her viewpoint, though I'm not surprised an affluent SF type opposes vouchers. Do you have a link to the article?

I don't -- it was a hard copy, and in 1993 at that. But in fact, most affluent people oppose vouchers, which is the point.

Posted by: Rick | July 9, 2008 5:22 PM

"But in fact, most affluent people oppose vouchers, which is the point."

Maybe that's why I do support them. I am not affluent.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 9, 2008 5:37 PM

Moderatelad wrote >>I believe if you had read my post a little closer you would see that I am not talking about the 'medical community'. My references were to Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry.

I second that ideal. The socialists and pasifists in the Teddy-BOH-Hilery Rodham cliqe are not interested in dialog but only self-congratulating each other.

So carl, yur wife is a doctor? Guess who wears the pants in that family? LOL. Just kidding--more power to ya.

Moderratelad, its impresive how many issues you comment on and know what yo're talking about. You must read and watch stuff like Cspan constently. Keep telling it like it is!!

Posted by: proudnascarfan | July 9, 2008 5:40 PM

Since health insurance has (inevitably?) come up in this thread, and Carl Copas has shared his experience as the husband of a doctor, let me extend on my "cancer" analogy by sharing a bit of my experience as the husband of a long-term cancer survivor.

There is absolutely no question that my wife and I have drawn far more out of our medical insurance than we will ever pay in, both to treat the original cancer and, way down the road, to treat the long-term complications of the original cancer.

Do I feel guilty about this? Not on your life. Do I feel ashamed of that fact that if we had been poor in this country, or working in the kind of non-minimum wage job that Wolverine advocates, we would never have been able to get quality treatment and, if she had even survived, would now be ineligible for medical insurance at all? Every single day. Ashamed not for myself, but for the country and the society I live in, in which a poor, hard-working woman with cancer would have gotten second-rate treatment and then been denied any health insurance at all.

By the same token, I feel ashamed of living in a country full of "pro-life" people who will shout at women having abortions but are not willing to spend a penny of tax money to assist them. Deeply ashamed. And yes, as you can tell, it's personal.

Posted by: Another nonymous | July 9, 2008 5:51 PM

The case could also be made that part of the reason our abortion rates are so high is that a generation of men have abandoned women for Uncle Sam to take care of them via perverse welfare policies. Having govt step in again to reward illegitimacy might even make the problem worse by leading to more male abandonment which leads to more abortions.

That's often not what happens. In many cases the tension between parents is so great that separation is the only option; sometimes the mother actually throws the father out because she considers him dead weight. About two decades ago I was working at a grocery store with a colleague who had two children out of wedlock but had nothing to do with the father. Reason? "I don't want to take care of three children."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 6:21 PM

'Pro-Life'? Oh, you mean a policy that guarantees every child medical care prenatally on, nutrition, clothing, housing, eduacation? THAT'S 'Pro-Life'

'Family Values'? Oh, you mean everyone who wants will havwe a job that pays enough that that person can keep a partner home with the chldren? THAT's 'Family Values'.

And don't you 'evangelicals' be giving me your Darwinism. Yes, 'Darwinism', Social Darwinism. 'The poor are unfit and deserve to die.'

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | July 9, 2008 6:33 PM

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 6:08 PM

So the first label wasn't good enough so now we use the 'fool' word, whatever. Some of you liberals are like a bunch of Baptists - you don't believe people are true believers unless they walk down your church isle.

You know I have taken what you have said at face value for sake of discussion. The only sand that I have is either in my sneakers from walking on the beach or in the litter box for the cat. Since you speak so eloquint about it - you must have first hand experience with the head.

I don't read with Jesus will be interested in tax cuts or returns but be sure that it is in your last will and testiment that you are burried with yours.

You have know idea of what I have done or helped or assisted throughout my life and personally I don't care if you ever do.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 9, 2008 7:50 PM

Why are there no posts by women on this blog about abortion? We've heard from Wallis and Campolo. But are there no women leaders in this movement who will speak to this?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 9, 2008 9:12 PM

I have no idea what it means to be pro-life any more. Campolo and Wallis seems to be "personally opposed, but don't want to impose." The old "seamless garment" position or the "consistent ethic of life" position did not think that way about abortion. They believed that Roe V Wade was wrong and that unborn babies should be protected by the law. Their position was not simply "abortion reduction" any more than they were for "racism reduction" Nobody would say, "I'm personally opposed to those who refuse to serve black people in their restaurants but I don't want to impose my morality." So why do Wallis and Campolo act this way with abortion. I think they have sold out to the Democratic Party. I think Ronald Sider and Evangelicals for Social Action have a lot more integrity on this issue. They have not sold out.

Posted by: John Pratt | July 9, 2008 9:34 PM

someone's mother,
You do see the irony in your comment, don't you? My comment was the one comment here talking about finding a compromise position, and you pick it out as the one post that shows you the futility of reaching out to the other side.

Your comment is a perfect demonstration of the futility. I'm talking compromise and you're shouting "No Compromise! They only want to control us!"

Posted by: Eric | July 9, 2008 9:52 PM

So why do Wallis and Campolo act this way with abortion. I think they have sold out to the Democratic Party.

It could be because they don't want to be identified with the absolutist political right, which has savaged both of them for years for not toeing its ideological line. And, as has been previously said, the Republican Party has used the issue for what Pat Buchanan called "positive polarization" -- it has no interest in justice, only power. The day the conservative movement is no longer in power in this country is the day you'll see "liberals" proclaim themselves as openly "pro-life" -- in fact, liberals of that day wrote and enacted the abortion laws in the first place.

Posted by: Rick | July 9, 2008 10:11 PM

Eric: Your "compromise" is to make criminals of women who have abortions. But only some women; so to you, evidently, that makes the concept OK. Essentially, you're saying: I'm willing to help Democrats for Life develop a few social service programs as long as they're willing to help me send some women to jail. What's the meaningful compromise in there? Where is the sliver of common ground with people who want to help women? That you're not demanding jail time for ALL of us who have abortions? I guess if one considers women as nothing more than abstractions, that might seem like an honest compromise.

Posted by: mikkie | July 9, 2008 10:55 PM

"What do you think about laws protecting babies inside the womb from being killed through abortion?"

I think Jesus will say that isn't enough when it comes to saving "the least of these." I think Jesus would expect us to do more than just the easy, no cost to us, passage of legislation. I think he would expect us to sacrifice, as he sacrificed.

Imagine this...you are standing before Jesus, and he asks you what you did to stop abortions. You say that you worked real hard for 35 years to pass laws and amendments to make it illegal.

What are you going to say when he asks you, "and how successful were you at that?"

Take your wallet tonight, open it, and see if you can find any money in it that does not belong to God. If you do, I'd love to see it. Then ask yourself this question...how many babies would God be content allowing to die so you can keep a little bit more of that Bush tax cut?

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 11:20 PM

Posted by: RJohnson | July 9, 2008 11:29 PM

Which is more important to you; saving babies or winning elections?

In a word BOTH.

Even Fawell worked with mothers that decided to keep their babies. Helped them get an education so that they would be productive and provide for their child. %^& - St Wellstone just got them on the system so that he could say his job was done.

If conservatives do not run for office and get in - they can not be effective in helping people. You think that the DFL or liberals are standing idly by while conservatives are in office saying - oh well, guess we will have to wait - NOT!

So many were PO'd in the last general election at the amount of money Pres Bush was able to raise. Well BHO is not taking public money so that he does not have to abide by those constraints - where is the up roar there. See - on this site and with the major networks you have permission to say anything about a conservative and even make up their evidence. But you can hold a liberal to the same standard - the bar 'is' a little more south for them.

Goose and Gander - whatever

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 9, 2008 11:53 PM

"If conservatives do not run for office and get in - they can not be effective in helping people. You think that the DFL or liberals are standing idly by while conservatives are in office saying - oh well, guess we will have to wait - NOT!"

But conservatives held power in both Houses of Congress for four of the last seven plus years. They controlled the process by which bills were marked up.

Why didn't they bring the Human Life Amendment forward? The only answer that makes any sense at all is that they felt it was better used as a tactic to activate the base in the next election than as an actual issue to debate in the well.

What is the first thing conservatives have done when they acquire power? Worry about money! Look at the Contract with America from 1994.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America#The_Fiscal_Responsibility_Act

The only amendment they proposed was one that would require a balanced budget (something that no GOP President has proposed in memory). And of course, they cut taxes. But where was the Human Life Amendment in that Contract?

NOWHERE!

The American Conservative magazine called it right in 2005 when they wrote:

www.amconmag.com/2005a/2005_04_11/cover.html

" As this warning suggests, some veterans of the Religious Right feel a sense of having been here before—they vote in large numbers for GOP candidates, but to little effect. The other players in the big tent end up getting to set the agenda. Christian conservatives were first a major factor in national politics during the Moral Majority years of the 1980s. Many of them hoped that by electing Ronald Reagan and a Republican Senate, they could at least roll back the cultural liberalism of the 1960s and at best help usher in a spiritual reawakening.

Neither goal was realized. While moral conservatives got access and sympathetic presidential speeches, they had little impact on public policy. The Reagan administration’s signature conservative achievements include enduring reductions in marginal tax rates and winning the Cold War. While most religious conservatives supported and obviously benefited from both accomplishments, the items of particular importance to them are conspicuous by their absence from this list.

Reagan did sign executive orders curbing federal funding of abortion and many of his judicial nominees believed Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, although not enough to build an anti-Roe majority on the Supreme Court. But constitutional amendments banning abortion and reinstating school prayer went nowhere. Reagan, like Bush today with the federal marriage amendment, often endorsed them in speeches but in retrospect some question whether he did enough to promote their passage. Also like Bush, he only addressed pro-life marches by telephone."

Played for fools, every two years. Does that make you happy, Moderatelad? You say that Democrats and other liberals will never support this issue, yet you see from the article above that there are pro-life efforts taking place in the Democratic Party. But you do not seem to see this as a good thing.

What I can't figure out is this: you seem very suspicious of the Democrats, yet don't seem to mind being played the fool by the Republicans every two years on the pro-life issue. I have to wonder...which is more important to you, children or money?

Posted by: RJohnson | July 10, 2008 12:07 AM

Posted by: RJohnson | July 10, 2008 12:10 AM

And isn't it interesting that the only solution that Tony can come up with it more taxes.

So much can be acomplished without requiring more money if you can just think outside the box. But then again liberals have to have everything tied up in little boxes so that they know what to do and when the expiration date is.

Everytime a liberal has a problem - the answer is always = MORE MONEY

Whatever - you are the one obcessed about taxes.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 10, 2008 12:33 AM

Moderatelad: 'Women on welfare are not having the majority of the abortions as they want more children as our soceity underwrites illegitamcy. They want the babies because babies equal more money from the state. I was all set for 2 children - when we had a 3rd - no one gave me more money because I shot one more by the goalie."

Once again, the facts show that you are wrong.

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E0D9173AF93BA35755C0A96E958260

"Welfare recipients generally have abortions at a higher rate than other women: In New Jersey, in the quarter ending December 1991, the abortion rate for the welfare population was 27 per 1,000 compared with 4 per 1,000 for all New Jersey women of child-bearing age. And although the abortion rate in New Jersey, and nationwide, declined between 1991 and 1996, the abortion rate among New Jersey's welfare recipients rose during the same period. By 1996, the Rutgers report found, the gap had widened further, with 29 abortions per 1,000 women receiving welfare, compared with 3 per 1,000 women in the general population."

See...the typical conservative solution of cutting welfare benefits results in MORE abortions. Why? Economic reasons, once again.

The thing is, a number of pro-life organizations saw this coming back in the 90s.

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE2DA113AF93AA25750C0A963958260

"Several Republican Congressmen -- including some who signed on to House Speaker Newt Gingrich's Contract With America, which featured this welfare revision -- now say they cannot reconcile the welfare changes with their opposition to abortion.

"I've been in the pro-life movement for 20 years, and I know there is overwhelming data that financial pressures are one of the main reasons some women have abortions," said Representative Christopher H. Smith, the New Jersey Republican who is co-chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus. "I can't vote for something that's going to tip women toward abortion."

of course, these voices were ignored when the bill went to the floor, and now we see that abortions INCREASED because of it.

Again...what would Jesus say about cutting taxes over the corpses of unborn children?

Posted by: RJohnson | July 10, 2008 1:12 AM

Actually, it might be a good idea for Republicans to get a law passed against dropping elephants from airplanes, before the November elections.

I think a whole bunch are gonna get dropped!

It's an idea that's about to take off, the way things are going.

I do not think that no matter how hard John McCain tries to wiggle his ears, that he can pull a Dumbo.

You would not believe how many republicans I know who have become disgusted with the GOP and how bad it has grown, to the extent that the mistrusted Democrats are seen as a wiser - even more biblical - choice for evangelical values voters.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | July 10, 2008 1:37 AM

The major problem is theres people out there that will murder their babies. Whats wrong with them ? Its the primary will in a mother to protect her children, even those who are yet unborn. Sure we can enact things that may make their lifes easyer, but that still wont solve the problem. Baby murders really need some help of another kind. You all know it, its realy part of a much bigger problem. The collapse of echics and moral in america. Political correctness has made it so that you almost have to approve of homosexuals. The bible says such is a abomination. Try putting up the 10 commandments on a court house and its a crime. Abominations have become what society accepts and loves. If you dont what your son taught by a homo in a public school your a bigot.
No its not about tax credits, housing subsidies, Medicaid, food stamps, charity,
its about baby murder. What will be next, will they want to have transexual show in public view as this is requires so to not interfere with their rights, or maybe they may want to sell shows of murdering their unborn. With out the bible there is no values set in stone leaving a society to fall apart in its immorality. We need big out reach. A few lives can be saved by policy changes, but the problems bigger.
godssecret.wordpress.com

Posted by: God's secret | July 10, 2008 4:33 AM

"You would never hold a liberal to such a high standand as you do conservatives - people like you rarely do."

Coming from someone who clearly does not hold conservatives to any standard at all (at least from the tone of your posts that I have read in this venue for the past year or more), I find this rather hilarious.

As for attacking people and forgetting the topic...the topic is a group of Democrats coming together to find ways to reduce the number of abortions taking place in our nation. In short...saving some of the 4000 children that die daily from abortion.

It's sickening that some of the conservatives who post here value their tax dollars more than they value human life. Yet I have not heard you make ANY suggestion that they might want to reconsider their priorities.

"We can't afford..." is a phrase that will come back to haunt us on judgment day. We have been given much by God, and if we say we cannot afford to reduce the number of children dying for ANY reason, let alone from abortions, then we owe God an explanation of what he hold as more important than human life.

I don't think he will accept Bush's tax cuts as a suitable answer.

Posted by: RJohnson | July 10, 2008 9:08 AM

Posted by: DITE | July 10, 2008 9:13 AM

Nice post - very thoughtful and thought provoking. I learned in High School from a Civics teacher that 'never in the history of mankind has a soceity taxed themselves into prosperty'. He was a great teacher in a public school and a leading member of the Dem party here in MN. He also told the district to shove it when they told him he had to join the union - he said no and sais to them 'if I fail to teach students the subjust and more importantly to think critically - fire me'. They never had to as some of his students excelled in several areas of student life on campus.

The pie does grow and can feed more people regardless of what Teddy Kennedy thinks and says. The more successful business is the more people they can employee and the more taxes everyone pays into the 'system'.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 10, 2008 9:34 AM

Throughout history do you know of any group of people that have ascended poverty as a result of increased government benevolence?

Yes -- the African-American community, especially outside the South. It was because of such policies, most notably college grants, that many people were able to go to school, get decent jobs, build a fairly sizable middle-class and eventually move into formerly all-white suburban enclaves, thus reducing racial animosity -- and, most importantly for your purposes, start paying taxes.

That did not, however, change the state of many of the poor, still trapped in bad neighborhoods because of even-then limited opportunities, and the Reagan budget cuts, which were in practice punitive, also hurt badly.

Posted by: Rick | July 10, 2008 10:24 AM

All the more reason to support vouchers -- they're a great way to Stick It To The Man.

Unless, of course you are or want to be "The Man" -- which is the point.

Posted by: Rick | July 10, 2008 11:14 AM

So, the point is, you want to be The Man?

No, voucher supporters do. I have never been one.

Anyway, that was a digression. Problems with sexual activity -- and thus abortion -- almost always result from bad family dynamics, which in many cases (but not always) is a direct result of financial issues. You can't really solve the abortion problem unless you deal with the relationships between the genders, and unless and until we do there won't be any satisfactory solution.

Posted by: Rick | July 10, 2008 11:39 AM

Thank God for the voices of moderation in this post. The vitriol over this emotional issue has been appalling. Where is the empathy for those who are forced to make terrible choices in their lives? If the gross generalizations made about the sort of women who must make these most often difficult and tragic choices were made on race issues, they would be considered stereotyping at the very least. Stating that there is not enough money to help Americans struggling in the grips of poverty is absurd. We dump trillions into endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We spend billions on sports teams, individual athletes, and entertainment. We allow individual politicians to spend billions on individual elections and support them as they do so each and every election cycle. No, we have the money. The question is do we have the will, the moral spine to spend it properly to help those who are suffering and who are forced to make the awful choice between child and work, especially those in the “crappy” jobs previously mentioned, whose bosses will find any excuse to fire them if they should become pregnant or should have complications during pregnancy. I agree with Tony’s efforts, although I worry they will be hijacked by those on the extremes and turned into something far less worthwhile, but we Christians need to go further. We also need to roll up our sleeves and work hard toward the end the other problems, beyond poverty, that lead to abortions, including: ignorance, incest, rape, and genetic diseases to name a few. To those among you who are doing so, God bless you. We need to work hard to end the grinding poverty that leaves living children suffering and dying around the globe in horrifyingly large numbers. And no amount of vitriol, name-calling, and simple-minded sloganeering will help. Finally, to scream for a total ban on abortion is to ignore the fact that in this life from time to time hard decisions and terrible choices must be made.

Posted by: J.S. Brooks | July 10, 2008 11:48 AM

Yes -- the African-American community, especially outside the South. It was because of such policies, most notably college grants, that many people were able to go to school, get decent jobs, build a fairly sizable middle-class and eventually move into formerly all-white suburban enclaves, thus reducing racial animosity -- and, most importantly for your purposes, start paying taxes.

Well put Rick but you forgot something.
When the African Americans started to leave the city and move into the suburbs, their children started going to school with white children. This prompted the need for vouchers. It was the only way to have the Government pay money to the middle and upper class and keep segregation alive and well.
It was also the start of the non-Catholic pro life movement. Up until the forced integration of schools like John Brown U the Southern Baptist Convention was not pro life. They needed a rallying point and chose abortion.
As a young Southern Baptist I can remember when a pro life stance was seen simply as a "Papist" viewpoint and therefore anathema.

Posted by: wayne | July 10, 2008 12:37 PM

OK...back to Tony's article.

As a Christian, I can't abide by abortion for myself, but I can't judge my sisters who for whatever reason can't continue their pregnancies. That is between them and God. The same goes for their doctors who perform a safe, sanitary, legal service for their patients.

Tony is right on when he says that we need to provide a better alternative: contraception for everyone who chooses it; better childcare and maternity leave options, etc. I'd be happy to have my tax money go to these options.

"The least of these" aren't served very well if they are born into a world where they are unwelcome and uncared for.

Posted by: RexiFries | July 10, 2008 12:46 PM

You've made it very clear that The Man opposes vouchers. And here you say that the point of opposing vouchers is to be "The Man".

I didn't say or even imply that at all; that's only how you interpreted it. Rather, I was referring to people who want to take over the system so that they -- and they alone -- benefit from such system, which is basically how conservatives have always operated politically, which I consider outright sin. When it comes to vouchers, for example, they want them for their kids but not for other people's kids. (You can guess what I mean by "other people.")

And now, back to the topic ...

Posted by: Rick | July 10, 2008 12:54 PM

" the fact that in this life from time to time hard decisions and terrible choices must be made."

Nonsense, choosing to murder your baby is not a choice one ever has to make or the right. Not becouse of one's economic dificulties. Murdering babies can not possible a form of birth control, not in a moral society. What has become of commonsense and maternal instinct.

Right on rick "Problems with sexual activity -- and thus abortion -- almost always result from bad family dynamics, You can't really solve the abortion problem unless you deal with " the root of the problem the growth of evil in american culture, again this is reflected in the fight for Homosexual rights. Remember Sadom and gemora in the Bible how can people in our society fighting for such filth. Do we want to share their end, God forbid. Throwing money at the problem wont solve it, but we do have a responibility to help others in the name of kindness and charity. How this help comes about is not the primary issue here. People need to learn to take some control over their evil natures. otherwise what are they going to want next after their gay marriages.

The nature of the moral and ethical collapse of America must be addressed in a big way soon before it too late.

To make this clearer I will reveal it another way :

There are people who because of their predisposition to the role evil plays in creation are simply pawns to do the bidding of the "otherside". This is the result of the way they have shaped themselves as people. It makes them particularly open to the “other side's” seductions. By the underlying basis of who they are, excluding the reality of God and objective truth from their thought. Their evil inclination becomes the perfect window through which the Devil can enter and attach themselves to them. Such people become chariots for spiritual destruction, and they take down many people with them along the way. These people go out of their way to impose their ungodly beliefs on society at large. Because the otherside has become attached to them, and guides them through life. Their own perspective becomes that of the Devil's desires. They find meaning in saying or doing things that are morally destructive. Indeed, they get a thrill from being morally antagonistic and provocative. For the "other side" it is not enough to be provocative, but they go so far as to declare war on the side of Holiness. In the name of protecting “holy” concepts as “political correctness” . These people exist for anti-Bible values. They go about making belief in God “so embarrassing that people will be too embarrassed to believe”, or at least express their belief in any public way.They exert tremendous influence on people and their governments against all moral logic. They have created a cultural / legal onslaught against any public display of anything remotely “religious” in origin. Plaques bearing the Ten Commandments are being required to be removed from public display. Plaques with quotes from the Psalms expressing the beauty of nature are removed from public lands for no other reason than because they quote the Bible. The massive western cultural push to legitimize the immorality of homosexuality is another expression of the overt activity of the “other side” at work. They try to shift society away from belief in and respect for the Bible. This is all part of other side’s desire to erase Biblical morality from the world’s cultures. This is the old war of Evil against the good. This is what we are realy talking about !

godssecret.wordpress.com

Posted by: God's secret | July 10, 2008 1:04 PM

Nice try S.J. Brooks. But there doesn't seem to be much empathy for women in this thread. Nor much respect for reality.

Posted by: mikkie | July 10, 2008 1:19 PM

Remember Sadom and gemora in the Bible how can people in our society fighting for such filth.

It's important to note, however, that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of its easy lifestyle and not necessarily because of sexual perversion (see Ezekiel 16:49 and 50). In fact, if you look carefully at the Genesis passage, you'll notice that Lot fled to a city that was also in danger of being blown up.

Posted by: Rick | July 10, 2008 1:28 PM

"Plaques bearing the Ten Commandments are being required to be removed from public display. Plaques with quotes from the Psalms expressing the beauty of nature are removed from public lands for no other reason than because they quote the Bible."

You say that it should be okay for verses from the bible to be placed in public places, but how would you feel if there were verses from the Quran displayed at your local courthouse? By the looks of your post, you would most likely be up in arms about it, as it seems as if you are basically anti anything that isn't Christian.

Your post sounds very condemning, and I don't know about you, but the bible that I read warns against a condemning spirit.

I don't see how anybody thinks that they will be able to attract followers of Christ by being so blatantly self righteous. Your thinking is exactly why all of my non Christian friends are so afraid of the church

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2008 1:32 PM

Rick/Kevin: I'm not quite clear on what you guys were discussing re Cleveland school vouchers earlier up the thread, but as I recall, Randy Balmer had a fairly lengthy discussion of that issue in his book Thy Kingdom Come; whether it touches on what you're after or not, I really can't say, but it might be worth a look

Posted by: canucklehead | July 10, 2008 1:49 PM

what happened to Don's 1:09 pm post that ModLad responds to?

And ModLad, Don knows about "discredited ideas." After all, he's a Blue Jackets' fan.

Posted by: canucklehead | July 10, 2008 2:09 PM

This all boils down to a simple question: Which is more important, making abortion illegal or reducing the number (ideally zero) of abortions?

History has shown that by simply making something illegal will not stop it from happening. History has also shown that despite the rhetoric, pro-life candidates that are elected don't actually do anything of substance to actually make abortion illegal and with the current candidates it is even less likely.

So why not a new approach that attacks the root cause, unwanted pregnancies? More effort to help women who do not want to be pregnant stay that way, and more effort to help pregnant women want to have babies!

Posted by: Doc | July 10, 2008 2:24 PM

At a Seamless Garment conference in San Francisco, CA in 1997, an American Buddhist monk told the mostly Catholic audience that as long as people are eating meat, there will be abortion. The fate of the animals and the fate of man are interconnected. (Ecclesiastes 3:19) A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami said in 1974:

"We simply request, 'Don't kill. Don't maintain slaughterhouses.' That is very sinful. It brings a very awkward karmic reaction upon society. Stop these slaughterhouses. We don't say, 'Stop eating meat.' You can eat meat, but don't take it from the slaughterhouse, by killing. Simply wait (until the animal dies of natural causes) and you'll get the carcasses.

"You are killing innocent cows and other animals--nature will take revenge. Just wait. As soon as the time is right, nature will gather all these rascals and slaughter them. Finished. They'll fight among themselves--Protestants and Catholics, Russia and America, this one and that one. It is going on. Why? This is nature's law. Tit for tat. 'You have killed. Now you kill yourselves.'

"They are sending animals to the slaughterhouse, and now they'll create their own slaughterhouse. You see? Just take Belfast. The Roman Catholics are killing the Protestants, and the Protestants are killing the Catholics. This is nature's law. It is not necessary that you be sent to the ordinary slaughterhouse. You'll make a slaughterhouse at home. You'll kill your own child--abortion. This is nature's law.

"Who are these children being killed? They are these meat-eaters. They enjoyed themselves when so many animals were killed and now they're being killed by their own mothers. People do not know how nature is working. If you kill you must be killed. If you kill the cow, who is your mother, then in some future lifetime your mother will kill you. Yes. The mother becomes the child, and the child becomes the mother.

"We don't want to stop trade, or the production of grains and vegetables and fruit. But we want to stop these killing houses. It is very, very sinful. That is why all over the world they have so many wars. Every ten or fifteen years there is a big war--a wholesale slaughterhouse for humankind. But these rascals--they do not see it, that by the law of karma, every action must have its reaction."

Similarly, in his purport to the Srimad Bhagavatam 6.10.9, Bhaktivedanta Swami writes: "One cannot continue killing animals and at the same time be a religious man. That is the greatest hypocrisy. Jesus Christ said, 'Do not kill,' but hypocrites nevertheless maintain thousands of slaughterhouses while posing as Christians. Such hypocrisy is condemned..."

And:

"If one kills many thousands of animals in a professional way so that other people can purchase the meat to eat, one must be ready to be killed in a similar way in his next life and in life after life. There are many rascals who violate their own religious principles. According to Judeo-Christian scriptures, it is clearly said, 'Thou shalt not kill.' Nonetheless, giving all kinds of excuses, even the heads of religions indulge in killing animals while trying to pass as saintly persons. This mockery and hypocrisy in human society brings about unlimited calamities; therefore occasionally there are great wars. Masses of such people go out onto battlefields and kill themselves. Presently, they have discovered the atomic bomb, which is simply waiting to be used for wholesale destruction."

(Chaitanya Charitamrita, Madhya 24.251, purport)

Also:

"To be nonviolent to human beings and to be a killer or enemy of the poor animals is Satan's philosophy. In this age there is enmity towards poor animals, and therefore the poor creatures are always anxious. The reaction of the poor animals is being forced on human society, and therefore there is always the strain of cold or hot war between men, individually, collectively or nationally."

(Srimad Bhagavatam 1.10.6, purport)

"In human society, if one kills a man he has to be hanged. That is the law of the state. Because of ignorance people do not perceive that there is a complete state controlled by the Supreme Lord. Every living creature is the son of the Supreme Lord, and He does not tolerate even an ant's being killed. One has to pay for it."

Posted by: Vasu Murti | July 10, 2008 3:28 PM

Rick wrote:

You see, before we can talk about reconciliation we have to admit that a breach needs to be mended for that to happen, and in my experience the political right just won't own up to its side in it (my bringing it up ticks Moderatelad off to no end, as you've seen on this thread). Part of the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the bad news about sin and evil; not understanding that can give you the idea that "well, what I believe is always right." That, frankly, is arrogance and pride talking.

That there is a breach is beyond dispute. That there are others who agree with you on a lot of issues is not in dispute. That conservatives are fallible is not in dispute.

What is in dipute is the notion, not yet acknowledged on your part, that liberalism has made mistakes and is capable of making others. This does not mean abandoning all your positions all at once. (Frankly I would be even more worried about you if you did that.) It does mean approaching the discussion with a little bit of humility, and being careful about throwing around accusations of sin.

Until we are both, willing to acknowledge this, there is really no point is discussing anything.

God Bless,

Wolverine

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2008 3:49 PM

Most of the people on this site are nice and worth talking with - Rick is just not one for me because of the respect issue. He is the one that put it in writing not me.

I am glad some of what I have printed is gone - I lashed out and regardless of what people say - I shouldn't have - I am sorry.

I will just be a little more discriminating who I respond to in the future.

Truth be told - about 15% of what I have written has never been posted - and it was good stuff and not attacking anyone in the least.

I quess I am a marked person and the moderator here will edit my posting at will and make me sound the way they want me to sound. Whatever.

Yes - I believe that Wallis, Gore and Co are fair game to be critical of what they write and say - or don't say. Private people on here like carl - johnson and even Rick should not have their character challenged. One has been elected to office or has obtained a pulpit - the others have not and are not public figures.

Back to the job search -

Blesssings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 10, 2008 3:50 PM

I consider myself conservative - but not a "movement conservative" nor a "neo-con."

Why do I say that?

First, I take a conservative view of scripture and belief in Jesus.

I think Klinghoffer might have been right to say that the Bible is conservative - but not in the way he reduces it to a kind of patriotic right wing America-first know-nothingism. However, what Jesus says, although ancient wisdom, is radical. And in many ways, where generosity of spirit and forgiveness are concerned, it is liberal - but not leftist or even Liberal. The conservatism comes in because these are revealed truths that don't change, that can be relied upon - which is a conservative outlook, to preserve the wisom of the past and value it.

Other aspects of life where I'd be conservative is in nurturing families, not in an exclusionary way, but in order to provide s stability that can be extended into community. That leads one into the pro-life camp and against certain dissipations that are culturally popular - even among purely political conservatives - and to even envelope anti-war and anti-violence stances, for consistency's sake.

The thing is, a lot of politically-aware people have divided themselves along purely political conservative/liberal axis, yet that's a pretty reductionist thing to do, to decide everything important in how we relate to others formally, through ideologies which may tangentially have been influenced by Christianity, even incorporating important ideas, but which also find it easy to dispense with a primary commitment to following Jesus.

There are a whole lot of areas where people of good will - the "moral majority" of liberalism and conservatism - can find common cause, if that's what they want, isntead of indulging in the all-too-human urge to endlessly fight and divide, the symptom of the alienated sin nature.

I really appreciate Rick and I do hope he will acknowledge that there are some conservatively-oriented people who are appalled at some of the directions that what's been termed conservatism has taken, even as I'm sure there's a discomfort level with wrongheaded liberal actions.

Sometimes I think the worst of the liberal/conservative divide is just a convenient excuse for failing to come to grips with and act to solve issues, a kind of mass avoidance mechanism mechanism via ideology so we can all continue on without any real change except repetitve pendulum swings.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | July 10, 2008 4:14 PM

RJohnson – First of all, I didn’t really benefit from the Bush tax cuts and I’m not defending them. Second, as I said in my last comment to you, I don’t think that simply working to pass laws to end abortion is all we should do. You seem to be discussing this issue with me as if I’m someone else on the blog. I think we need greater social services like Tony is proposing, and there are also many things we can each do in our individual lives that have nothing to do with public policy.

Again my question to you is, what do you think of laws designed to protect unborn babies from abortion the same way we protect babies outside the womb coupled with social services like Tony is proposing?

When I stand before Jesus, I’m confident I’ll fall short in countless ways including on what I did to protect “the least of these”, but as he’s my savior I hope he’ll have mercy on me.

Posted by: Eric | July 10, 2008 4:28 PM

Tony, Awesome commentary. You are a great voice for so many of us like minded pro-life Democrats!

Adam Parish
Former President
Florida Democrats for Life

Posted by: Adam Parish | July 10, 2008 4:40 PM

I guess the practicalities of enforcing criminal sanctions against abortion will mean we have to build new kinds of prisons designed to make sure that women who've attempted abortion or done it previously will be forced to carry the babies to term under guarded supervision while imprisoned.

Once born, the mother and baby can be discharged to fend for themselves as the law will have been satisfied.

However, perhaps we will have to put the children into foster care as we may need to imprison these women for substantial lengths of time to match the severity of their crimes, equivalent to attempted murder and murder.

If abortion is exactly equivalent to murder, then I guess the Second Amendment guarantee upheld by The Supremes could mean that vigilante militias could think it's OK to let off a few rounds into abortion providers and the murder mothers too - while avoiding womb shots, of course. Violence is allowed to defend life, is it not, by those who call themselves "pro-life" but approve deadly force in war and law enforcement?

This all begs the question of just which party and which President is going to pass legislation that criminalises abortion as murder and allows deadly force to prevent it into law, because the answer is neither and none.

You know, as a conservative, I just don't want to spend that kind of money hiring all those new abortion cops (Bureau of Abortion, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms?) new judges and building courts and the outsourced (offshored?) prison facilities.

Hey! In the spirit of shame, out of sight, out of mind - a replacement use for Guantanamo! Telegraph Ashcroft out of retirement!

Embarrasada, or what!

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | July 10, 2008 4:52 PM

There are a whole lot of areas where people of good will - the "moral majority" of liberalism and conservatism - can find common cause, if that's what they want, isntead of indulging in the all-too-human urge to endlessly fight and divide, the symptom of the alienated sin nature.

That's always been my desire.

Keep in mind, though, that when I use the term "conservative" I'm referring to the specific Buckley/Goldwater/Nixon/Reagan/Gingrich ideological nexus appropriated by Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy and James Dobson, not a certain personal and character temperament.

I think this discussion, since the fireworks, has actually gone in the direction it should have from the word go. I concur completely -- "pro-life" and anti-abortion are not necessarily synonymous.

Posted by: Rick | July 10, 2008 5:10 PM

Hi, I believe that ALL are for a reduction in the number of abortions in this country and everywhere. Those of us who are pro-choice believe that there are circumstances where abortion must be legal, and since I am not in the "shoes" of those who feel that they need an abortion, I will not make the choice for them. Education, education and Information and more information is the way to reduce the number of abortions. If abortion were illegal, it would not really reduce the number of abortions, only make them far more dangerous. Do we want to return to the days of the "coathanger" abortions? where women died in their desperation?

I don't think so. Think long and hard about what you would put into a platform about abortion.

Posted by: Pam Blome | July 10, 2008 5:34 PM

Mod'lad: "Private people on here like carl - johnson and even Rick should not have their character challenged."

Moderatelad, I didn't realize that my character had been challenged (unless you mean that silly proudnascarfan, who I suspect is an alternative identity for one of the regulars), but thank you for standing up for me.

I continue to pray for your success in landing a new job.

Posted by: carl copas | July 10, 2008 6:24 PM

Posted by: carl copas | July 10, 2008 6:25 PM

Just added your name as it came to mind quickly. Been dealing with a Mom with Alzheimers and the brain is not functioning well right now.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 10, 2008 6:34 PM

Eric: "As someone who believes that a human life is being lost in the act of abortion, I can’t see how our society can condone abortion by allowing it to take place legally."

TXWoman: "Last year I had to have an abortion, and it was the saddest day of my life. My husband and I were thrilled to learn I was pregnant. But during my second trimester we found out that the baby was dying from a chromosomal abnormality and had no possibility of living. With my doctor and husband at my side, we decided that abortion was the best option for my health. The laws in Texas did not allow my to have my own doctor do the procedure. I had to go to an abortion clinic where people were posted outside praying for my soul. It was humiliating. I wanted to shout at them that they didn't know what I was going through, they didn't know my health situation, how dare they pass judgement on me.
I wish that I were holding a baby in my arms right now, but that wasn't to be.
If abortion was 100% illegal I would have had to deliver a dead baby some weeks or months down the road, if I had lived that long. Don't tell me that is God's will"

Eric, something that so many conservative pro-lifers forget about is that the woman is alive as well, and her life is precious to God as well.

Perhaps you can discuss this with TXWoman, and explain to her why, in your opinion, abortion should always be illegal. Then think about your wife, or your daughter, being in the same circumstances. How would you counsel them? Would you offer them comfort and help, or would you turn them over to the police?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 10, 2008 7:02 PM

"Eric, something that so many conservative pro-lifers forget about is that the woman is alive as well, and her life is precious to God as well."

Conservatives favor an exception for the life of the mother. Unless Eric disagrees with the consensus here, this is a red herring.

"Hi, I believe that ALL are for a reduction in the number of abortions in this country and everywhere. "

You believe incorrectly. Planned Parenthood's profit margin is extraordinary, and their higher-ups work hard to grant access to abortions in as many places as possible. They target young women with advertising campaigns geared to induce them to consider abortion based on their demographic profile.

Their founder (no Christian, btw) was a bigot who viewed abortion as a means of eliminating undesirables. So you are incorrect that ALL are for fewer abortions.

"If abortion were illegal, it would not really reduce the number of abortions, only make them far more dangerous. "

No evidence exists to back up this raw assertion. The number of abortions skyrocketed after the Roe v. Wade decision.

"conservatism can easily devolve into an unquestioning reactionary support for the status quo of a society - whatever it happens to be."

Isn't this rather absurd in light of the fact that the liberals here are the one's arguing for the status quo?

Posted by: kevin s. | July 10, 2008 7:14 PM

I am glad some of what I have printed is gone - I lashed out and regardless of what people say - I shouldn't have - I am sorry ... Private people on here like carl - johnson and even Rick should not have their character challenged.

Moderatelad, your apology is gracious. I may have come down a bit hard on you with some of my comments, and some of the comments that others directed at you were a bit hard as well--like calling you fool and stereotyping "all conservatives." Your character shouldn't have been challenged either.

This is still an emotional issue for many people. It's easy to allow our emotions to carry us away. Maybe we shouldn't take others' comments too personally.

And I personally know how tough being out of work and looking for work in a down economy can be. And a friend of mine has been out of work for nine months.

We all wish you the best, and yes I have been praying that you will find work soon.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | July 10, 2008 7:27 PM

For those of you who think that making Abortion illegal will solve the abortion issue are just flat wrong.

Between WHO and Guttenmacher Institute studies at best you will reduce abortion by around 20% by making the practice illegal. The most recent accounting was 26 million legal abortions and 20 million illegal ones.

I guess if some women die in illegal abortions you will be fine with them paying that penalty.

Posted by: Rothgar | July 10, 2008 8:00 PM

Rothgar,

Making abortion illegal won't solve the problem of abortion. Making murder illegal won't solve the problem of murder either. There will still be abortions. There will still be murders. It just makes it harder to do something wrong and expresses societal disapproval of killing innocent human beings.

If women die trying to get an illegal abortion (you get the impression that this is going to happen millions of times a year if it were illegal), that's not something I'm fine with. I'd rather them not die trying to get their child murdered by someone. But, if in their pursuit to do something they shouldn't be doing in the first place, they die, I don't know that that's a good reason to legalize the murder that they were pursuing to begin with. That just sounds silly.

--Lora

Posted by: Lora | July 10, 2008 8:24 PM

As a pro-choice liberal Democrat, I applaud Tony's efforts to treat the root causes of unwanted pregnancy and to help poor women have their babies by alleviating poverty. I don't know why the liberal blogosphere went nuts when Jim Wallis proposed this (see Daily Kos, Salon, American Prospect, and Democratic Underground). I think both conservatives and liberals are trapped in their extremes. Conservatives are pro-birth--sanctity of life only matters when life is in the womb. After that, torture, the death penalty, and preemptive war are a-okay. They don't want abortion under any circumstance and are anti-birth control. Liberals see abortion as a liberation for women. I see it as a tragic choice that might sometimes have to be made under difficult circumstances. I feel choice entails not only choosing termination of a pregancy; it also entails a woman CHOOSING to have the baby and keeping it or giving it up for adoption. But it is her choice to make in private; no one should force their religious interpretation on her. And she should not be made into a criminal, either, if she decides she can't carry her pregnancy to term.

Posted by: Allison | July 10, 2008 9:10 PM

Posted by: Don | July 10, 2008 7:27 PM

heated and emotional - not a problem. For the most part I can have ice on my emotions so it doesn't get too difficult. Attack my character too many times - I can loose it. I also know when it is time to step away.

Thanks for your prayers the are appreciated!

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 10, 2008 10:17 PM

The number of abortions skyrocketed after the Roe v. Wade decision.

Even if that were true, and I'm not sure it is, that does not follow that abortion rates will decrease by that much were it made illegal again.

That's not specific at all.

Only to conservatives. Those who study political history know exactly what I'm talking about.

And opinions on abortion are very complicated--suffice it to say that an overwhelming majority of Americans reject the very liberal law wrought by Roe v. Wade. Its very existence is dependent on widespread ignorance regarding its radicalness.

Not true at all -- in fact, most anti-abortionists don't understand how limited Roe actually was. I've skimmed the actual ruling itself; it said basically that first-trimester abortions may not be regulated at all but that, under certain conditions, second- and third-trimester abortions may. "Partial-birth abortion," for example, was not covered under Roe and, if I have my facts correct, such abortions already were illegal in most states, which is why Jim Wallis said correctly that the ban that Clinton vetoed but Bush signed criminalized only about 2,500 abortions per year. (If you think I'm jerking anyone's chain, Operation Rescue held a sit-in at a clinic in Wichita, Kan. in 1992 precisely because it was one of the half-dozen clinics around the country that did late-term abortions.)

Besides, when abortion was first banned at the turn of the last century, religion had nothing directly to do with it. Back in those days women were being used and abused by unscrupulous men, so the issue was attacked on a number of fronts but never directly. The laws that were passed actually followed a cultural consensus that abortion was a bad thing. Today, however, anti-abortionists think more punitively, and that's caused the current controversy.

Posted by: Rick | July 10, 2008 10:28 PM

Rick,
Sorry, but you're wrong about Roe. Roe allowed abortion during the first two trimesters for any reason and third trimester abortions could be banned by states as long as they had exceptions for health. "Health" was subsequently interpreted by the Doe v. Bolton decision as including "mental health," which is a mile-wide loophole. In other words, Roe legalized abortion throughout every stage of pregnancy for any reason. If you think it didn't, then you have your facts wrong.

Anyway, if you want to understand abortion law right now, you need to see the 1992 Casey decision which scrapped the trimester distinctions in favor of the point of viability (about 23 weeks), after which the state may ban abortions, but again must make exceptions for the "health" of the mother (a loophole that also includes mental health). The law is still abortion on demand throughout every stage of pregnancy. A strong majority of the public is opposed to this law.

""Partial-birth abortion," for example, was not covered under Roe and, if I have my facts correct, such abortions already were illegal in most states, which is why Jim Wallis said correctly that the ban that Clinton vetoed but Bush signed criminalized only about 2,500 abortions per year."
--If partial-birth abortions were already illegal, why did congress seek to pass a ban on them? Why did the supreme court vote in 2000 to overturn the ban that congress passed? Are 2,500 lives that insignificant?

A side note: the NY Times did a story on an abortion doctor years ago who admitted that he "lied through (his) teeth" about the frequency and medical necessity of partial birth abortions he performed. Many more were done than was reported and almost all were done on healthy mothers and healthy babies.

"Even if that were true, and I'm not sure it is, that does not follow that abortion rates will decrease by that much were it made illegal again."
--You're "not sure it is"? Why not look it up. Kind of sounds like you really don't want to believe laws will do anything.

Posted by: jesse | July 11, 2008 12:01 AM

"I don't know why the liberal blogosphere went nuts when Jim Wallis proposed this (see Daily Kos, Salon, American Prospect, and Democratic Underground). "

Oh, they were nuts long before that.

"And she should not be made into a criminal, either, if she decides she can't carry her pregnancy to term."

Why? To what ethical standard can you appeal to reach this conclusion?

"Between WHO and Guttenmacher Institute studies at best you will reduce abortion by around 20% by making the practice illegal. The most recent accounting was 26 million legal abortions and 20 million illegal ones. "

And when an oil-company sponsored think-tank devises a statistic, do you similarly swallow it whole? That said, by what accounting have their only been 26 million legal abortions?

Posted by: kevin s. | July 11, 2008 12:17 AM

Me:

"Throughout history do you know of any group of people that have ascended poverty as a result of increased government benevolence?"
Rick:

"Yes -- the African-American community, especially outside the South."

Me:

The African American community has been incredibly damaged by government benevolence. When they were given the freedom to be a part of America's ever growing economic pie, most of them did. This success was reversed in the 70's when we created AFDC to bribe them into not working and not getting married. Unsurprisingly, the out of wedlock births and poverty rate of the African American community steadily increased until welfare was reformed in 1996.

Posted by: DITE | July 11, 2008 2:01 AM

"Why did the supreme court vote in 2000 to overturn the ban that congress passed?"
--Sorry, I should have said "the ban that states passed," as Congress had not enacted a ban till Bush was elected.

Posted by: jesse | July 11, 2008 8:18 AM

"There is 100% support for laws against homicide.

But sadly there is not that consensus about returning to draconian punishments for abortion."
--And you know the same could be said about lack of consensus at the time of the emancipation proclamation. Why do people treat abortion so differently? Why are 4,000 lives destroyed each day so tolerable to us?

"Draconian"? Are those seeking to protect unborn life advocating some kind of police state? Again, you need look only to Ireland, Poland, the US pre-legalization, and some countries in Latin America to see different possibilities for reasonable enforcement of laws. I should note that there is still much disagreement over laws in these places, yet the unborn are still protected.

Posted by: jesse | July 11, 2008 8:29 AM

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 10, 2008 10:34 PM

Just like Teddy Kennedy - Harry - Nancy and Gore.
Nancy was all about talking the 'bi-partisan' when the dems were the manority - now that they are the majority she doesn't care.
There is a winner take all - all or nothing on both sides of the isle. Get use to it - it is the way things work or not work in DC and it has been that way since Pres. Ford.

Mod:

Did I not say on a previous thread that the public has been poorly served by both sides of the aisle in Congress? You call yourself moderatelad while pushing a far-right agenda and criticizing Liberals, Moderates, Progressives and anyone else that doesn't buy into your condemnation of anything that would cost a few bucks to alleviate suffering. Others of your ilk are perfectly happy to make criminals of women faced with a dilemma while trumpeting their "reverence" for unborn life and abandoning the fate of those born to women who are either unwilling or unable to provide for their welfare once they are here.

Posted by: jesse | July 10, 2008 9:50 PM

I would also ask you to consider if slavery were legal today. Would you say "we need to change hearts first and deal with the underlying causes of slavery before working to change laws"? I doubt it. The gravity of the injustice would move you to push for legal change despite what public opinion might say.

Jesse:

Slavery may be technically illegal, but it still exists in tax laws that favor the rich at the expense of the middle class while they advocate the elimination of a woefully inadequate minimum wage. Tell me how little it takes to raise a child these days. Tell me why the rich call anyone that advocates meaningful assistance to women with children "whiners" while whining themselves about how bad they have it. What kind of life do you advocate for the unborn once they have drawn their first breath of life in the ghettos of America (not that poor women are any more likely to have an abortion than the pampered "princesses" living off of daddy's dime)?

Posted by: Hermes | July 11, 2008 8:43 AM

Posted by: Hermes | July 11, 2008 8:43 AM

I think that we are in agreement - just felt that names from the other side needed to be put into the mix.

I know that there is a problem - but when did it start? My assessment is that if you look prior to Nixon there was much more bipartisanship and after - the Dems with a veto proof majority did not give a 'whatever'.

I would like to go back to the days when bipartisan did matter. Saddly - I don't think it will happen.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 11, 2008 10:30 AM

Then why did so many states seek to pass it?

Jumping on the bandwagon, to prove their "pro-life" "bona fides" -- which didn't make much sense because, in most of those states, it already was illegal under existing laws. However, most people didn't know that and the "pro-life" lobby, which was cleaning up then, wasn't about to tell them.

That Bill Clinton vetoed it was a side issue, and the fact that it made him look callous and beholden to abortion-rights special interests is his own fault.

On the contrary -- you really don't realize, but I did, just how much conservatives hated Clinton and wanted him destroyed BAMN. Before the 1992 election, activists filed suit in Federal court in Arkansas to have him removed from the ballot. Then we learned about the false allegations of corruption and finally the impeachment, based on evidence that was gathered illegally. The "partial-birth abortion" bill must be understood in that context.

It's noteworthy that you always see the darkest motivations in conservatives and can't seem to see anything bad in any other non-conservative or left-leaning person or politician.

My judgments are based on two things: 1) evidence and 2) history. It is historical fact, for example, that there was a conservative machine (which has now basically fallen apart) in this country that, ultimately, intended to build an aristocracy in this country at the expense of everyone else (the current President Bush is the epitome of such), and your most honest conservatives, whether secular or Christian, would even tell you that. No such machine exists on the other side; if it did the conservatives would tell you all about it chapter and verse. The reason they hated Clinton so much was because they realized that if he ever became popular they would eventually be finished as a political force.

Posted by: Rick | July 11, 2008 10:49 AM

We're not going to imprison or punish them with draconian punishments for abortion but we don't have to allow them to make america into the abortion capitol of the world. The new seat of all imorality and filth. Other wise we will come to see Gays making kidi porn shows with their children on the streets in the name of "politic correctness". When even murdering babies is "alright" in society then nothing is "Sacred" and anything goes. Its like a red flag.
Its nice to affirm life through loving them and caring , but we must do all we can so baby murdering is not so easy to do in our country and we must reach out to our fellow Americans so to prevent the complete collapse of moral and ethical values in Amarica, a "Godless nation", as we are "one nation under God indivisible with liberty and Justice to all" (even Babies)

Posted by: God's secret | July 11, 2008 11:09 AM

Finally, a proposal that makes sense. Women and families who are better off financially have no idea what low income families deal with, day after day. I am a pro-choice female, and a Christian who loves God unconditionally. This proposal, I could support, 100%. Those who say the proposal is no good without an overturn of Roe v Wade, are simply closed minded and uncaring about people in dire situations with nowhere to turn. You love the fetus, but hate the baby. When the baby lives in terrible conditions, you don't want to help educate, feed, house or care for the baby. Then, when the baby grows up and acts out, you want to jail it and then kill it emotionally, spiritually and physically. Thank you Tony, for being reasonable and in tune with the Lord to open a discussion about economics that is worthy of our time and our prayers. There is a sisterhood out here that agrees with you and will pray that the powers that be hear you.

Posted by: Marcie Johnson | July 11, 2008 11:45 AM

Must say I question the idea that most abortions are done for gender choice-at least in this country. We must remember that many "facts" we read on the web are not facts, but personal beliefs without factual basis. As for fighting abortion- if this country had a more healthy additude about sex and actually talked to their children from an early age, then made contraceptives available to young adults instead of spouting platitudes, the abortion question would come close to going away. Most abortions happen because girls and young women are scared to death that they'll be hated and punished. Let's try some Christian love where it will do the most good.

Posted by: Marylou | July 11, 2008 12:15 PM

I just don't get the logic here. Some of you say abortion is wrong, you're concerned about the rate of abortion, it's ending a human life, but you're not willing to restrict it in any way using the law.

Lora hits the nail on the head. None of you would apply this logic to homicide, rape, slavery, or any other completely dehumanizing act or even lesser crimes like robbery or assault. But for some reason you apply it to abortion. Why? If you believe that a human life is being ended, why not restrict it legally. Can you imagine if someone said "Homicide is wrong, but sometimes the person who commits that act does so for very good reasons in their mind, or feels there in such a tight situation that there is no other option, so instead of making it illegal, we should try to address the problems that make them think homicide is their only option." Don't you see all see how utterly ridiculous this sounds?

Can someone please address this?

It either makes me believe you really don't think abortion is wrong and you're just using this issue to try to get pro-life Republicans to join you in supporting anti-poverty programs or you do believe that abortion is truly ending a life but you value your political alliance with pro-choice Democrats more than outlawing it.

Posted by: Eric | July 11, 2008 1:03 PM

Rick,
Thanks for offering an answer. I'm not sure I understand it though. What's the double standard and what bearing does it have on abortion today? And how does this explain why people apply the fuzzy logic I mention to abortion but not to other dehumanizing acts?

Posted by: Eric | July 11, 2008 1:56 PM

What's the double standard and what bearing does it have on abortion today? And how does this explain why people apply the fuzzy logic I mention to abortion but not to other dehumanizing acts?

Even in the church, women are the ones who often have been given the responsibility to keep a non-married couple "pure" -- I actually heard that on a Christian radio program back in the 1980s. The thinking was that men "cannot help themselves," which of course was a first-class cop-out. In fact, back in the day (as part of the anti-abortion campaign) men were taught to control their urges and respect women.

Planned Parenthood was founded by one of the most horrible people in American history, wouldn't you agree?

That's irrelevant, because Planned Parenthood is certainly not responsible for dehumanizing black males -- that had been happening long before Jan. 22, 1973.

Posted by: Rick | July 11, 2008 2:55 PM

"There were 615,831 abortions during the first year of Roe. By 1979, that figure was 1,251,921."
--These numbers don't even fully get at the actual numbers pre-legalization, though, since abortion was already legal in California and New York for a few years. Here are the numbers in California during the first few years post-legalization (from the CDC): 1968 (3,900), 1969 (20,800)...then fast forward to 1980 (203,754). google search "california historical abortion statistics" to get the actual page from which they are taken.

So, from the first year of legalization till 12 years later you see an increase by 50 x's, and for a more conservative estimate (second year of legalization to 1980), you still see an increase by 10 x's.

But even these numbers overestimate the total occurring before legalization in California, since many flew from around the country to have their abortions there prior to 1973.

These numbers clearly demonstrate that once people legalized abortion, they made it increase dramatically.

Posted by: jesse | July 11, 2008 3:05 PM

These numbers clearly demonstrate that once people legalized abortion, they made it increase dramatically.

Does it necessarily follow, then, that simply reinstituting such laws will cause a corresponding drop in abortions? I for one am not that naive.

Posted by: Rick | July 11, 2008 3:15 PM

I'm sorry Rick, that doesn't explain the situation I'm referring to.

I understand the double standard - that throughout history it has been considered normal, to some degree or another, for men to have many female partners while women were expected to remain "pure" - but I don't now how that explains the viewpoint I describe in my comment. It sounds like a non sequitur.

Posted by: Eric | July 11, 2008 3:42 PM

kevin s: "Planned Parenthood was founded by one of the most horrible people in American history, wouldn't you agree?"

I wouldn't agree with that. Have you read a book-length biography of Sanger?

Stack Sanger up against Richard Butler, Father Coughlin, Joseph McCarthy, John Chivington, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, Jim Jones--not even close.

Posted by: carl copas | July 11, 2008 3:59 PM

"You just contradicted yourself -- either it will or it won't."
--Now you're just being stubborn. I said it WILL lead to a decrease in abortions, but I doubt to the level where it was back then. Are you trying to understand any point that I'm making?

I think I'm officially exasperated...signing off.

Posted by: jesse | July 11, 2008 4:25 PM

I said it WILL lead to a decrease in abortions, but I doubt to the level where it was back then. Are you trying to understand any point that I'm making?

Yes, and I don't accept it for reasons I've already mentioned. You assume a moral consensus that abortion is morally wrong; at this point, I don't. Who's to say that clandestine networks of abortion providers won't arise (a la the Underground Railroad), perhaps even openly defying the law? That's precisely what happened with Prohibition -- it actually worked at first but eventually proved too unwieldy to enforce.

I don't know why the lives of babies should be sacrificed to this regrettable feature of our society.

That's why Tony wrote what he did.

Posted by: Rick | July 11, 2008 4:54 PM

"You can dream of enforcing your will on others, but only in a dictatorship can that be done."

That's ridiculous. By this standard, we can enforce no law.

"Where laws relect consensus, as in a democracy, you must win hearts and minds."

The laws don't reflect the consensus, which is that there should be limits to the number of abortions. If you proposed a law forbidding a woman from having a second abortion, for example, you would find consensus behind that position.

Millions of people cheat on their taxes, but this does not prevent liberals from raising them.

At any rate, Sojo is a pro-choice organization that believes abortion should be legal. They are not advocating that we find alternative solutions while waiting for people to come around. Rather, they think the choice should be available to mothers.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 11, 2008 5:50 PM

I can't believe how many people have responded to this story and come to no conclusion. I see no answers to a compromise. I see plenty of attacks on each others position. I see lots of numbers and so called facts. I'm old enough to know right from wrong. I know my government is supposed to provide for the common defense and welfare of it's citizens. I also know King George was told we were seperating from England because we have rights given us by God not him. The right to Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness. When abortion was illegal many women died in back alleys and they were also more careful not to get pregnant. The reason we have this problem today, Life is Cheap, Time is Short, and I want it now. No life is perfect. The life God gave you is yours. Do something with it. The government shouldn't be involved in abortions.

Posted by: John | July 11, 2008 9:07 PM

"At any rate, Sojo is a pro-choice organization that believes abortion should be legal. They are not advocating that we find alternative solutions while waiting for people to come around. Rather, they think the choice should be available to mothers."

You're right. Live with it.

Posted by: JamesM | July 12, 2008 6:15 AM

Womb to Tomb as Wallis says -

So let turn the table on the discussion. I believe that Wallis says that he does not agree with abortion but does not want to criminalize it. So he is willing to let it happen but is going to turn a blind eye toward the issue.

Lets go to the other side of the situation - Tomb. My mother is dealing with Alzheimers, OK - I am the one that is dealing with it more. She can't handle her finances - drugs - she is loosing her memory on some of the family. It won't be long before she becomes what some might classify as a 'useless eater'.

So - when do I hire Dr. Jack and what will Wallis say about that? I believe that my life would be a lot easier if I did not have to deal each and every day with my Mom's constant chatt about the same 3 subjects. Complaints about not being able to drive, always trying to help and most often making the situation worse. Will Wallis turn a blind eye to people terminating an older person that is putting preasure on family members? Will he day that he does not want to criminalize someone making the decision to terminate anothers humans life because they can't afford it emotionally or whatever reason it might be? I may want to terminate but what about my brother who doesn't want to?

We are dealing with two individuals here and one is totally dependant upon the other. It's just that one is in his 50's and the other is in her 70's. Our DNA is simular but we are two seperate individuals - just like the mother and fetus.

For the record - I do not want to terminate my mother. I have considered a reverse adoption. (lol)

So - here is to the decriminalization and blind eyes of the future -

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 12, 2008 10:04 AM

Posted by: J.S. Brooks | July 12, 2008 10:11 AM

Well stated -

An observation: rape, incest, etc. I believe that this is and I think I am being generous abouot 3% at best. So - I will give you that 3% without objection. Life of the mother - that was medicine was practiced prior to Roe v Wade. In this day and age with the tech. that we have - it is not the challenge that it was 40 years ago. BUt - OK - not all clinics and hospitals are totally equiped - so fine. I will give you and again I believe that I am being generous - 5%. So now you have 8% of all the abortions performed today in the OK area, that leaves 92% in question.

I will go out on a limb and say that the first tri I will be like Wallis and turn a blind eye. Tri 2 and 3 - we need to come to terms on how to handle these.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 12, 2008 10:30 AM

Posted by: carl copas | July 12, 2008 11:49 AM

When is it a protected American citizen?

One minute after a live birth?

We need to define these terms - but everytime I have asked my liberal friends - they will not define them.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | July 12, 2008 12:50 PM

"Which Roe does specifically."

It would appear then, at minimum, that the public would favor overturning Casey, which would be a pre-requisite to overturning Roe. But my point, which again is that the courts have prevented consensus on this issue from becoming law.

"For a time many state legislatures stood ready to enact more laws if Roe were reversed."

They still are. Do you have any evidence of a misinformation campaign from the pro-life side that would lead one to believe that overturning Roe (and it's subsidiary cases) would make abortion legal. Cause I can provide rafts of it from NARAL.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 12, 2008 12:56 PM

Since when did the existence of a soul become germane to how we craft law in the United States? That's a slippery slope isn't it?

Uh -- abortion legislation as we know it didn't exist until the late 1800s, so your analogy doesn't quite fit.

Posted by: Rick | July 12, 2008 1:02 PM

Do you have any evidence of a misinformation campaign from the pro-life side that would lead one to believe that overturning Roe (and it's subsidiary cases) would make abortion legal.

Oh, sure. One organization I know but whose identity I don't recall right now, but I think it was Roman Catholic -- and this was accepted as gospel in the circles in which I ran -- was saying inaccurately that Roe legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, and I don't believe that's an isolated instance. Also, a local Christian newspaper consistently ran cartoons depicting women who were clearly "showing" visiting clinics.

Posted by: Rick | July 12, 2008 1:09 PM

"One organization I know but whose identity I don't recall right now, but I think it was Roman Catholic -- and this was accepted as gospel in the circles in which I ran -- was saying inaccurately that Roe legalized abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, and I don't believe that's an isolated instance."
--And they were telling the truth. Roe and the companion Doe case did this, which is why partial birth abortions were being legally performed in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Have you read anything I've written above? Do you have any facts to dispute it? Why the willful ignorance?

Posted by: jesse | July 12, 2008 1:29 PM

And they were telling the truth. Roe and the companion Doe case did this, which is why partial birth abortions were being legally performed in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Have you read anything I've written above? Do you have any facts to dispute it? Why the willful ignorance?

Even Kevin has said that's false -- as I mentioned, I've skimmed the actual Roe ruling and it says nothing of the kind. And, in fact, "partial-birth abortion" (as Wallis correctly said months ago in another entry) was always extremely rare; as I mentioned before, in 1992 OR was in Wichita to blockade one of the half-dozen clinics nationwide that did those kind of late-term abortions.

Posted by: Rick | July 12, 2008 1:37 PM

Ok, Rick, let's put this to rest...here is the summary on Doe from Wikipedia (look it up):

The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her "health." The Court defined "health" broadly:
“Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”

This determination that abortion will be available all the way up until birth, for a wide variety of reasons, has proven to be controversial — "at least as controversial as its holding respecting the period prior to viability."[2]

Any thoughts?

Posted by: jesse | July 12, 2008 1:55 PM

"I am living with it, and contending with it. The pro-choice position on this issue is vile, and not befitting a Christian organization."

Your opinion really carries little incredibly little weight, either morally or intellectually.

Posted by: JamesM | July 12, 2008 3:26 PM

"Your opinion really carries little incredibly little weight, either morally or intellectually."

Um, well stated..."

You are right. What I meant to say is that your opinion, to which you are entitled of course, lacks weight and substance both intellectually and morally. I am certain you understood the first time around but you were just being you.

Posted by: JamesM | July 12, 2008 5:40 PM

Personally, I am concerned about the many appendix removed from people's bodies on a daily basis. Did you know that these appendix, when removed, are NOT provided with any life support!? They are instead tossed in a dumpster to DIE... along with all the aborted babies.

These appendix have feelings too! These aborted babyes are tiny humans, and the appendix is human too. Stop killing the appendixes! If GOD wants you to die, you will die, so if you get appendicities, do not selfishly sacrifice your helpless appendix. Think about that, sinners!!!!

Posted by: Mozen Greezin | July 13, 2008 12:22 AM

"That, as always, depends on how the questions are asked. "

No, not always. In this case, any way you jujitsu the question, a majority favors greater restrictions.

The link below is a good summary. If you can discern any evidence for the positions above, please cite it directly.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Posted by: kevin s. | July 13, 2008 3:29 AM

Wow, Rick, if you can't acknowledge that Roe and Doe (which helped clarify Roe) permit abortion on demand up until birth, then there is no possible way of ever getting through to you. The facts are there.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see that according to the way you've presented it. Furthermore, it simply doesn't jibe with the facts on late-term abortion that I've brought up, such as the few clinics around the country that actually perform them.

That said, we've gotten away from the subject. The question here is about actually reducing the perceived need for abortion outside of simply changing the laws (because, as I said before, the laws were instituted after a moral/cultural consensus was reached). I personally am in favor of banning abortion; however, as I have said and others have hinted on this thread, because there's no consensus at this point such laws can be easily repealed. And I think it's a mistake for us Christians to focus like a laser beam on abortion without all the ancillary issues.

Posted by: Rick | July 13, 2008 8:16 AM

Rick,
This is straight from Wikipedia summary of Roe:
"The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton."

Every state performs abortions in the second trimester (though they vary on the exact number of weeks in the 2nd trimester). Just because one one might need to go to a specialty clinic to get an abortion performed in the late 2nd or 3rd trimesters doesn't mean that such abortions can still be performed in ANY state for any reason (see above).

Rick, just some advice...it's going to be really difficult to persuade anyone of anything if you're not willing to admit you're wrong once in awhile. I don't know everything. Neither do you. We're both fallible. You were wrong about Roe. It would help your credibility if you owned up to it and quit arguing that the sky is green.

Posted by: jesse | July 13, 2008 8:37 AM

Rick, just some advice...it's going to be really difficult to persuade anyone of anything if you're not willing to admit you're wrong once in awhile. I don't know everything. Neither do you. We're both fallible. You were wrong about Roe. It would help your credibility if you owned up to it and quit arguing that the sky is green.

jesse -- By your own admission we're talking about two different rulings, which ought to be approached separately (though they're often taken together). And you still haven't addressed the campaign by OR I've referred to on several occasions -- was it outright lying about the reason it was blockading that clinic in Wichita?

Besides, that's not really the issue here. We're talking about reducing abortions in the absence of such restrictive laws, and it's annoying to keep going back and forth about abortion's legality when it will remain legal for the time being. As I see things, conservatives focus upon changing laws because they simply want to reestablish their authority, never mind the consequences -- which would eventually lead to a repeal of such laws, similar to Prohibition.

Posted by: Rick | July 13, 2008 3:56 PM

It still appalls me that the Democratic party would not allow Gov. Casey a major speaking role at their 1992 National Convention.

Given the circumstances, for the sake of party unity, the Democratic Party actually did the right thing in the long run.

Unbeknownst to most people, Casey's stance on abortion had virtually nothing to do with that -- it actually was a personal thing between him and Bill Clinton, whom he hated with a passion; in fact the year before he was running around Pennsylvania denouncing him (I live in that state, voted for him twice and now deeply regret it). The simple fact is that Casey wasn't allowed to speak because he refused to endorse Clinton.

Here's another issue: Rick Santorum got into the Senate because Casey in 1994 wouldn't endorse Harris Wofford, whom he appointed after the death of John Heinz. Wofford's crime? He waffled on the abortion issue.

Posted by: Rick | July 13, 2008 5:19 PM

"kevin -- I skimmed that polling report, and it still doesn't support your contention."

Skim a bit more carefully, then. It supports exactly what I said.

"We're talking about reducing abortions in the absence of such restrictive laws,"

Who are "we"? I'm talking about restrictive laws, and you are mounting a sort of ersatz opposition to them.

"and it's annoying to keep going back and forth about abortion's legality when it will remain legal for the time being."

This argument doesn't make any sense. The initiatives Tony Campolo favors aren't in place for the time being either. I am unpersuaded by the argument that we should simply maintain the status quo because those who support the status quo are tired of talking about it.

Posted by: kevin s. | July 13, 2008 11:29 PM

Rick, I've appreciated some of your responses to the more "conservative" elements of this blog site, but it seems that you're nothing more than a front for the Democrats. At least Jim Wallis believes in theory that one should put principles over politics. You're views on the Left are as vitriolic as are though of many on the Right. For this I am very sorry.

Posted by: ando | July 14, 2008 9:28 AM

"You're views on the Left are as vitriolic as are though of many on the Right."

"I live in Pennsylvania and know exactly what happened -- and what a low-life he proved to be after all."

Kinda just proved his point.

Posted by: jesse | July 14, 2008 10:24 AM

carl copas: "When does the fetus become a human being with a soul? One nanosecond after the sperm fertilizes the ovum? 5 minutes after? at the end of the first trimester?"

Moderatelad: "When is it a protected American citizen? One minute after a live birth?
We need to define these terms - but everytime I have asked my liberal friends - they will not define them."

No one has, that I can tell, lib or con, Rep or Dem.

kevin s: "Why wouldn't this be the case? This is how human beings are made. If it is not so, can we really say a newborn is a human being with a soul?"

Perhaps it is the case--I honestly don't know. I'd like to hear some arguments, pro or con.

And when does an embryo become a "human being"? It's not obvious to me. For example, we know that very often embryos a few days old are spontaneously aborted; often the mother is unaware that she's pregnant and has lost the embryo. Are those embryos "human beings"? Do they have souls? If so, does the soul go to paradise upon death?

And let me repeat once more, for the umpteenth time, as we debate abortion fruitlesslly yet again on God's Politics: I'm the father of two adopted children and am ecstatic that each one's birth mother chose not to abort.

Posted by: carl copas | July 14, 2008 12:18 PM

Some of you say abortion is wrong, you're concerned about the rate of abortion, it's ending a human life, but you're not willing to restrict it in any way using the law.

Eric -- As I've tried to point out, it's not so simple. For openers, abortion laws didn't even exist until the late 1800s, and when they were enacted then the motivation was to keep women from being exploited sexually (a common problem in that day). That, however, was coupled with churches and other organizations stressing sexual purity and responsibility on the man's part, a radical idea for that time. Therefore, the "pro-life" movement of that day would by today's standards be considered "liberal."

Things are different today. With the sexual revolution causing cultural change and women exploring their own sexuality and feeling empowered by expressing it, any effort to curtail that freedom is seen as going back to the Stone Age (figuratively, of course). It is also true that many, many Christians have hang-ups about sex (which, of course, is the starting point for the abortion issue) and focus on driving it underground. Add to that the conservative idea that religious morality can be enforced by law but without the time-and-resources investment in cultural change -- in short, folks really don't want to take the time to live their faith, preferring simply to shove those values down everyone's throats no matter the consequences. That's why the "pro-life" movement has been a complete failure despite all the noise it's made over the past 30-odd years; in fact, I noticed that people started bailing out after Clinton was elected president.

While I do agree that abortion should be banned for the reasons you mentioned, I also recognize that successfully doing so will take more than political action. There needs to be a cultural consensus and a groundswell of support, neither of which we have right now. Most people outside of Pennsylvania don't know that Bob Casey Sr. once vetoed a strict abortion law written by an anti-abortion activist legislator, not because he opposed the bill itself on principle but because he was not willing to spend taxpayer money to have it shot down in the courts -- at this point even a court challenge is insufficient.

Posted by: Rick | July 14, 2008 3:04 PM

... a truly just society is one in which women don't even consider having an abortion because they know, in their hearts, it is wrong and they have community support to raise a healthy child.

I'd love to see abortion clinics put out of business due to lack of customers.

Posted by: Rick | July 14, 2008 5:28 PM

Jane - have you ever heard of adoption? That's when a waiting family who can't have biological children will undergo all kinds of questions and paperwork in order to give life to someone else's child. We've done it twice. There are many other waiting families.

FYI - we adopted internationally, from China and Ethiopia. We're blessed to know that the birthparents held life in high regard.

Posted by: ando | July 14, 2008 9:50 PM

Posted by: ando | July 14, 2008 9:50 PM

"have you ever heard of adoption? That's when a waiting family who can't have biological children will undergo all kinds of questions and paperwork in order to give life to someone else's child."

I have heard of adoption. Giving birth to a child and then giving that child up is the greatest act of human selfless love that I can think of. I don't think I could do it.

That said, I don't think we should pass a law mandating that women carry pregnancies to term in order to provide a good selection of healthy infants for childless couples.

Have you heard of foster care? That's where the throwaway kids get dumped. The ones who were subjected to early abuse and chaotic lives because they were born to people who didn't want them or had no clue how to love them. Those kids break my heart. Not many people line up to adopt them, even if both their dysfunctional parents can be found and will agree.

It's a sinful world. People make bad decisions and there are no tidy one-size-fits-all solutions.

Jane

Posted by: Jane | July 15, 2008 5:18 AM

If Barack Obama says he wants to "reduce the number of abortions", that would be like the Big Tobacco companies saying they want to stop teenage smoking -- pure PR! Obama, as evidenced by his UNIQUE opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (look it up!) is the MOST pro-abortion major candidate ever to run for president.

Further, calling for "a reduction in the number of abortions" is like if some 1850s abolitionist had called for "a reduction in Southern slavery", or like if someone in the 1940s had called for "a reduction in the number of Jews being murdered". Abortion, like slavery and Jew-killing, is an abomination that needs to be ENDED, not simply reduced!

Posted by: AlN | July 17, 2008 4:48 PM

I've long argued that even for some Believers this is a difficult issue, Why? Because there is some biblical evidence that we are not to place the same value on an unborn child's life as we do on the life of a child or an adult, look in the old testament and see what the punishment is if two men are fighting and one of them should accidently hit a pregnant woman and cause her to lose her child. Are they treated like a murderer? No. Granted that's an accident but still there is a difference made because the child is not yet born.
There is also that in all this. there is the superposition of our Chrisitian beliefs on the legal system of America. AND while many argue that this is a Christian nation I still seem to recall that it is a representative Democracy and not a Theocracy. Our forefathers didn't want to have a repeat of Europe where the government told them what to believe and how to worship. So we have a separation of Church and State. If you want the freedom TO worship, you must give others the freedom not to worship. So the State can not tell me what to believe (or not to believe). we can not tell the state what to believe either meaning we can't tell the state when life begins, but must abide by a definition of when life is that no one can dispute. When a child emerges from it's mothers body and draws a breath it is alive and until then it is dependent on its mother.

What we can do and should do is the following
1)AS Tony suggest try to reduce the perceived need for Abortion - remember this you who count your self as Christians we are repeatedly admonished to care for the less fortunate, the poor, the orphaned, the widowed, the foreigner, I suspect you'd be condemned by your savior for your less than charitable attitudes expressed hear
2) Make clinics providing abortions do so entirely on private funding so that there can be no questions that money taken for pro-life tax payers is not used for that purpose.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 23, 2008 5:58 PM