The Republican position is equally unchanged. Talk a good line; adopt a tough plank in the party platform; invite Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson to your convention and hobnob with them - but do nothing substantive to address the problem.

The pro-life movement has swallowed the Republican Kool-aid and now are about to elect a man who was pro-choice up until the start of this election season.

I would like to see the two sides to come together and try to work on real progress on this issue. As long as the issue remains so deeply imbedded in politics, I will remain pessimistic.

Posted by: Sister Marie | August 14, 2008 2:34 PM

jim, wow great point, the dems are for no flexabilty on abortion (states deciding the issue is out) and for sociallized medicine now that is change you can believe in. roger

Posted by: roger | August 14, 2008 3:06 PM

I made this point on the last thread, but it seems rather salient here again:

this is about a different perception of what government is supposed to do. If there is a growing consensus that an abortion in some way terminates a human life, doesn't the state have an obligation to defend the rights of the unborn baby in some way? Of course, there are many more measures we can and arguably should take as a society, but it's difficult for me to understand why some who believe abortion ends a human life are also against laws against it.

Laws don't exist to set a moral course for our nation, deciding on favorable outcomes and then steering people in that direction, to be jettisoned if they prove ineffective. We don't ask ourselves, "How's that law against robbery doing? Is it really reducing the number of robberies? Maybe we should get that law off the books..."

Laws protect people's rights. If an unborn baby is in some way a person, that person is entitled to legal protection. I can understand those who do not believe that a fetus is a human life rejecting legal protection--but I can't understand those who believe it is human not supporting legal protection for "the least of these."

Just my $.02 and as always I remain open to and appreciative of dialogue...

Posted by: Mike J | August 14, 2008 3:17 PM

"The pro-life movement has swallowed the Republican Kool-aid and now are about to elect a man who was pro-choice up until the start of this election season."

McCain was never pro-choice.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 14, 2008 3:30 PM

If abortion doesn't kill an innocent human being why do we need to reduce the number of abortions?

If abortion does kill an innocent human being then why is this even a discussion? (Wouldn’t lovers of the right to life not even consider this an option)?

It seems like we make the abortion issue so complex. I think the issue is very complex emotionally and psychologically. I fail to see why the issue is complex morally. We know from science that every abortion takes the life of a distinct living organism that is human. We can play mind games all day but these are clearly human beings.

America must realize that we all went off the path of truth in this area when we considered it an option to kill to solve tough life problems. With that said our first step is not to build common ground on how do deal with the reality of abortion...our first step is to remove the option of killing to solve tough life problems.

Anonymous

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 3:37 PM

Big Guy wrote:

"As a pro-life person, cradle to grave. I have tried to talk with many pro-abortion people about I will give up the first trimester if you will give us the third trimester. I don't agree with giving up the first but so to cause the war to deminish or cease I will. No one will even talk about giving up the third. Roe v Wade was viability of the fetus. The fetus is very viable in the third."

Your comment could be the start of honest dialogue and lead to a possible compromise, though I seriously doubt that you'll be successful in persuading a substantial number of your colleagues (who maintain that the microscopic zygote should be equally protected as the 6-month fetus).

On the pro-choice side, I don't think that there are many who would oppose establishing limits at the third trimester as long as there was an exception to save the life of the mother.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 3:45 PM

Can't we find common ground here? No, not as long as some of us believe that life begins at conception (in my opinion baloney) and others believe it begins at some point in the pregnancy or at birth. It would be nice to hear pro-lifers say that the right to life does not end at birth. Right now that is the view of most of them, and after that point you are morally on your own. At the same time, I want to see pre-choicers agree that life begins at an earlier point and that we should construct a social system in which no woman is faced with the the Sophie's choice of having to end an unwanted pregnancy because no other real option seems open to her. I hate to see abortion defined as an absolute right. When pro-lifers en masse oppose all wars, capital punishment, environment pollution that shortens lives, medical systems that provide good care for the well-to-do and little care for the poor, good pre- and post-nation care for all women as well as jobs, day-care and adequate housing so they can care properly for their children, and a meaningful system of gun control, to mention the most obvious life issues, then I will take them and their arguments seriously. I don't want hear any more of this garbage about socialism, liberalism, "left-wing," etc., and I will ignore any comment that uses these discussion-stopping words. In short, I am fed up with the whole abortion debate; we need to get on to more substantive issues.

Posted by: Richard Pierard | August 14, 2008 3:49 PM

"McCain said, “I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”

Source: Ron Fournier, Associated Press Aug 24, 1999

He has not ever backed away from that statement.

Would you like to see more examples?

Posted by: Sister Marie | August 14, 2008 3:52 PM

now [Republicans] are about to elect [nominate?] a man who was pro-choice up until the start of this election season.

I can't find evidence that McCain ever held what would normally be called a pro-choice position. During the 2000 primary campaign, he clearly made anti-abortion statements, to my recollection.

However, at least one media outlet is reporting that McCain may pick pro-choice Gov. Tom Ridge to be his running mate:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26187319

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 14, 2008 3:54 PM

The Democratic party has always supported the right of women to find proper prenatal care and the right of women to find healthy viable alternatives to abortion, as have non governmental organizations such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-choice America and its state affiliates. The Democratic party is stating what has been the intention of pro-choice organizations all along...hence the name, pro-choice. It is important that those who do not respect a woman's right to deal with her reproductive choices are not allowed to endanger women by removing funding from birth control, prenatal care, well woman care and abortions.

Posted by: The Reverend | August 14, 2008 3:58 PM

Pro-lifers and pro-choicers agree on everything except the timing; i.e., the time to decide when to have a child is before conception, not after. Abortion is not a confrontation between misogynistic oppressors of women and cold-blooded "baby killers," rather it is a rational, secular debate on when human rights should begin. Dr. Bernard Nathanson (co-founder of NARAL; a physician who presided over some 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the issue), writes in his 1979 book, Aborting America:

"...the Right-to-Lifers are not in favor of all 'life' under all circumstances. They are not in the forefront of the save-the-seals crusade. They are not devotees of Albert Schweitzer's 'reverence for life,' or its equivalent in Eastern religions, in which the extinction of cows or flies somehow violates the sanctity of the cosmos.

"Turning to the human species, they do not necessarily oppose the taking of life via capital punishment. Where were they when Caryl Chessman was executed for a crime he likely did not commit--and a rape at that, not a murder?

"They were likely not notably in the opposition while the United States was sacrificing lives on both sides of a questionable war in Viet Nam.

"They are not 'pro-life'; they are simply anti-abortion."

However, Dr. Nathanson goes on to say about those who prefer to be called "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion":

"This is the Madison Avenue euphemism of the other side. Who could possibly be opposed to something so benign as 'choice' ? The answer is: Almost anyone--depending. The diehard opposition to civil rights and public accommodations for blacks Americans in the '50s and '60s was 'pro-choice' with a vengeance. Some whites wanted the 'right' to serve hamburgers or rent hotel rooms to whomever they wished.

"Most of us now oppose the concept of choice in such ugly claims. The true question is, What choice is being offered, and should society sanction that choice? In any honest discussion we must focus upon what is being chosen, without hiding behind the slogan."

We see those on the pro-choice side opposing even reasonable restrictions. Our laws require parental notification or consent if minors want tattoos or pierced ears, why should abortion be exempt? The decision to take a life is very grave, so why is it unreasonable to require a 24 hour waiting period, to give a new mother time to think things through, rather than make a decision in haste? The pro-choice rhetoric that women are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not to carry a child to term means they ought to be able to make *informed* choices. The informed consent or "women's right to know" laws advocated by pro-lifers are consistent with pro-choice rhetoric. Even many on the pro-choice side are uncomfortable with abortion during the later stages of pregnancy: yet they are often reluctant to support a ban on partial-birth abortions--a procedure which is never medically "necessary," and which former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan likened to infanticide.

In Guerilla Apologetics for Life Issues, Paul Nowak points out that Planned Parenthood opposes even reasonable restrictions upon abortion, such as 24 hour waiting periods, parental notification, informed consent, etc. Nowak writes: "Planned Parenthood opposes clinic regulations, despite the fact that in many states there are more restrictions on veterinary clinics than self-regulated abortion facilities."

Writer and activist Jay Sykes, who led Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 antiwar campaign in Wisconsin and later served as head of the state’s American Civil Liberties Union, wrote, "It is on the abortion issue that the moral bankruptcy of contemporary liberalism is most clearly exposed," because the arguments in support of abortion "could, without much refinement, be used to justify the legalization of infanticide."

Writing in the Tallahassee Democrat, pro-life feminist Rosemary Bottcher similarly observed:

"I have always thought it peculiar how the liberal and conservative philosophies have lined up on the abortion issue.

"It seemed to me that liberals traditionally have cared about others and about human rights, while conservatives have cared about themselves and property rights. Therefore, one would expect liberals to be defending the unborn and conservatives to be encouraging their destruction."

Rosemary Bottcher criticized the Left for its failure to take a stand against abortion:

"The same people who wax hysterical at the thought of executing, after countless appeals, a criminal convicted of some revolting crime would have insisted on his mother’s unconditional right to have him killed while he was still innocent.

"The same people who organized a boycott of the Nestle Company for its marketing of infant formula in underdeveloped lands would have approved of the killing of those exploited infants only a few months before.

"The same people who talk incessantly of human rights are willing to deny the most helpless and vulnerable of all human beings the most important right of all.

"Apparently these people do not understand the difference between contraception and abortion. Their arguments defending abortion would be perfectly reasonable if they were talking about contraception. When they insist upon ‘reproductive freedom’ and ‘motherhood by choice’ they forget that ‘pregnant’ means ‘being with child.’ A pregnant woman has already reproduced; she is already a mother."

In These Times, a progressive political newspaper in Chicago observed in the late 1980s: "Our reaction to scenes of anti-abortion activists engaging in civil disobedience outside clinics is similar to that of many on the Left: ‘What are THEY doing using OUR tactics? One major factor may be uncomfortable for many of us to admit: that many of them ARE us.’ "

Posted by: Vasu Murti | August 14, 2008 3:59 PM

Here is today's quote from the 71-year old prospective nominee (regarding a VP):

"I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party," McCain, who's anti-abortion, told the magazine. "And I also feel that -- and I'm not trying to equivocate here -- that Americans want us to work together. You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders, and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don't think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out."

Posted by: Sister Marie | August 14, 2008 4:05 PM

Abortion is a difficult moral issue. Patriarchal religion and theocratic government want to limit women's choice and women want their right to decide. We seem to be at a moral impasse. Trying to characterize people who are pro choice as also being pro abortion gets us nowhere. It is mere rhetoric that oversimplifies a difficult personal and moral issue.
I am against abortion with certain narrowly drawn exceptions (incest, rape, mother's health); however, I am also against racism, genocide, torture, and the targeting of noncombatants in war--all of which are listed as intrinsic evils which can NEVER be tolerated according to the American Bishops' statement on Faithful Citizenship. Like them, I am also opposed to war, poverty and the death penalty.Let's never forget Dr. King's axis of evil--war (militarism), racism and poverty.Eradicating these evils will reduce the call for abortion and terrorism.
Unlike those who are pro-life from conception to birth, I am pro-life from conception to natural death.
Legalized abortion will continue to be a reality in a pluralistic society; however, we can reduce the need for abortion through counseling, education, adequate pre-and post-natal health care, effective adoptive services, and other means. Let's stop spending out time trying to roll back Roe v. Wade--it will probably never happen. Rather let's begin to work together to discover effective approaches to drastically reducing the need for abortion.
I commend Jim Wallis for trying to find the common ground so that the dialog can move from rhetoric to reality.
One other note. Some comments I have read recently allude to socialized medicine in the Democratic position statement.When I was falsely accused recently of being a socialist (Some people often confuse Christians with socialists.,I told the other person that every human being, coming forth from the Creator, has the right to food, clothing, education, shelter and health care. The person responded that this is nowhere in the Constitution (I do think it is in the 14th Amendments' guarantee of National Citizenship), I responded that "it is written in the Gospel of Jesus Christ" which trumps the Constitution every day.

Posted by: J. Patrick Mahon | August 14, 2008 4:07 PM

I see no substantial change, just more tepid rhetoric. Even the second story plank, the one with the magnanimous nod to a woman who wants to keep her baby alive, is built on the first story, right over the abortion clinic. The bottom line is this: what part of snuffing out human life do you not understand? So much wanting to accommodate everyone, results in saying nothing significant to those who take human life. It certainly doesn't reduce the killing.

Is life difficult for a pregnant woman or couple without resources, or plans for or even desire for a child? Yes, of course. No thinking person asserts any different. But in no way, no way, do hard cases justify taking the life of unborn child, not even a little.

Making abortion rare? What part of more than one million babies killed per year for 35 years don't you understand? STOP LYING. Visit an abortion clinic. Observe an abortion, especially a second or third term abortion. Tell God that you know this isn't his best, but "We are doing the best we can." Invite God along on your walk through and tell him face to face. And roll your eyes again at one who firmly believes that there is no middle ground on murder, regardless of age.

Posted by: Michael McLaughlin | August 14, 2008 4:21 PM

Anonymous wrote:
Do you think it is bad for people in this country to be polarized about issues? We are polarized about so many things like women's rights, slavery, free speech rights etc. I never understand why being polarized about abortion is looked down upon.

This is a good question. My opinion is that the main danger with polarization around issues is that polarization makes it hard for people to see and appreciate the humanity of those people on the other side of the issue. I can respect the sincerity of another's beliefs, even if I feel those beliefs are terribly wrong and misguided. This allows me to work with that other person on things we both find important. It helps me remember that we are both created in God's image.

Posted by: David Grinstein | August 14, 2008 4:25 PM

Sister Marie

"I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

This does not necessarily mean McCain is pro-choice. To me it shows someone who sees the issue as very complex. From other of his quotes presented here so far, he seems more interested in the dialogue you wish for in your following statement:

"I would like to see the two sides to come together and try to work on real progress on this issue. As long as the issue remains so deeply imbedded in politics, I will remain pessimistic."

I would like to see that as well. I have said it before on previous threads that I don't think either Republicans or Democrats want to come together, because it is an extremely effective wedge issue for both sides. You are right, as long as it is wielded as a political issue, there will be no progress.

Posted by: squeaky | August 14, 2008 4:30 PM

As someone who is pro-life and also supports many progressive causes, I have been waiting for the Democratic party to tell me that I am welcome in their party. Ever since the shameful actions keeping Bob Casey from addressing the convention it has been clear that the party does not welcome differences of opinion on this issue. While I am encoraged by the slight tweeking of the platform, and a possible address to the convention by Casey's son, I still do not feel welcome in the party. Maybe this is a first step. Also, Wallis' use the phrase "shared desire to decrease the need for abortion" signals the fundemental problem: there is no "need" for abortion. When Wallis and other speak of the "so-called need for abortion" I will know that progress is being made.

Posted by: David | August 14, 2008 4:31 PM

Cheryl -- you are correct that working toward reducing abortions is a good idea. We should do this regardless of party affiliation or non-affiliation.

But the Democratic platform (Republican, as well) is little more than a political commercial unless it is matched by action. In this case, the Democrats want you to look at their words, not their actions to date. We are supposed to take it by faith that the action will come after we elect them. But it is reasonable to question the party's motives, particularly when unequivocal support for Roe v. Wade is the starting point of their position statement.

Also, there is enough blame to go around on both sides of the abortion debate, so to wholly blame Republicans for the partisanship does not appear to be a very fair statement.

Posted by: Tony | August 14, 2008 4:33 PM

Eric P.: "There is no need for abortions."

No? Never? What about to save the life of the mother. If you say it's okay in that case then you open wide the doors of doubt and complexity. You simply can't reduce this issue to a one-liner like you have here.

"If there is any reduction in abortions it will come from the political Right, not the Left, and both side know that."

It hasn't worked very well up to now. Tell me why it will change going forward?

Posted by: JEM | August 14, 2008 4:37 PM

Why are the 1 million lives lost each year to abortion in the U.S. less important than the lives lost to poverty and war in the rest of the world? Why is it all right for life or death for those helpless humans to be subject to the decision of one other human being and the act of several others, but unacceptable if it happens in another setting. One human life ended by the decision of another human is either wrong, or it is not.

Posted by: JC | August 14, 2008 4:44 PM

Jim, have a spine. If you believe abortion is a moral issue, then you can't be amoral when you speak of it. What do you believe? Does child in the womb have any value to you? And please, stop jumping to your global poverty polemic as a defense for not caring about the unborn. Just be honest. I, Jim Wallis, believe... (what is it?)

Posted by: pastor d | August 14, 2008 4:48 PM

Ever since the shameful actions keeping Bob Casey from addressing the convention it has been clear that the party does not welcome differences of opinion on this issue. While I am encoraged by the slight tweeking of the platform, and a possible address to the convention by Casey's son, I still do not feel welcome in the party.

Bob Casey Sr. was prevented from speaking at the Democratic National Conventions in 1992 and '96 because he flatly refused to endorse Bill Clinton, a man whom he despised deeply, and not because he opposed abortion -- other abortion opponents were indeed allowed to speak. Bob Casey Jr., on the other hand, went openly for Obama early -- and in fact was recently slammed by the Catholic League for allegedly voting with NARAL 65 percent of the time.

Posted by: Rick | August 14, 2008 4:51 PM

Posted by: Michael McLaughlin | August 14, 2008 4:21 PM

You know, when you shout (in e-terms) STOP LYING in a post, you are not really inviting thoughtful discourse on the subject. You are welcome to express your opinions, as are we all. But do you really think you're going to convince anyone to change their mind based on yelling at them to stop lying? Personally, that makes me write you off as a forum troll.

Posted by: JEM | August 14, 2008 4:55 PM

""I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

He has not ever backed away from that statement."

Actually, he disavowed this view shortly thereafter, saying he was referring to the need to change the culture or something. He also said in 2000 that he would prosecute abortion doctors, which would of course require a reversal of Roe v. Wade.

I agree that his rhetoric has wavered on this issue, and that isn't very impressive. I wasn't very impressed at all with his 2000 campaign.

I am more concerned with his votes than his rhetoric, and his votes have been generally pro-life. He had received a 0% rating from NARAL for a reason.

"It would be nice to hear pro-lifers say that the right to life does not end at birth."

I've heard this repeated over and over. The only consistent position the pro-life side needs to take is that babies, once born, are also protected by the constitution. Of course, all pro-lifers agree on this.

Conservatives disagree generally that governmental assistance programs are necessary to maintain life. This does not necessarily mean that we oppose all forms of governmental assistance, however.

There is nothing inherently dissonant about squaring this view with the notion that we should not be able to kill unborn babies.

"Wallis could simply write down the Sermon on the Mount, and some folk on here would jump down his throat."

Well, true. But only because he would accompany it by saying that this is precisely what the Democratic platform stands for.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 14, 2008 5:02 PM

When did Democrats or any progressives ever say that a woman who decides to keep a child should not be encouraged in that decision. That's what WIC is all about. Dems have traditionally supported programs to help poor women. The Grand Oil Party has traditionally not supported such programs. Are you aware that Bush is planning on using his executive power to declare contraception to be abortion. That means that no federal programs would pay for the pill or any other means for poor women to prevent pregnancy. Now that really makes sense. I'm a liberal Presbyterian. I am pro-choice. I am also very pro-life because I oppose war, I support programs for family planning, I support programs to end poverty. I support programs to fight disease. Those who say they are pro-life are often just anti-abortion or anti-choice. The distinction needs to be made.

Posted by: Karen | August 14, 2008 5:02 PM

Congratulations to Trevor Smith for humanizing the pro-life side of this discussion. Many are calling for humanizing the pro-choice side, but few have actually extended the olive branch in the opposite direction.

It seems to be implicit in many comments in support of Wallis' article that pro-lifers who don't vote for Democrats are, in general, pretty awful people. Just in this thread they have been accused of doing nothing tangible except try to overturn Roe v. Wade, as being politically blind, hypocritical, of not caring about people between birth and the grave (only before birth), and of causing "hate, strife, and division."

The reality is that millions of pro-life non-Democrats are already doing a lot of the things that the Democratic Party now says it might do (emphasis on "might," since unequivocal support of Roe v. Wade is still No. 1 on the agenda).

It is time to recognize that there are a lot of good-hearted people on both sides, and to treat each other accordingly.

Posted by: Tony | August 14, 2008 5:08 PM

I'm generally amazed at the number of times that Wallis can fit the word "Darfur" into his writings.

Posted by: DITE | August 14, 2008 5:11 PM

It seems like we make the abortion issue so complex. I think the issue is very complex emotionally and psychologically. I fail to see why the issue is complex morally. We know from science that every abortion takes the life of a distinct living organism that is human. We can play mind games all day but these are clearly human beings.

The issue is complex not because there is disagreement on the morality of abortion, as Wallis states, a clear majority think it is immoral. The complexity is all around how to stop it from occuring. To use the Robbery analogy posted by someone else, we have clear laws on the books making robbery illegal, but we still have a lot of robbery in this country!

What many fail to realize is that while reversing Roe v Wade may win one battle, it will not win the war on eliminating abortion. Then what do we do? The only reasonable thing to do is to take other steps to reduce or eliminate the reasons women would have an abortion, even if it were illegal. Preventing unwanted pregnancies, pre-natal care and support, post-natal care or adoption.

If we can agree that these things are necessary to prevent abortion even if it were illegal, then why not do them now with the likely result of reducing the abortion rate more than simply overturning Roe v Wade?

I have no moral problems with abortion being legal and it never occuring. I have much bigger moral problems with abortion being illegal and still being prevalent! Too many on the extreme pro-life are arguing for the latter, when instead they should be pushing for eliminating abortion regardless of its legal status!

The newer Democratic platform is a step in the right direction, while not changing there stance on legaity it at least is a step towards the real goal of eliminating abortion. One can argue it is not enough, but it is something. The Republican platform is sticking with its stance that if we just make abortion illegal it will stop. If that approach were effective we wouldn't be pushing to build a wall on our border and wouldn't have locks on our doors. Humans sin ever day, no one of faith denies that, so why don't we minimize the cause or need to sin?

Posted by: Doc | August 14, 2008 5:18 PM

Trevor Smith wrote: "Second, my experience within the communities who oppose abortion as practiced in America is that they have always used a both/and approach. Supply services for women involved in problem pregnancies and lobby for changes in the law. When last I looked, and as best I could tell, there are three to four times as many pro-life pregnancy care centers as abortion clinics in America."

Where are these communities? I, personally, have found that a lot of those who want to criminalize abortion also oppose comprehensive sex education in schools and unlimited access to birth control.

But what was your point about the pro-life pregnancy care centers vs. the abortion clinics? That's a good statistic, right? That's the direction we want to head in, I should think.

Posted by: JEM | August 14, 2008 5:24 PM

Rick, other people who hadn't endorsed Clinton also spoke. Also, other abortion opponents spoke, but not about abortion.

Not true -- two of the anti-abortion Clinton supporters were Mayor Daley of Chicago and then-Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana. The only exception to my knowledge was Katherine Brown, who was allowed to speak only because she was expected to place the name of her brother Jerry in nomiation (which she ended up doing).

Are you arguing that he would have been allowed to do so if he'd endorsed Clinton?

That's likely. I live in Pennsylvania (and voted for Casey Sr. twice) and distinctly remember in 1991 that he was running around the state tearing down Clinton at every opportunity; at one point he was quoted as saying, "Pick a winner." Incidentally, he ran into another controversy with the national party in 1994, when he pulled an endorsement from Harris Wofford -- whom he hand-picked to replace the late John Heinz three years earlier -- when Wofford waffled on the abortion issue; that's how we ended up with Rick Santorum.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 5:33 PM

JEM -- Trevor's point about the clinics is that millions of pro-lifers (both Republicans and Democrats) have been doing a lot of things to provide tangible support to pregnant women struggling with this issue, both before and after birth. He may have been responding to some very negative stereotypes put forward in this thread suggesting that pro-life non-Democrats generally just want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and don't do anything tangible to reduce abortions in other ways. Some have accused them of not caring about people between birth and the grave, only before birth.

Regarding contraception and sex education, individual pro-lifers cover the spectrum on ancillary issues. Some support these, while others don't. If you truly don't know pro-lifers who support contraception and sex ed, you need to expand your circle of friends.

Posted by: Tony | August 14, 2008 5:37 PM

Surely Mr. Wallis has not read the FACTS about Obama's horrible voting record in Illinois, where he singlehandedly kept a law from being passed that would have protected a live Baby from being left in a linen closet to die.

Obama actually had a specific reason for that, according to an interview published in Relevant magazine and linked to the website of Evangelicals for Social Action. He said he voted against the bill because it was superfluous, was designed specifically to overturn Roe. v. Wade and would never pass constitutional muster; basically, he didn't want to spend state funds in a losing battle. (If that sounds like a cop-out, know that Bob Casey Sr., whom we've mentioned in earlier posts, once as governor of Pennsylvania vetoed a bill restricting abortion -- for the very same reasons.)

Posted by: Rick | August 14, 2008 5:40 PM

I wish we'd hear from some pro-life women.

::waves::

Posted by: Jen R | August 14, 2008 5:44 PM

And as for people who tear down the candidate not getting to speak at the convention -- well, Hillary Clinton is getting a whole night this year, and during the primaries she was praising McCain over Obama!

The Clinton campaign also had a large hand in writing the platform, which was done in my city. And it has given Obama an endorsement (though admittedly half-heartedly).

Posted by: Rick | August 14, 2008 6:04 PM

How much do power over these issues to political parties gain before the church gets its act together and start providing some kind of education and care ourselves; loving those who may have made a mistake and not condemning them?

I mean, do we really want the Democrats or Republicans to be the shining hope for our world, especially when it comes to moral issues?

What happened to Jesus?!

Posted by: Matt G. | August 14, 2008 6:15 PM

I have a question that I would like an answer to, please. If Jesus, in his own words and while he was among us, did not denounce abortion or homosexuality, why are aspirants of the Religious Right interpretations and definitions of moral code, so sure that both are the worse sins that a person can commit or, better yet, even sins at all? If Jesus didn't give either as much as a nod or a wink, why are you all over them and condemning to hell all those who follow such paths?
Thank You

Posted by: Jim Bee | August 14, 2008 6:19 PM

Rick,
I would suggest you look deeper into Obama's born alive votes (or non-votes of "present"). You are correct that he has claimed his opposition was based on constitutional muster, what he leaves out is that he fought for the questionable language to be put in during committee. In other words he put the poison pill into the bill and then used it as an excuse to vote present. Change you can believe in?

We can argue about when life begins, but can we at least agree that life begins after the child is born?

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | August 14, 2008 6:23 PM

Please give examples of people being condemned to hell on this thread.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | August 14, 2008 6:25 PM

Jim Bee -- Jesus also didn't explicitly speak against nuclear war. So do you think you can drop the big one without regret, or are you willing to admit that believers don't look only to the red words to guide us in the world?

Posted by: Tony | August 14, 2008 6:31 PM

Don,
I looked at this link the last time you suggested it and found it unconvincing. Though I did appreciate you suppling it.

Everyone,
Please use Don's link and let us know what you think. I genuinely want to know what you think.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | August 14, 2008 6:34 PM

Tony,
Thank you for the reply. Of course Jesus didn't speak out about nucl;ear war but then, there was no understanding of the term "nuclear" in 33AD./ He was explicit about love your neighbor or turn the other chrrk or don't worry about the splinter in your neighbor's eye, worry first about the plank in your own. It is stilkl a fact that Jesus did not condemn either abortion or homosexuality. Why do you suppose he did not?

Posted by: Jim Bee | August 14, 2008 6:44 PM

Jeff:

Why not ask others not only to look at the graph, but also to take the Political Compass quiz? That way, they can compare their own profiles to that of the candidates. (I took it and was rather surprised where I ended up.)

The Compass graph probably only unconvincing because almost all American politics trades within the upper right quadrangle--libertarian economics and authoritarian governance. The differences between "liberal" and "conservative" are quite narrow compared to the politics in most parliamentary democracies--including Canada. (Take a look at some of the other graphs on the Political Compass site.) In most of the democratic world, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and western Europe, both McCain and Obama would be regarded as conservatives--McCain being only slightly more conservative. (Take a look at their positions on the graph--they aren't really that far apart, and the campaign is putting them even closer together). We have few candidates in the economic libertarian-libertarian quadrangle (lower right), even fewer in the economic left-libertarian (lower left) quadrangle (Kucinich was one), and almost nobody in the economic left-authoritarian (upper left) quadrangle.

Part of the reason, I'm convinced, is the noise from the hard right in the US. If anyone (e.g., Obama) even appears to have economic leftist leanings, he is excoriated by the right and called names, etc. Even the word 'liberal' has become an epithet; it used to mean 'generous.' The right-wing noise machine has effectively narrowed the ideological range even further than it was, say, 25 years ago.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 14, 2008 6:49 PM

Tony: "If you truly don't know pro-lifers who support contraception and sex ed, you need to expand your circle of friends."

I wasn't clear--I was talking about community and legislative support, rather than individual support. But now that you mention it, almost to a person, those people I know who are anti-abortion want to place legal restraints on sex-education, contraception, and tax-funded financial support for single mothers (e.g., subsidized day care and health care). Perhaps you're right--I need to expand my horizons.

And just to throw a BIG spanner into the works, I really have a hard time calling someone pro-life who endorses war and capital punishment and, again, almost to a person, those people who are anti-abortion are pro those other things. But that just speaks to the complexity of this issue, no matter what anyone says about it being black and white.

Posted by: JEM | August 14, 2008 6:58 PM

Tony: "Regarding feminism and legal abortion, I don't see anything in Wallis' article about the Dem platform limiting abortion for purposes of sex selection. That is a big reason for abortions in various parts of the world, and we would be naive to think it doesn't happen here."

Tony, where are your statistics here? This may happen in other countries (actually, the only one I've heard of is possibly China), true, but I have never heard of it happening here. I've never, ever, talked to anyone in this country who has spoken of this with anything but revulsion. Don't go looking for boogymen where there aren't any.

Posted by: JEM | August 14, 2008 7:03 PM

JEM -- you said, "I really have a hard time calling someone pro-life who endorses war and capital punishment and, again, almost to a person, those people who are anti-abortion are pro those other things."

Not me -- I am anti-capital punishment, etc. And there are tens of millions of Roman Catholics who also defy your description. I am Anglican, which also means that my church is more flexible on contraception. I support a broad range of contraceptive measures that do not involve destroying an unborn person.

It sounds to me like you (and many others) are only familiar with a stereotype of pro-lifers that is not very charitable or accurate.

You also point out a major problem in our terminology -- pro-choice and pro-life are both inaccurate terms. But each side has the right to name itself.

Posted by: Tony | August 14, 2008 7:19 PM

With the world's population steadily increasing thereby putting more and more preasure on the environment, earth's resources, and others, family planning is of foremost importance, not abortions.
Perhaps we need to follow China's example of a one-child policy.

If we continue on our present pace, favoring human lives over other living things on this planet, our species might well shovel its own grave of extinction.

Once we limit human population growth to acceptable levels, then, only then, can we begin to worry about abortions.

Kutte

Posted by: Kutte | August 14, 2008 7:25 PM

"Everyone,
Please use Don's link and let us know what you think. I genuinely want to know what you think."

Seems pretty straight-forward to me, and I think it proves Don's point.

Oh, I took the test, and it evaluated me as "Left-Libertarian."

Posted by: carl copas | August 14, 2008 7:34 PM

Sorry, here is the correct link: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/01/17/index.html

Posted by: jesse | August 14, 2008 7:38 PM

It is good that the Democrats added specific language affirming women who give birth to their unborn children and calling for programs to help them. And I do hope that will put pressure on the Republicans to also support such programs in order to put flesh on their claim to be pro-life.

Wallis notes the 1996 and 2000 Platforms contained language including people who disagree with the Platform position on abortion. He says the 2008 Platform builds on that clause, but in fact there is no such clause in the draft 2008 platform, and no acknowledgment whatsoever that it might be acceptable to be pro-life within the Democratic Party. The "common ground" language in no way legitimizes Democrats who are pro-life.

Wallis also fails to note that the "pro-choice" faction exacted a high price for allowing what should be a non-controversial position providing supports for women who have children. The "pro-choice" language is more extreme than in any previous Democratic platform. The platform opposes any restrictions at all on abortion, even though some restrictions are supported by more than 80% of Americans, and endorses taxpayer funding of abortion. I note also these elements:

1. The 2004 position that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare" was struck, and now it is just "safe and legal."

2. The concept of a "need for abortions" was introduced, which is new to this year's Platform.

Wallis is disingenuous in referring to a "consistent ethic of life" since the context seems to imply that's what the Democratic platform provides, or at least moves toward. This is simply not true.

Not only is the platform 100% pro-abortion, it also endorses militarism. Here are some quotes from platform language in that regard:

"We will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan"

"To renew American leadership in the world, we must revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace."

"We believe we must also be willing to consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense"

"We support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 troops and the Marines by 27,000 troops."

And, while the platform doesn't mention it, Obama is a strong supporter of the death penalty and lashed out at the Supreme Court for supporting some restrictions on its use.

So the Party is a consistent death ethic party.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | August 14, 2008 7:39 PM

I am yet to be convinced that personhood begins at conception. I have never even heard a Biblical argument that this is so.
Part of the liberal fear is that if life is defined as beginning at conception and abortion is outlawed, then many forms of contraception would also count as abortion. Even the common pill, which does not prevent conception, but which does prevent the zygotes (s?) from settling into the uterine wall would be abortion.
Abortion is not murder or the taking of a life if life does not begin until birth. If personhood is defined as beginning during pregnancy (2nd or 3rd trimester or whenever) then only abortions after that date should be viewed as taking a life.
Simply stating without evidence or reason that personhood begins at conception will not sway many liberals (if any) and there is no agreement on this issue.
Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | August 14, 2008 7:46 PM

The position stated here will not resolve the polarity that exists on this issue Saying you support the right of a woman to have a child and you support the rights to birth control and health care simply does not address the issues that concern most evangelical Christian regarding Row vs. Wade. While the politicians seek to find language that doesn't offend anyone, thousands upon thousands of abortions continue to be performed. The language in this platform will not help those who live in and on the edges of poverty either. Once again it appears that the Democrats will manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We need a change of direction in this nation but it appears that neither party has the character to move the nation in a direction that will nurture our unity and minimize the polarization that currently exists.

Posted by: Meltone | August 14, 2008 7:52 PM

Wallis writes, "The rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100 percent of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200 percent of poverty. The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level is more than four times that of women above 300 percent of the poverty level. Three-fourths of women who have an abortion say a reason is that they cannot afford a child."

Pay close attention to the data Wallis just cited. Poor women are 4 times as likely to have unintended pregnancies as well-off women (those above 200% of poverty). Then he switches to the 300% number to say that poor women are over 4 times as likely to have abortion. This switch is to avoid the fact that poor women have OVER 4 times the rate of unintended pregnancies compared to those above 300%. These numbers seem to indicate that the differences between poor and well-off women are more pronounced for unintended pregnancies than they are for abortions.

In other words, the problem for poor women seems more to be a problem of getting pregnant rather than one of carrying an unintended pregnancy to term. It appears that they are more likely to carry an unintended pregnancy to term than a well-off woman.

If you look here http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/trends.pdf you'll find that less than 30% of abortions are by poor women.

In addition, the numbers show that more than 80% of abortions are by unmarried women. Emotional and social support are actually more important contributors to abortion than financial support. How can the govt address this problem of social/emotional support? Will any amount of money take away the inconvenience of a child to an unmarried woman?

Posted by: jesse | August 14, 2008 7:58 PM

Bill's point about the party's toning down the language of making abortion "safe, legal, and rare" by removing "rare" is also worth pondering. The language of the 2008 platform is actually more strongly pro-abortion rights.

This writer here actually praises the fact that the platform is more pro-abortion than ever: http://www.slate.com/id/2197363/

When will Wallis show some true independence on the abortion issue? Surely his views on abortion cannot be as radical as the mainstream Democratic position? Does he support public funding of it? Does he oppose all restrictions?

Posted by: jesse | August 14, 2008 8:25 PM

I have to agree with Bill. This is a step backward, not forward. I don't find the Republican stance on abortion any better, but it looks to me as if the Democratic Party is not moving towards a more moderate position on this issue. There have been more prominent pro-life Democratic politicians in the past few years than in the past, but that has not been reflected in this year's platform.

Posted by: Nevin | August 14, 2008 8:55 PM

I am truly amazed at the lack of Christian compassion here. Does the woman not factor into this discussion at all? It seems that many here consider the woman expendable, since many women would be severely wounded and die if abortion is made illegal. It has been both subtly and blatantly acknowledged here that making abortion illegal will not end it, so we must then ask ourselves what will happen to abortion? What will happen to the women who seek it? What will happen to the lives they carry? As awful as abortion is, would babies AND women dying be better? Because that doesn't sound at all pro-life to me.

Posted by: e h | August 14, 2008 9:00 PM

e h -- The lives of women are a major concern for the vast majority of pro-lifers. Just because people do not come to the same conclusion as you does not mean that they lack compassion. But the "safe" part of the safe and legal debate has been put forward as a dogmatic position by pro-choicers, with no evidence offered to support this fear of blood in the streets. Kathleen's anecdotal evidence tugs at the heart, but it may not reflect reality at the national level.

When Roe v. Wade became law, people with empirical minds thought that the safety issue could ultimately be demonstrated by seeing a drop in the number of deaths among women of child-bearing age. Interest in this peaked in the mid-80s in an attempt to counteract the Reagan revolution on the abortion issue. The numbers can even be studied down to the level of looking at particular causes of death that a death certificate might use in the pre-Roe period to disguise a death caused by illegal abortion, such as sepsis. The numbers can also be compared to death rates of women who carried a pregnancy full term (pregnancy is a risky proposition).

Where are the peer-reviewed studies providing statistical evidence that women are safer thanks to Roe? You would think that evidence would be paraded before cameras and handed out by NARAL as rock-solid support for the supposed benefits of Roe. Everybody would know about this, and it would always be cited in discussions about abortion. But the data do not support it -- there was NO significant change in the death rate post-Roe, even when studied over a number of years.

This is no great mystery, and you can look up the death numbers for yourself and do the math thanks to the internet. There is no significant drop in the death rate among women of child-bearing age after Roe. So the "safe" part of the safe and legal explanation for supporting Roe may be primarily a red herring. It is intended to sway people by playing on their emotions and fears, regardless of the facts.

I have only heard two possible explanations for the data: 1) women had many fewer illegal abortions prior to Roe than we are led to believe by anecdotal evidence, or 2) illegal abortions before Roe were not as dangerous as generally believed.

We don't know the answer, but No. 1 makes a lot more sense to me. So if Roe were ever repealed, we will not see blood flowing in the streets. Wealthy women can travel to get abortions in Canada, and other women will generally carry more pregnancies to term. The biggest risk would be among poor women, and that is where we could intervene to serve and provide for them. (By the way, I don't actually think overturning Roe will ever happen.)

Posted by: Tony | August 14, 2008 9:25 PM

Hooray for having blocked moderatelad. I can only ask what took so long?

As far as answering Kevin S's "so what":

So plenty, if one is to realize that change comes "glacially," and welcoming Pro-lifers in the party is exactly that.

So too, the fact that, as it has been reported, the Dem's have been willing to run pro-lifers in select races.

As well, we could point out that Obama is the 1st prospective nominee the Democrats have had to use "restrict" and "abortion" in the same sentence.

And even getting the party to admit that abortion is a social problem of any sort, can only be a tiny step in the right direction.

And let us not forget that the Republicans have had a history of embracing militarism and racist "states Rights" advocates, which has unfortunately cause the Anti-abortion position to be wedded to poor company. This has clearly slowed change down.

All things considered however, Jim is celebrating a little too much to soon IMHO. These are baby steps at best. Ron Sider I think is being more critical here by openly questioning Obama while keeping an open mind- for those who subscribe to Sider's newsletter.

But meanwhile, the GOP has thrown the door wide open to the Pro-choice position! Methinks the conservatives would best spend their time cleaning up their own back yard & not worrying about the family discussions at someone else's table?

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 14, 2008 9:30 PM

"The abortion rate has declined during Bush's tenure, but it increased (dramatically) during Carter's." jesse

The source for all of the estimates on the numbers and rates of abortion, including the report you cited, is the CDC's abortion surveillance reports, the most recent of which I posted a link to above.

Your comment is deceptive.

It's true that the number of abortions has decreased during this president's time in office, but that is a continuation of the decline that started in the early 90's - about the time Clinton became president.

I wouldn’t be naïve enough to suggest that the Clinton administration had an effect on the number of abortions performed in this country, but I think that if I had voted for Republicans based on that party’s stated position on abortion, I would be very disappointed in the outcome.

The trends in abortion have not changed significantly since bush took office.

Talk is cheap.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 14, 2008 9:56 PM

Don and Carl,
If you don't mind me asking, what were your scores?
It would be interesting to sit down and compare answers to each question (impossible I know) but a great conversation starter.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | August 14, 2008 10:09 PM

This site seems to play with this by broadening the field to the point that American politics occupies a very narrow band.

That's precisely my point--American politics does occupy a very narrow band.

The site is a UK site, so they're taking a worldwide look at things, as they should. Why would it be more honest if it only focused on American politics? Are Americans so parochial that they refuse to see things from a more global perspective? (Actually, I think I know the answer to that last question.)

[W]hy are "conservatives" advocating for broader roles for government in personal issues but diminished roles when it comes to financial matters?

Excellent question, Pastor Jeff.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 14, 2008 10:14 PM

We are a "nation conceived in liberty".

Since when has there been such a need to make abortion such a big deal?

Why does the Federal government seek to make ANY sort of decision for any individual who has "unalienable rights... among those.. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? And to the several States -- I would ask the same question.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Do candidates REALLY need to carry this baggage around with them? Do the voters REALLY make their decisions based on whether a candidate ascribes to a fundamentalist position on a personal decision point item? Only if those voters are so narrow-minded that they cannot reason rationally.

Yes, abortion IS a moral issue. And it is best left to the ones who are intimately involved in making that decision. The woman who considers abortion should be given ALL of the facts, the medical considerations, the psychological considerations, and after having been availed of all that knowledge, let HER call her own shots. In the spirit of individual liberty, she must live with her decision.

The Catholic Church will never depart from its notion of conception as the first moment of sperm penetrating egg. However, elementary science will tell you that the blastocyst that forms within a few hours is not in any way shape or form a human being, capable of living on its own. There are no organs differentiated, indeed, nothing differentiates appreciably for several weeks. That is why the first trimester (12 weeks) was established as the best time in which to abort an embryo.

Natural abortion. We NEVER hear discussion about that at all. Known by terms as "miscarriage" or "still-birth", the fetus or baby dies in-utero. Gosh, God killed His own creation! What do you say to that? The worst part is the woman and her doctor may never have expected that to happen. And the woman is depressed, sad, and anxiety- ridden because she wonders what she did wrong or if there would be a recurrence if she became pregnant again at a later time.

Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense whatever to try to legislate morality on even the broadest of terms, not at the Federal nor at the State level. As stated earlier, the only one who can judge the morality of their decision is the woman involved and her doctor, no one else.

This is the only way a nation and its people "conceived in liberty" can deal with this issue. Personally, I cannot care a wit about what my neighbor does with her blastocyst, embryo, or fetus. In most cases, no one outside of the family knows much about any circumstance that leads to a decision to abort. As a society, we have much more pressing things to give attention to. Some things are best left to the discretion of the individual. Abortion is one such thing.

Posted by: Walter | August 14, 2008 10:16 PM

Don, National Journal says Obama was THE MOST LIBERAL Senator in 2007:

"Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate."

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 10:32 PM

"Your comment is deceptive."
--My comment is also accurate (which you seem to acknowledge).

"It's true that the number of abortions has decreased during this president's time in office, but that is a continuation of the decline that started in the early 90's - about the time Clinton became president."
--It's also the same time that Planned Parenthood vs. Casey was decided, which led to a host of new state laws that no doubt contributed to the decline in abortions. The decline also started at the tail end of Bush Sr's term.

It's also worth noting that during Bush Jr's term there was a marked increase in the number of doctors offering medical abortions (RU-486), as reported by the Guttmacher Institute (planned parenthood's research arm).

With that said, I think the abortion rate is actually pretty complicated. The economy definitely contributes to it, but what contributes to the economy and rates of poverty? Isn't it conceivable that the decline in the abortion rate (and poverty rate) is due in large part to the decline in unintended pregnancy rates and the health of the economy? Note that neither of these explanations involve increases in welfare benefits (which Clinton actually curbed).

There are no easy answers, which is why I'm not really that impressed with the types of solutions Wallis always claims will somehow "dramatically" reduce the abortion rate. They've been coming up with many different types of pregnancy prevention programs for many years without much benefit.

Posted by: jesse | August 14, 2008 10:40 PM

Walter -- Wow. By the way, I noticed that you said, "Judge not, lest you be judged," and then in the next paragraph called certain voters narrow minded. Pretty judgmental words.

That is probably the quickest I have ever seen somebody quote the "judge not" verse and then turn around and violate it himself. But don't feel bad, everybody judges, especially people who quote that verse from the Bible. They often have somebody in mind who they want to zing with it!

By the way, everybody advocates certain types of judgments. But we sometimes want to make certain judgments off limits, especially the judgments that other people make. You draw your lines one place (you think it is OK for you to call people narrow minded, but it is wrong for them to hold those views), others draw it someplace else.

Posted by: Tony | August 14, 2008 10:44 PM

For Don, in regards to Obama having stated that he does NOT beleive that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, in spite of multiple scriptures stating the FACT. . . .

Here is a 2000 interview with then Editor In Chief of Belief Net, Steve Waldman, asking Bush almost the same questions about Jesus. Obama could have chosen to answer in this way, IF Obama felt that Jesus was the one way to Heaven, but didn't want to divide Americans by being too open to state such a divisive, but inherently Christian, belief:

"BELIEFNET: Do you think that all major religions are equally true?

BUSH: I think that we're all God's children, and far be it from me, as a lowly sinner, trying to decide who gets to go to heaven and who doesn't, for example. I mean at one time, in 1994, I said, "My faith says you must accept Christ to go to heaven." And there was a significant backlash because, as typical in politics, the full story wasn't told. And there was a typical backlash amongst, you know, some Jewish people in Texas that basically felt I had said that they can't go to heaven. I worked hard to make it clear to people, far be it from me to tell you I get to decide who goes. I'm working on myself. I'm focused on me.

And so to answer your question, there are great religions in the world, and it's important to recognize that there are great religions in the world. And there are many shared tenets of the great religions. "Love a neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself." And there are some wonderful callings. I just happen to be a Christian.

BELIEFNET: If you believe that the way to the Kingdom of God for you is Jesus Christ, in a sense don't you have a moral obligation to try to urge other people to follow the same path?

BUSH: Not in my line of work I don't. My line of work is political. My line of work [my job] is to walk the walk, and respect others, and respect their religions. And secondly, I'm not so presumptuous as to play God. There are many great religions in the world.

God is all-powerful and all-knowing, and, you know, we'll never know until we get to heaven the ultimate answers to many of the religious questions. But the president of the United States' job is not to try to convert people to religion. The president of the United States' job is to set an example, to make sound decisions, to respect religion, and, if asked, to herald religion. But the key is not to hold out, you know, my religion is better than yours."

I believe that Bush spoke from what emanated inherently from his heart, from his belief system, and so did Obama. I would be more comfortable if Obama would NOT claim to be a Christian, since it is very plain that he doesn't abide by the very basis of Christianity.

When Jesus said, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life -- no man cometh to the Father except through Me', how do you explain Obama's basic belief system that 'he calls Christianity'? (John 14:5)

http://tinyurl.com/644ver

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2008 10:50 PM

Pastor Jeff --

You ask, "How can your political philosophy be inconsistent with Scripture if you claim to be following Jesus, The Word of God?" When I said that believers may run into issues where their faith contradicts their political philosophy, you misunderstood that to mean a personal philosophy. I meant that in this society we have only two main organs for exercising political choices in our society. You mentioned conservative/liberal, you might also say Democrat/Republican. Both parties clearly follow secular philosophies. They never have nor do they intend to primarily follow Jesus. So there are possibly issues on which my faith tells me "Democrat" on one issue and "Republican" on another. That is the contradiction to which I referred. For me, it is abortion. Most of my issues fall Democrat, but this one is definitely not Democrat. I can't say that the Repubs record thrills me either.

The beauty of our society is that everybody is free to bring his or her views to the table, regardless of their source, religious or otherwise. You ask who decides what is a major life issue, and the answer is each individual. And then we hash it out in the Congress and in courts and try to come to a concensus that is consistent with our values, aspirations, and our Constitution. In a land of 300+ million people we will probably never have unanimity on any issue.

Posted by: Tony | August 14, 2008 11:15 PM

Could you give me some more detail as to where I can find this interview?

http://www.esa-online.org

I must disagree a little on the statement that Abortion and homosexuality were not issues in Jesus' day. Certainly the condemnations of homosexuality in Leviticus and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah were strong in the minds of the Jews in Jesus time.

For openers, homosexuality was but a small part of why those cities were destroyed -- and in fact they were not the only cities targeted (read that entire chapter). And in fact, because of the strong nationalistic feelings of the Jewish people -- which would have included adherence to Mosaic Law -- there was no way that they would have been involved.

Ron Sider I think is being more critical here by openly questioning Obama while keeping an open mind -- for those who subscribe to Sider's newsletter.

I do -- that's what the link represents.

It's also the same time that Planned Parenthood vs. Casey was decided, which led to a host of new state laws that no doubt contributed to the decline in abortions. The decline also started at the tail end of Bush Sr's term.

I also understand there were fewer women of childbearing age as well, which makes a difference.

Posted by: Rick | August 14, 2008 11:22 PM

"You don't have to protect unborn children. That's 'good works.' You don't have to 'work' for your salvation. Paul says Jesus told him three times, 'my grace is sufficient for thee.' Abortion, abortion, abortion. You don't have to protect unborn children."

If the above theological argument sounds foolish, it should. It has been made by religious pro-lifers with regards to animal rights: not harming or not killing animals is dismissed as 'good works,' whereas not harming or not killing the unborn is a Christian duty.

The pro-life movement desperately needs religious diversity. Pro-lifers should welcome people of all faiths and those of no faith. Not everyone in the United States is a Christian. This country wasn't founded by Christians; many of America's founding fathers were Deists. There are other faiths besides the Abrahamic faiths. There are other holy books out there besides the Bible or the Koran, like the Bhagavad-gita, which also claim to be the word of God.

I also have a problem with pro-life Christians who adhere to a double-standard: i.e., they insist that their stand against abortion be applied to everyone, including those who may not share their faith, but then they embrace moral relativism when it suits them, e.g.: "Your religion says its wrong to kill animals for food, clothing, or sport--mine doesn't."

There ARE Christian vegetarians and vegans, of whom I have the deepest respect. I don't take it seriously when meat-eaters say, "The Bible permits us to eat meat," because the Bible was also used to uphold human slavery. The Bible can also be used to justify abortion:

Genesis 38:24. Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at the time. This was positive proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus. Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums up the passage as: "Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."

Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial-life". The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life, it gains full human status after birth only. Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus. Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health. With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women. Each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law.

The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born. Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nephesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression, "the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body. This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus. If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of its mother: One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is owner of both the cow and the fetus. Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion also applies to her fetus.

Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.

Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed to government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, her doctor and her clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance. Polls have found up to 90% of American Jews supporting abortion rights.

We really live in a secular society. Secular arguments are religiously neutral and thus applicable to everyone, including atheists and agnostics. The pro-life movement ALREADY HAS the support of organized religion. Instead of preaching to the choir, i.e., wasting time with religion, pro-lifers should focus on prenatal development, DNA, RNA, etc. to make their case to mainstream secular society.

Again, the pro-life movement desperately needs religious diversity. It's already stereotyped as being predominately Christian (Catholic, fundamentalist, born again, etc.) and will need to become completely secular as it attempts to convince the courts, legislatures, universities, philosophers, ethicists, etc. that human zygotes and embryos should be regarded as legal persons.

Posted by: Vasu Murti | August 14, 2008 11:27 PM

Dear Jim,

I am looking for a candidate or party who is pro-life on all issues -- abortion, poverty, war, etc. I have thought that this was your ideal also.

Your article disappointed me, because I feel like you are too easily satisfied by the democratic party's stance on abortion.

Nobody ever thought that the democrats wanted to kill all fetuses, so what good is it to hear that they also support a woman's choice to have a baby?

And what solace can be found in their support of family planning and sex education? The democratic party has been in bed with planned parenthood for years. When I was in middle school 25 years ago, the message I got from planned parenthood was that sex outside of marriage was great -- just protect yourself from disease and unwanted pregnancy.
Now planned parenthood goes further and encourages children to explore homosexual or bisexual lifestyles.

Finally, I believe that we must address issues of justice and poverty. But I do not see that as a huge cure for the abortion issue. Tonight I led music at a Vacation Bible School. My guess would be that 75% of the children who attended were born to unwed mothers who were living below the poverty level. Poor mothers already have options and resources for giving birth to and raising their children.

But who will help these children to learn to become committed husbands and wives? Planned Parenthood certainly won't. Committed marriages are a better cure for poverty than anything the democrats can offer.

Jim, please be consistently pro-life.
(And I am a registered democrat.)

Posted by: Kevin Brubaker | August 15, 2008 12:05 AM

Abortion is a social justice issue. 90 percent of arguments for or against abortion fail to account for the rights of the millions terminated. When these are discovered, the humanity of the unborn recognized, we're astonished: abortion is no longer a "moral issue" but is a terror, immoral by any measure.

So! How are the children? Dead. Yep, dead.

Posted by: MRD | August 15, 2008 12:27 AM

Linda Hirschman's article makes a lot more sense than Jim Wallis's. Hirschman sees legal abortion as essentially a good thing. Hirschman sees legal abortion as an important part of women's liberation. I think she's wrong but it's clear where she's coming from.

By contrast, most evangelicals see abortion as the destruction of innocent human life -- an evil at least on par with if not worse than petty theft or smoking cigarettes in a crowded restaurant or riding a motorcycle without a helmet or a whole host of activities that government at least attempts to prohibit.

Jim Wallis is trying to stake out a middle position: abortion is kinda bad but not so bad that we should ever enforce a prohibition, and he wants evangelicals to join him there. Now that's actually not an insane position, but what Wallis doesn't realize is that it is a lot closer to Hirschman than it is to the average evangelical.

Jim Wallis also fails to realize that it doesn't matter whether or not the Democratic Party is embracing his "safe, legal, and rare" position or not. Before he can seal that deal, he has to persuade evangelicals that "safe, legal, and rare" is an adequate response to their concerns about abortion.

Failing to face these facts leaves Jim Wallis with a rather unconvincing position on abortion. So if Jim wants to bridge the gulf on abortion, step one is to make the case explicitly that prohibitions on abortion are inappropriate.

Because the evangelical opposition to legal abortion is grounded in a conviction that human life begins before birth, doing so will mean arguing either that a human fetus is not really human (doable in the early stages of a pregnancy, but much trickier in the latter stages) or arguing that a certain number of human deaths (how many I leave to Jim to decide) are an acceptable price to pay to maintain reproductive choice.

Either way it should make for an interesting post.

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 15, 2008 12:36 AM

"Wallis could simply write down the Sermon on the Mount, and some folk on here would jump down his throat." Posted by: carl copas

EXACTLY.

"McCain is far to the right of Obama on abortion, and advocates nominating judges who adhere to the constitution." Kevin S

I could agree with that statement if it were phrased a bit differently: "McCain is far to the right of Obama on abortion, and advocates nominating judges who adhere to HIS VIEW OF the constitution."

Both conservative and progressive judges have been rather creative in their interpretation of the constitution to arrive at their desired result.

At the end of the day, I would accept the pro-life position, and even advocate it, if many/most of the judges who espoused it did not come along as a dangerous ideological package of jurists who would stop at nothing to trample other due process rights in the real of search and seizure, civil rights and worker's rights.

Since when does being pro-life as a judge mean that you have to be against a level playing field in the courts? The two almost go hand in hand. From that I can only conclude that the pro-life position is being used as a decoy to divert attention from other pressing issues.

A common rallying call of the conservative movement has been against "activist courts." Well you better hope that the courts remain independent and even "activist" as some would call it. Otherwise the executive will go unchecked and we will be on a slow road to dictatorship.

Posted by: JamesM | August 15, 2008 4:53 AM

My eyes glaze over when we talk about abortion as a concept...reducing it to the very tired rhetoric of Roe v. Wade. Two years before Roe v. Wade, I was born into a "home for unwed mothers." My biological mother had a choice. In fact she had many choices. Abortion was one choice. Keeping me and living in a small town that used the term "bastard" in its vocabulary was a choice. Giving me up to a home that could raise me and provide quality of life was a choice. People make choices. Whether or not a party legitimizes a choice to me is irrelevant. People will still make choices regardless of whether or not some cracker tells them it's legal or illegal. The whole abortion argument to me is nothing more than a way for people to coneptualize away the harsh realities of making choices. They don't want to dirty up their minds with the unpleasant realities of people like my biological mother any more than they want people like me who have an ear tuned to the word "bastard." They would rather go on talking such matters in the abstract. This to me is no different than cultural elitism. It is the rhetoric of a spoiled nation with too much time on its hands. I don't want to hear any more talk on the subject. I want to see these candidates, and the people who support them, get their hands dirty and care for the parents who made a "mistake" and also for the "mistakes." I want to see them put names and faces to abstract terms like "choice," and "mistake," and "right to choose" and right to life." I recall vividly working in a slum not more than 100 yards from the US border. Mexican children were literally growing up in a trash heap. To all who wrote comments and haven't experienced such realities first hand, quit pecking away at your keyboard and go spend some time with such people. I would say the same to the two candidates who regularly wade into the waters of birth and choice. Debates are meaningless unless we do something to change lives in the name of the one who was nailed to a tree...the one who loved the mothers and loved the bastards of this world.

Respectfully Submitted,
A Malcontent Bastard

Posted by: Peter John Smith | August 15, 2008 7:04 AM

I've watched the abortion debate for almost 30 years. I've heard this kind of language from the Democrats before. It is a smokescreen and Wallis is the one drinking the cool-aid. Anyone truly familiar with Obama's record knows he is an absolutist on abortion rights.

Pat Buchanan makes the logical point well at Human Events http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27992
Obama believes protecting a woman's right to "choose" is helped by guaranteeing the right to allow to die an infant who has already been delivered and is outside the mother's womb. There is absolutely no way I will ever vote for this guy.

What the Democrats are offering is a slight of hand. They will allow support for a notion that is morally unobjectionable (carrying a child to term) and equate it with allowing a notion that is morally reprehensible, terminating a being who has a beating heart, active brain and developing living body. The language makes it appear those things are equally a matter of informed concience. They are not, and Wallis, deep down knows they are not.

I find it infuriating that Christians on the left are positioning themselves to be the ones to allow the most pro-abortion politician in the history of the coutnry to likely appoint several Supreme court justices who will likely keep Roe on the books and continue the slaughter of 1.5 million living children into the next decade.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2008 7:49 AM

Peter John Smith, the "Malcontent Bastard":

Your comments remind me of these lines from Edmund in King Lear (Act 1 Scene 2):
Thou, nature, art my goddess; to thy law
My services are bound. Wherefore should I
Stand in the plague of custom, and permit
The curiosity of nations to deprive me,
For that I am some twelve or fourteen moon-shines
Lag of a brother? Why bastard? wherefore base?
When my dimensions are as well compact,
My mind as generous, and my shape as true,
As honest madam's issue? Why brand they us
With base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?
Who, in the lusty stealth of nature, take
More composition and fierce quality
Than doth, within a dull, stale, tired bed,
Go to the creating a whole tribe of fops,
Got 'tween asleep and wake? Well, then,
Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land:
Our father's love is to the bastard Edmund
As to the legitimate: fine word,--legitimate!
Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed,
And my invention thrive, Edmund the base
Shall top the legitimate. I grow; I prosper:
Now, gods, stand up for bastards!

Posted by: Don | August 15, 2008 8:07 AM

Wow, anyone with any doubts that Barack Obama is the MOST pro-abortion ever should read the National Review article, entitled "Life with Obama: Abortion Champion" by David Freddoso.

The article is about the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which would keep abortion survivors from being thrown into the trash, gasping for air. Obama was the ONLY senator to oppose this bill, and he in fact personally killed the Illinois version of the bill when he was in the IL state senate. Even Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton supported this humanitarian bill.

A quote:
"Given Obama’s position on babies born alive, it should come as no surprise that he opposes and denounces all restrictions on every kind of abortion, including partial-birth abortions. He promised at a Planned Parenthood event in July 2007 that “the first thing” he will do as president — his top priority for the nation — is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would erase every federal and state restriction on abortion, no matter how modest. His top priority, again, is to re-legalize partial birth abortion under all circumstances, abolish all laws on informed consent and parental notification, and eliminate all state restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortions."

So this silly little "advance" in the Democratic platform might make some of you feel better, but do not be fooled -- a vote for Obama is a vote for ABORTION under any circumstances, and a vote to let living, breathing babies die in the trashcan. How's that for "Change" and "Hope"?

Posted by: AlN | August 15, 2008 8:41 AM

The Democratic Party through its platform has changed, both philosophically and materially.

Abortion is wrong but should not be criminal. That's easy for a man to say. I don't have to defend my body against an unwanted pregnency. To that point, I wish that the platform also said that preventing abortion is equally carried by men.

The platform definies the limits of abortion, the alternatives to abortion, and the possible consequences of not abortin a child.

Underlying the platform comments is a willingnes to embrace faith-based efforts at ending abortion through abstinence. better education, adequate birth control, and post-birth options.

We can discuss ad infinitum - as has happened to no avail - the morality of abortion. We agree that abortion is sometimes needed to save the life of the mother. We often disagree on whether abortion is appropriate in cases of rape and of incest. Can't we come to some agreemtn about birth control, which makes abortion unnecessary.

Abortions will continue, even if in backrooms and alleys as they once were performed. Therefore, negotiate a consensus or rational compromise that includes abortion as only the last resort and emphasizes real sex education, real parental and community support for bith control methods other than abortion, honest discourse on all aspects of this issue, the need for abstinence, and the hopes and promise of adoption and of caring for a new child in someone's life.

Abortion discussion brings up the exigencies of education, medical care, support, honesty, prayer, and candor.

How simple and easy it is to take a black-and-white stand on abortion. How realistic it is to take realistic action on it. And how sensible it is to have a discussion among all factions that ends our need for reliance on abortion as a first choice rather than the last resort.

Pray for us and this endeavour.

Posted by: R Bridges | August 15, 2008 9:16 AM

As a Pediatrician, I am amazed after 28 years of practice what effect examining a newborn still has on me. No matter how hectic my day is , it is always better when holding a baby. I have a theory as to why that is. BECAUSE THEY HAVE JUST CAME FROM GOD , THEY ARE STILL COVERED WITH "GOD DUST" THAT PERMEATES THE ATMOSPHERE AROUND THEM!!

I am one of the pro life democrats Jim talks about in his letter. I am pro-life because the medical facts are clear. If left to nature, 85% of all conceptions will result in la healthy baby and no pro-choice suppoorter has ever been able to tell me the exact .000000000000001 second along that 9 month timeline that is was acceptable to terminate that biologic event. I am a democrat because I believe on EVERY OTHER ISSUE THAN ABORTION the democratic position is closer to the moral/ethical/biblical truth about how societies should be. Also though I am anti-abortion, I do not believe that is a place for the governement to intervene.

Saying that, I admit I am dissapointed in the work of the platform committtee. I didn't expect them to disavow Roe v. Wade, but I expected a more detailed position as to supporting women to carry their babies to term. Maybe that will come out later in the campaign. Finally as a politico, I am amazed at how Democrats keep overlookinig the importance and emotion of this issue.

Finally to steal Jerry Seinfeld's "Did you ever wonder routine".....Did you ever wonder why almost all Pro-Life people say abortion is ok in cases of rape and incest? I know those crimes are hideous, but are those fetuses somehow less alive or less human than any other fetus?

Mark MD

Posted by: Mark- | August 15, 2008 9:43 AM

Should the Democratic Platform be a moral document or does it simply convey a political stance that attempts to provide room for persons who have arrived at different moral conclusions?

I recall a campaign about budgets being moral documents that did not conclude different citizens might make different conclusions about the morality of a particular dollar amount.

Fundamentally, 'pro-life Democrats' will not 'feel at home' as long as the party cannot bring any sense of moral outrage at the extermination of tens of millions of unborn lives. Jim, I appreciate your work and thankless labor at seeking common ground on which issues of justice and righteousness can advance. But displaying clear moral outrage at this reality does not sacrifice one's capacity to hear and receive the dignity of persons with other views.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | August 15, 2008 11:19 AM

correction:
"since the questions were asked directly to the candidates"

should have been
"since the questions were not asked directly to the candidates"

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | August 15, 2008 11:24 AM

Wow I can't seem to form sentences or hit the right buttons. I'm going to go do some grunt work. Maybe when I come back i'll do better.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | August 15, 2008 11:30 AM

Wow and more wow. You all sound like the Duffer's (Monopod's, Dufflepuds, etc.) from C.S. Lewis' masterpiece, "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader". If you don't know what I am talking about, read the book.

The point? You all have one leader and you only want people to agree with you, hence the great joy with which you proclaim opposition being blocked and castigate any disagreement as conservatives hating on people.

I wonder how long my post will last? For the record, abortion is murder. What our government does with that will ultimately be tested in the court of the Almighty. Perhaps we should all approach this topic with a bit more "fear and trembling" before the Almighty who alone has "the right to give life and the right to take it away"...

Posted by: Armed2Win (Ephs 6:10-18) | August 15, 2008 11:34 AM

Sister Marie: "Hint to bloggers: If your contribution takes more than 1 minute to read, then it probably was not read."

Thanks Sister Marie. To that I would add, if you have no paragraph breaks in a long posting then many of us won't read it. It's just too much work.

Posted by: carl copas | August 15, 2008 11:37 AM

Armed2Win: "For the record, abortion is murder."

I see that phrase, "for the record," on here alot. What does it mean? And no, it's not a facetious question.

Posted by: carl copas | August 15, 2008 11:40 AM

A column written on slate.com by Linda Hirshman suggests that this isn’t the win that Wallis thinks it is. She, too, sees the change in the Democratic platform, the one Wallis didn’t mention, as a victory for her side – that is, the side that sees abortion not as a “necessary evil” that should be “safe, legal, and rare”, but as a positive option for people who don’t want to care for the child they’ve created.

She writes: “The Democratic Party platform of 2008 finally dropped its old abortion language ("safe, legal and rare"), which had asked that women not have abortions unless they absolutely must…[it] offers an opportunity to put an end to this self-destructive cycle of Safe, Legal, and Rare, otherwise known as regret, depression, and self-denigration. In its place, it can finally argue for the value of women's lives.”

www dot slate dot com/id/2197363/

When people who celebrate abortion as a net positive for our society think the platform change is a win it should give those in Wallis’ camp some pause.

Posted by: Eric | August 15, 2008 11:52 AM

Hey Carl,

"For the record" is probably based on growing up for the past 30+ years in a news based/obsessed society where one (in the case, me) is "in the position of having publicly declared oneself."

Its opposite of, "off the record" which would be a more personal and anonymous offering.

Cheers...

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | August 15, 2008 11:58 AM

Don,

I have read all comments (there are differing viewpoints, but most are against a conservative position - but that's perfectly OK.) Speaking of comments, what I find interesting is you failed to note the following:

"Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 14, 2008 9:30 PM Hooray for having blocked moderatelad. I can only ask what took so long?"

I found no outcry against this censorship. I find that suspicious, hence my comments.

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | August 15, 2008 12:07 PM

A Pro-life Democrat here with a few questions and a follow-up for fellow liberals:

What is the philosophical justification for arguing we should protect the environment and be fiscally responsible because we have a responsibility to future generations?

Is it because we value human life and not just individual people? Do we owe something even to hypothetical future individuals? Do they share in the self-evident inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

If so, how does that square with our treatment of an actual fetus? (Also keep in mind that at least by 1-month the fetus has electric activity in the brain and a working heart.)

I respect anyone who cares about this issue, I hope we can reason and share together in mutual concern for doing the right thing. Peace be with you!

Posted by: Daniel | August 15, 2008 12:10 PM

First of all, my 12:09 comment refers to the comment from Michael Reafsnyder posted at 12:06, of course, not to Armed2Win's 12:07 comment.

Armed2Win:

I can't speak for Kevin Wayne, or for others who didn't respond to him. I myself didn't see K.W.'s comment. And regarding the "moderate lad," however, he was not censored for his viewpoints. He too violated posting guidelines and had been warned earlier.

Don

Posted by: Don | August 15, 2008 12:16 PM

I think the platform statement is a very reponsible, rational, and realistic position for the democratic party. Decisions regarding abortion are seldom, if ever uncomplicated simple choices between right and wrong -- good and bad. And when political parties or individual politicians attempt to over simplify the question of abortion they usually come off looking as if they are pandering to one side or the other of those who want simple answers. Living and functioning in the grey areas of decision making is not easy. And for some, there can be no grey, only black and white. But that is not reality. It is wishful thinking.

If we, as a nation, are serioiusly wanting to reduce the number of abortions that take place throughout the world, we MUST do a much better job of providing health care, education, and family planning resources to all. If the democratic party platform statement means that we are moving beyond the overly simplistic labels of "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice". Thank God!

Posted by: Lee | August 15, 2008 12:18 PM

I found no outcry against this censorship. I find that suspicious, hence my comments.

He was removed because he was being consistently and unrepentantly disruptive, specifically for taking threads off-topic for the purposes of bashing every "liberal" he disagreed with -- and in fact, he tried to return under two different aliases. Because Beliefnet and Sojourners are private entities, they are allowed to publish or not publish whatever they want and reserve the right to maintain rules to determine such; ergo, that action doesn't really represent "censorship."

Posted by: Rick | August 15, 2008 12:22 PM

Don,

Still - Amen!

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | August 15, 2008 12:27 PM

AlN, you don't make your case by using all caps and throwing multiple question marks and exclamation marks after your sentences.

Calm down, stop visually shouting at us, and, like I wrote to Sami above, stop your demagoguery.

And why should I trust Freddoso's word? The title of his book doesn't lead me to think that he's objective or unbiased, and that's putting it mildly.

D

Posted by: Don | August 15, 2008 12:32 PM

I think the platform statement is a very reponsible, rational, and realistic position for the democratic party. Decisions regarding abortion are seldom, if ever uncomplicated simple choices between right and wrong -- good and bad. And when political parties or individual politicians attempt to over simplify the question of abortion they usually come off looking as if they are pandering to one side or the other of those who want simple answers. Living and functioning in the grey areas of decision making is not easy. And for some, there can be no grey, only black and white. But that is not reality. It is wishful thinking.

If we, as a nation, are serioiusly wanting to reduce the number of abortions that take place throughout the world, we MUST do a much better job of providing health care, education, and family planning resources to all. If the democratic party platform statement means that we are moving beyond the overly simplistic labels of "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice". Thank God!

Posted by: Lee | August 15, 2008 12:34 PM

Do you REALLY believe Obama's flaky reasoning as to why he opposed the Born Alive Protection Act?? Really? Unfortunately, if you look at David Freddoso's article (posted above at 10:14pm, 8/14, by vp), Obama's reason is simply NOT valid!

FYI, I stopped consuming conservative media back in the early 1990s -- as a media person myself, way too often I found distortions, misstatements and outright lies in their "reporting" -- so whatever Freddoso has said I don't buy for a minute precisely because it was published by a conservative website. In other words, you'll have to do better than that if you're trying to get us not to vote for Obama. (And the conservatives slam us for being biased? Puh-leeze!!!)

Posted by: Rick | August 15, 2008 12:37 PM

Don't believe in abortion?

Don't have one.

Posted by: justintime | August 15, 2008 1:05 PM

My participation on this blog has been sporadic the last several months. Even though he and I disagreed frequently, I am disappointed to hear the Moderatelad has been banned.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 15, 2008 1:09 PM

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 15, 2008 1:09 PM

My participation on this blog has been sporadic the last several months. Even though he and I disagreed frequently, I am disappointed to hear the Moderatelad has been banned.

Here is a copy of the e-mail that was sent to Moderatelad from Sojo about why he was being blocked. I saved a copy for my records. Thought you would find it interesting -

big guy

Moderatelad,

While we appreciate your level of engagement with the God's Politics blog, after multiple warnings we've made the difficult choice to ask you to no longer post commments. We are also requesting that Beliefnet implement its technical means of blocking any future comments by you.

If it makes you feel any better, we've decided to similarly block commenters of the opposite political persuasion who were similarly unable to avoid the kinds of direct personal insults and attacks that led us to take this action with you.

This was the straw that broke the camel's back:

@#$% you

I am not going to be played like that I have helped women with their decisions. Your disrespect for people on here makes you one of the people that are not worth talking to. I have not label you like you have and I will let Jesus judge me and not you.

OK - you pushed a few buttons - whatever.

So go ahead and praise God for your retoric and attacking people like you seem to be good at. I will talk with those who want to engage and leave the labeling to people like you.

Compolos plan - repackaging of old retoric
Wallis plan - stating a lot and saying nothing
RJohnson - not worth my time, very disrespectful

A Child - priceless

Blessings-

The God's Politics Moderation Team

Guess we all better be careful - if you comment on Sojo - you may be blocked. OK the #$%^& you was over the top. But you should have read what the other person was saying - calling him. I would have been far more direct than he was.

Many on this site miss him and a few others should have been blocked too - but they are Sojo Groupies.

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 15, 2008 1:29 PM

Whatever the Democrat party platform happened to say on this or any other issue, I expect Jim Wallis would find reason to praise it.

Posted by: Gordon | August 15, 2008 1:59 PM

Rick & Don: OK, I get it -- you don't trust Freddoso's writing because he's a conservative. Wow, over 3/4 of your Christian brothers are also conservative. Interesting.

The main point is that while BH Obama may have found a silly, complex technicality to explain why he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, he was still the ONLY senator to oppose it! Why didn't Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or even Ted Kennedy find that same complication that Obama found? Why, because allowing living, breathing human beings to die in a trash can is indefensible -- and even Boxer, Clinton, Kerry, and Kennedy know that! But Obama's loyalty is stronger for his pro-abortion allies than for living babies.

Jane, you may think it's a tired talking point, but it's also the truth: Obama, if elected, will be the "Abortion President" -- enjoy that change!

Posted by: AlN | August 15, 2008 2:09 PM

As I mentioned when it happened, if I had been the decision maker I would not have booted either the moderate lad or the Wolverine.

Kevin, you are hardly the only "conservative" who is posting here, as I'm sure you know.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 15, 2008 2:13 PM

"As I mentioned when it happened, if I had been the decision maker I would not have booted either the moderate lad or the Wolverine."

I totally agree. It is disappointing that the moderators can't seem to recognize those who are truly inflammatory on this site. Neither of the above are. Makes me wonder how carefully they read through the threads. They'll block those guys for no apparent reason, yet some of the more outlandish posts remain.

Posted by: squeaky | August 15, 2008 2:23 PM

"Along with Wolverine. Somehow I have escaped the e-mails. Maybe I have been chosen to be the token conservative guy." Kevin S.

Wolverine got the axe too?!

The day they block you will be the day I part company with Sojo for good!

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 15, 2008 2:31 PM

I too, am disappointed that God's chosen censors have redacted two of the more colorful contributors to God's Politics.
I hope this site doesn't slide into monotony.

Posted by: justintime | August 15, 2008 2:48 PM

Along with Wolverine. Somehow I have escaped the e-mails. Maybe I have been chosen to be the token conservative guy.Posted by: kevin s. |

No. I think that it is because you select your language very carefully- to your credit.

Posted by: JamesM | August 15, 2008 3:29 PM

"Why don't social conservatives pay attention to the overall performance of their elected representatives?"

What you have to understand is that we believe that a baby is a baby whether it is born yet, or not.

Please understand, I am NOT accusing any of the pro-choicers on this blog of wanting to kill toddlers!!! We have differing views on when life begins and I am using this merely to explain the pro-life perspective, not in any way as a reflection upon those of you who disagree. I am illustrating that to us, the un-born baby is just as human as the toddler or the adult.

I would not vote for any candidate who supported the "termination" of toddlers, teens or adults, regardless of what great things they might do for the economy or anything else (and I know that you all would not either.) So the issue is not that you all want to kill children nor is it that we don't care about any other issue. The issue is precisely that we believe the baby is 100% person and deserves the same rights and protections as any other child or adult.

So, while I do not consider myself a "single- issue voter," the abortion issue can be a deal-breaker for me.

Now, if your argument is that we support these candidates on their word that they are pro-life and yet, after 30+ years there has been no change, I can share that sentiment and it is a source of great frustration.

Posted by: Bradley | August 15, 2008 3:46 PM

Jeff: "Don and Carl,
If you don't mind me asking, what were your scores? It would be interesting to sit down and compare answers to each question (impossible I know) but a great conversation starter."

Jeff, I should've written down my score but didn't. If I have time today, I'll go through the test again to get the number.

You're right that it would be fun to go through each question but that it's not practical. Don and I have learned (along with a 3d party) that it's difficult to use email to sustain a focused discussion on a given topic over a period of time.

Posted by: carl copas | August 15, 2008 4:01 PM

"Now, if your argument is that we support these candidates on their word that they are pro-life and yet, after 30+ years there has been no change, I can share that sentiment and it is a source of great frustration."

Yes, that is a very large part of my argument. I don't think that any of the contributions to this blog have caused anyone to change their opinion on this issue though I can understand why some become offended when the rhetoric really heats up.

I think that many of us have difficulty understanding why this issue becomes one that overrides all others - particularly because the Republicans have not been very serious in addressing it.

Posted by: Sister Marie | August 15, 2008 4:08 PM

"furthermore, the 1975 law does not apply to nonviable infants born alive."

Webster's:
non: not, other than, reverse of, absence of
viable: capable of living; especially: having attained such a form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb.

Steadman's Medical Dictionary:
nonviable: incapable of independant existence; often denoting a prematurely born fetus.

By definition, a "nonviable infant" is one that has no potential to survive.

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 15, 2008 4:17 PM

Don't believe in abortion?

Don't have one.

Posted by: justintime | August 15, 2008 1:05 PM

The people that don't believe in it want to prevent other people going through hell because of abortions. There at so many women and men that regret that decision for the rest of their life and struggle and carry that pain. This article is spin. Again the so called "Christian left or progressive Christians" take people's attention off of abortion and put people's attention on their own political agenda.

Could say a lot more, pero voy a dejarlo en paz!

Posted by: Casey | August 15, 2008 4:58 PM

justintime -- For the record, Reed was never elected to any office; he was pretty badly beaten in the primary for the AG position in Georgia a few years ago.

And as for Rick Santorum, he got into office in 1995 because Bob Casey Sr. refused to endorse Harris Wofford due to Wofford's "waffling" on the abortion issue.

Posted by: Rick | August 15, 2008 5:04 PM

Anne:

What makes you think justintime is a troll? Is there no truth in what he says? You don't think that we have incompetent ideologues in Congress and/or in our state legislatures because voters put them there on the basis of their positions on one of many hot-button issues (not just abortion, BTW)?

Maybe justintime could tone it down a bit and use less name-calling (hint, justintime: you were the one who mentioned self-monitoring this forum). But I don't think that qualifies him as a troll.

The real trolls usually do get ignored.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 15, 2008 5:16 PM

Quote - "the Democratic Party "strongly and unequivocally supports Roe vs. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." Read - repealing the Hyde Ammendment, which means the federal tax dollars of Americans who oppose abortion will be used to fund abortions.
Quote - "Policies and programs that focus on reducing poverty--also strong planks in the Democratic platform--would increase the economic stability of women and thus also help reduce the abortion rate."
Government programs aimed at reducing poverty have never worked. They have only served to worsen poverty and increase dependence on government.
Mr. Wallis and Sojourners seem to be desperately grasping at straws to rationalize their embracing of socialist ideology in the guise of "progressive" christianity, and their support of the agenda of a radicalized Democratic party.

Posted by: Joel | August 15, 2008 5:21 PM

Rick is right, Reed was never elected to public office - my error.

And a good thing he wasn't elected.
His competency in office was never tested but his integrity was found severely lacking by his partnership with Jack Abramoff.
Now this has come to light, are pro-lifers still supporting Ralph Reed?

Posted by: justintime | August 15, 2008 5:27 PM

Gordon, Don, neuro_nurse, Thanks for the kind words on my behalf.

My internet had been down due to an electrical storm.
It felt so good working outside, I left it off for over a month.
No TV, no telephone, no internet, no news.
Try it sometime.
You'll be glad you did.

By the way, if anyone, like Anne or Don, think I should tone it down a bit, please let me know where it hurts - I can empathize.

Posted by: justintime | August 15, 2008 5:50 PM

"No TV, no telephone, no internet, no news.
Try it sometime. You'll be glad you did."

I spent a year in rural Ethiopia where we had electricity, but no phone or TV.

We would pack up our laptop and drive for an hour to Bonga, where we could send and receive Email, but otherwise were without Internet.

I had a shortwave radio and could listen to the BBC, but had left the U.S. shortly after 9/11 and was completely burned out on the news. I had better things with which to concern myself anyway.

I was glad to be away, and look forward to the time when I get out of this country and back to Africa.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 15, 2008 6:04 PM

It is unfortunate that such confused and prominent "Christians" would grovel in the mud of sin for a bone that the Democratic Party has seductively thrown. They are neither changing their end nor the reasoning to that end; the only change is the tacking on of some glittering generalities (now the life-blood of the D Party). The money still goes to Planned Parenthood, and the abstainers are still laughed out of any funding or standing. "Change" means exactly that. How are you so blind? Simply saying "change" does nothing except to the ear that lusts to be tickled, and to the undiscerning, this is a great step to the middle...

Why is it that people who claim Christianity do not agree with, and attempt to live the word? It surely is confusing to the world.

Posted by: John | August 15, 2008 6:41 PM

The born alive issue will be the big issue in this election. Hillary tried to put the media on to this but they would not bite. You'll remember her pointing out Obama's present votes and saying he wasn't fully vetted. It had to be frustrating to for her, knowing she couldn't push the issue and no one else would until the general.

If this picks up steam quickly, don't put it past Hillary stealing this at the convention.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | August 15, 2008 8:02 PM

Should have added it in the last post but I'd like to end with this question: When the Democratic Congress attempts to implement their health-care reform and, while covering the children of single mothers, they also insist on having the health-insurance cover abortion, will Mr. Wallis support the bill?

Posted by: Notes from the Underground | August 15, 2008 9:10 PM

Why are those who rail against "activist" courts so anxious to politicize 'and thereby corrupt SCOTUS?

Don: Why did you drop the "Hussein"? We know who you really are.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 15, 2008 10:42 PM

Don...When I said justintime was a troll, I meant someone posing as someone he wasn't just in order to stir things up and irritate people (i.e. a conservative trying to act like a stereotypical Daily Kos-like liberal to make us look bad). I guess I was mistaken. I figured all the name calling and over-the-top criticism and rhetoric was a shtick. I guess it's really who he is. Maybe he just doesn't just realize how ridiculous he sounds.

justintime...I apologize for calling you a troll, but perhaps you should tone it down a little. Calling names and making blanket assertions doesn't endear you or the points you're attempting to make to anyone.

Anne

Posted by: Anne | August 15, 2008 11:25 PM

Pastor Jeff, I use the Hussein tag whenever someone tries to make an issue out of Barack Obama's middle name. In other words, if someone is going to use that name against Obama, then my middle name is Hussein too.

Anne:
I told you I usually ignore the real trolls, but in fact I didn't ignore the last one. See the post from 12:06 yesterday and my response to it at 12:09.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 16, 2008 7:11 AM

I’m a “pro-life Democrat” who has had an abortion. I agree that it is murder and it does ruin lives. You hear people talk about “abortion“, but you rarely hear women talk about their abortions. If it’s not morally wrong, why is it such a deep dark secret?

Having said that, legal abortion is the law of the land and it's not going to go away just because we elect a pro-life president. Even a Supreme Court with five Catholic justices has done nothing to change it. It is ironic that the party of unbridled capitalism doesn’t seem understand the principles of supply and demand. It’s the same mentality that believes if you arrest all the drug dealers, people will stop doing drugs, or if you obliterate all the Muslims you will rid the world of terrorism. “Outlaw abortions and only outlaws will have abortions.” It’s just rhetoric. We need to do better than that. We need to actually start somewhere. If we can reduce the number of abortions and give desperate women options, maybe eventually we can change public opinion that says abortion is OK. Abortion is evil, but just saying you’re against it to get elected and not doing anything about it is also evil in my opinion.

Posted by: jane doe | August 16, 2008 10:06 AM

Don: There were some BHO references on this thread. I just wanted you to be vigilant.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 16, 2008 1:14 PM

That's Hanitese for Barak Hussein Obama.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 16, 2008 4:38 PM

Through all the YEARS of this discussion, never once has it been mentioned that MEN ARE EXEMPT from this government CONTROL of life....
When are the boys/MEN going to be taught/TOLD to
be MORE in control of their 'TALLYWACKERS'.....
When they deliberately lose control of it....
they should be MADE to take the consequences....
Such as LOSS OF USE ! ! !, except for cleansing their bodies of urine.....
Why should women bear the brunt of all these
laws on ABORTION ????

Posted by: Helen Thorne-Carroll | August 16, 2008 7:33 PM

Helen--you might make your points more effectively without all the e-shouting.

You hereby are granted the Robyn Leach Award for this thread.

(I'M ROBYN LEACH!!!! I'M SHOUTING!!!!.......I DON'T KNOW WHY!!!!)

Posted by: squeaky | August 17, 2008 12:39 AM

This is certainly a dilemna for all Christians. As a pro-life, Catholic voting Democratic this year, a flyer was put on my vehicle (having an Obama sticker) about the Church's guide to voting. I noticed that not another single car was given this treatment.

As a person who has worked in Mother Theresa's Queen of Peace home for unwed mothers, and who prayed in front of abortion clinics for years, this issue is played out in my heart and I do not take this lightly. But if a consistent ethic to life is the key(Not just "innocent" life, or we are all damned), and no single party captures this, then the greater issue became front and center to me after watching the forum at Saddleback Church last night.

McCain did very well story-telling and is on the right side of this pc religious issue, but in the rhetoric, I wonder which of the two candidates is more likely to actually RECOGNIZE Jesus if he were to return today? Who sees him in the least today as well? Counter-cultural, with a preferential option for the poor, preaching a kingdom not of this world, and teaching us things like "love your enemy", Jesus would most likely be smeared and rejected as a person who lacks patriotism, a threat to the status quo, and someone to be "feared". His values don't ring true to me. And the politicizing of religion waters it down if it only dwells on a couple of hot button issues.

I do not say this maliciously, but as a pro-life Catholic, I truly believe that McCain doesn't/wouldn't RECOGNIZE Jesus himself and that makes all the difference to me.

Posted by: Michele | August 17, 2008 5:13 PM

I'm an Evangelical, registered Independent.

I do appreciate the statements the Democrats have made concerning abortion. As far as I know, they have traditionally been the "catch-all" party, and their political philosphies seem to go where the populace goes. Thus, one could make the case that their new statements concerning unborn life are genuinely reflecting the pulse of American voters. I hope this is the case.

I would still like to see both parties come together with practical policy proposals to help women in crisis pregnancy situations, making adoption easier, and placing unwanted children in families who want them.

The political posturing on both sides needs to stop. I know the right consistenly gets criticized on this issue, but I find it hard to believe that abortion rates haven't reduced after President Bush signed the bill to ban partial-birth abortion.

As a former Republican, I have been marginalized by my former party, and have left it. However, I do applaud President Bush for making a courageous stand to ban this horrendous practice!

Posted by: Joel | August 18, 2008 1:43 PM

Michele,

I wouldn't pay too much attention to that "Church's voter guide"

- post held by blog owner.

aeauooo@yahoo.com

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 18, 2008 2:30 PM

Go to YouTube and do a Search on "obama & live birth abortion", then click on the 2nd link. I dare anyone here to watch that 5-minute video through to the end, and then come back and tell us you could still vote for this man. I dare you.

Posted by: AlN | August 18, 2008 4:06 PM

"Go to YouTube and do a Search on "obama & live birth abortion", then click on the 2nd link. I dare anyone here to watch that 5-minute video through to the end, and then come back and tell us you could still vote for this man. I dare you."

I watched it – nice piece of propaganda.

Sorry, I’m a nurse too, and I can tell great horror stories, but the emotional content of an anecdote does not lend credibility or validity to the attached claim, which was addressed earlier on this thread.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 18, 2008 6:01 PM

Wow, this issue can certainly get a rise out of people! It saddens me that so many people who commented on Jim's article were unable to accept any method of reducing abortions other than making it illegal. How terribly...idealistic? short-sighted?
A year ago I lived in a developing country, predominantly Catholic, where abortions were illegal. Despite this, the number of unwanted pregnancies were higher there than in the US, and rate of abortions equivalent to the US. There were also more deaths reported from abortions (because of the unsafe conditions women went to have their abortions). There are soooo many factors that play into a woman's desperate decision to have an abortion (patriarchal society, economic resources, access to birth control, sex education, and this list could still go on). This country also had slums full of single women with multiple children they had to send to the streets to beg for money for food.
I suppose we could praise those women for keeping their babies. But now what? And could we, in some small grace-giving corner of our hearts understand what might drive a woman to chose to get an abortion? The US may be less extreme... but we have an incredibly high rate of poverty among single women, and we do not have comprehensive sex education or affordable birth control for women.
I think the Democratic stand on abortion also deserves kudos because IT IS NOT calling desperate women murderers. It has an ounce of compassion. Something I think Jesus would approve of.

Posted by: in a perfect world | August 18, 2008 11:38 PM

The view Wallis takes here is quite secular compared to his other views . Does he believe we should not support the poor with government aid .
Not promote other issues dealing with social justice by political means . Suddenly with abortion , it becomes lets all just get along .

Abortion is one of those views that if you accept the premise that God is responsible for the creation of life , you are going against God by destroying or supporting the means of destroying that life .

No way around it Reverend Wallis, you can demonize those who don't aggree with your prochoice acceptance, you can reach out to them , but all and all , people who have a Relationship with Christ , know it is wrong . Just as deep down you do also , If you feel it gets in the way of your politics , perhaps you are allowing too much Jim to get in the way of God's politics ?

Posted by: Michael | August 19, 2008 4:37 AM

Mr. Wallis,

Would you be applauding if the Platform said:

"We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine" the right to slavery, but also support "informed choices" and "education" to help "reduce the number of unintended" slaves.

You've made inroads bringing spiritually sensitive voters back into the Democratic party, so they tossed you a rhetorical bone.

Posted by: Ted | August 19, 2008 9:32 AM

big guy,

We have to look at the old testament with both old testament and new testament eyes. We need to stop westernizing both documents. It does a great disservice to the universal church when we don't. Sin is sin period, that is true. But what is more important sin or grace and mercy?

The scriptures are clear on this grace trumps judgement and sin is about judgement. Conservatives focus too much on the sin issue and not enough on the grace issue.

p

Posted by: Payshun | August 19, 2008 11:25 AM

Conservatives focus too much on the sin issue and not enough on the grace issue.

p

Posted by: Payshun

Some do , some don't . Liberals point out the lack of Christ in the lives and views of conservatives , setting them up for being judged for the same .

Some do and some don't .

Posted by: Michael | August 19, 2008 1:12 PM

Posted by: Payshun | August 19, 2008 11:25 AM

Conservatives focus too much on the sin issue and not enough on the grace issue.

BULL!

What - we should all sin our hearts out so that grace will be more evident in out lives? NO!

If one does not understand what the result of sin is - DEATH. Grace is cheep and ineffective. When did I westernize the scriptures? The Bible transends cultures and is applicable to everyone in the world. I am not promoting the 'white church tradition'. My desire is to show Christ - the Savior of the world.

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 2:06 PM

Don:
I had to look up what you meant. Here's a video response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLDKtUeYCwc

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 19, 2008 11:45 PM

Hello,

I'm sort of a lurker. I'm also one of those pro-life females someone was asking for earlier.

And I'm also someone who has some experience in the nitty-gritty of life and the choices that are made regarding the lives of infants (born and otherwise)and their mothers.

Regarding the Democratic party platform, I don't see that the wording accomodates even slightly biblical truth about the value of human life, even before conception, and the personhood of the unborn.

I base my understanding of this largely on Psalm 139 "You knit me together in my mother's body...my form was not hidden from you in the secret place... I am fearfully and wonderfully made..." Please forgive me if I am not word perfect, I have read this chapter in several translations and the order of it gets jumbled in my head.

Also, David said he was "sinful from when my mother conceived me," and my understanding is that sin is a function of human personhood-- a function all humans but One have shared. I could go further in explaining the scriptural underpinnings of my convictions, but only those who share them are likely to care.

Perhaps more telling is my personal story as a woman who was once counseled to "terminate" a pregnancy for a child very much wanted by both parents.

We were advised, due to a lack of amniotic fluid, that our baby was likely to die while in utero by suffocation from leaning against her umbilical cord and cutting off the blood supply.

I can scarcely describe the horror of that scenario to those who have never been there. To have medical professionals tell you that a child will likely die in pain unless you arrange to have it killed yourself is a wrenching dilemma. To be further told that for your own health and well-being it would be better to do it sooner rather than later is worse yet.

Of course we got a second opinion, and received the same prognosis and recommendations. At the time, not being clear in my convictions and being overly impressed with the credentials and experience of the medical professionals involved, I was very nearly convinced to go through with an abortion.

Had I done so, my precious, beautiful first born daughter would simply not be, and I would not even know what I was missing. By God's grace, we have a healthy, happy 12-year-old for whom the doctors gave us no hope.

My point is not that miracles like that are to be expected, but that the "choice" of abortion does not occur in a vacuum. It is simplistic to the point of complete ignorance to assert "people who do not believe in abortion should never get one."

Those who speak of the complexity of the choice ought to know that there are innumerable pressures that influence what a woman thinks and feels about such matters. And the very tenor of our society now is, I fear, not really very supportive of those who are most deeply affected and most helpless.

Physicians seem to feel that they have a say in who should live or die. Friends are prone to advise you to simplify your life. There are even very few clergy who will really support you in holding to a pro-life conviction-- they tend to be overly anxious about "judging" you if they don't hold to scripture, as though simply teaching what the bible says about the value of human life somehow limits your freedom.

If you don't have a supportive spouse, if the other party is in fact absent or antagonistic, it may be tremendously difficult to live what you believe. And I know from the experience of at least one relative what it is like to live with the regrets of crossing your conscience in this matter.

So I find it sad when proponents of legal abortion bristle that giving information, or requiring parental support, or refusing to give government money to end a life, somehow restricts a woman's freedom to choose.

There are so many forces acting on reproductive matters that the common statement "women don't make this choice lightly" is a hideous distortion. Women make this choice under duress, and it often isn't a feeling of being required to bear a child they otherwise would rather kill.

Rather, our materialistic society treats children as an inconvenience.

Misplaced priorities paint "excess" children as a danger to the environment from their enormous carbon footprint and the allegedly imminent threat of overpopulation.

A mindset focused on youth and self and beauty teaches people to dread the responsibility of children and the potential effects on your body (or, for the fathers, the availability of a sexual partner.)

People with agendas all to familiar from our history books consider that children who seem imperfect in any way (physical disability, wrong race, wrong sex, even just inconvenient timing) are better off dead than alive.

The indoctrination of these influences in our society is subtle, but it enables the parents to see their offspring merely as a "foetus" or a collection of cells which can easily and conveniently be discarded. To suggest that he or she could be more than that (even to offer help to this end, as many pro-life people do) is to "judge" their free "choices."

Where is the concern for this injustice to the lives of women in the democratic party plank (or the republican plank, for that matter?)

That said, I don't know that changing laws is likely, and changing hearts is harder still--not, in fact, a job not for human legislation but for the Holy Spirit.

However, for those of us who believe that human beings, both before and after birth, are made in God's image, for his purpose, and have value, it is good to be aware of who thinks that abortions are "needed"--for whom, I wonder? Plenty of women have never had a medically induced miscarriage and don't feel they have missed anything by that lack.

It is good to know who would not want their daughters "punished" by an unplanned pregnancy (but wouldn't mind punishing their own unborn grandchildren for merely existing.)

It is wise to remain informed of the relative importance in a candidate's eyes between the life of a child born alive in a hospital and viable with treatment, and a supposed right (mentioned nowhere in the constitution) to "choose" abortion.

I have voted for democrats for all the 19 years since I have been eligible to vote. I believe in social justice, and I hate wars declared for no good reason. I have always considered other life issues as well as beginning of life issues when picking a candidate.

This time, I fear my conscience will not let me vote for a man who seems in many other respects admirable, but demonstrates an egregious blind spot regarding how abortion (and infanticide!)degrades and oppresses women, their children, and our society.

Whoever wins, as a Christian I must continue to offer loving comfort to those who have been scarred by this barbaric practice, support to those who refuse (in the face of tremendous social pressure) to go along with prevailing social values, and my own humble duty to God in teaching my own family what the Bible says about the sanctity of human life.

Andrea

Posted by: Andrea Newell | August 20, 2008 3:53 AM

The U.S. abortion rate has been dropping! Check the federal statistics.

Posted by: judithod | August 21, 2008 11:51 PM

"The U.S. abortion rate has been dropping! Check the federal statistics."

Yes, and as I've pointed out several times on this thread, the trend in the number of abortions in the U.S. has not changed significantly since the early 90's - when Clinton was in office.

What ever 'federal' statistics you are citing, or any statistics on abortion in the U.S., are taken from the CDC's aboriton surveillance reports.

URL posted above - way above.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 22, 2008 10:58 AM

Jehovah is an abortionist because there are spontaneous abortions (20%) and miscarriages.

Posted by: Thane of Towson | August 25, 2008 11:31 PM

Pro-life includes life after birth also. Unfortunately some are anti-abortion but also pro-war. We are either 100% pro-life for all or we are not pro-life at all. If a consideration only for pre-life it means that they are concerned with the unborn to ne born to provide cannon fodder for the war party of our nation.

Posted by: Oliver | September 11, 2008 3:25 PM

Jim Wallis wrote:
The [Democratic] party is now on record in "strongly" supporting both a woman's right to choose abortion or to decide to have her child with promised support, creating common ground in agreeing for the need to reduce abortions.

Now, I respect Jim Wallis, but I can’t believe that he doesn’t see that this Dem. Party talk is simply gibberish. When a woman has a right to choose abortion, the choice to NOT have the abortion is the other side of the coin. So nothing has really changed. Now, they’re saying, “Our stand BEFORE was that a woman simply had a choice for an abortion, but now she has a choice to either HAVE an abortion or to NOT HAVE an abortion.” Let’s not get fooled by this.

Also, notice the language “or to decide to have her child with promised support.” And this support wasn’t there before? Crisis Pregnancy is already there to do that.

The other great gibberish is this “reduced abortions” language. How disingenuous. Why would they want to reduce an action that they think is not wrong, immoral or harmful – either to the baby or to the mom? If they're thinking the unborn baby is simply human tissue, why would they think it's so noble to reduce killing human tissue? And how is that common ground - pro-life people don't see the unborn baby as human tissue!

The Democratic Party's new language was a slap in the face to those TRUE Democrats (those who value life) They didn’t even throw them a bone. They said, in essence: “You who think that abortion is the murder of the unborn – we are with you!!! We would like to see less of those (what you call) killings, but for goodness sake, we must continue to give people the right to kill their unborn.”

Let them just be honest at least and not use language that creates an image in which they appear to have some kind of tender feelings for unborn children being killed, or tender feelings for moms who are effected by taking their child’s life. This new language is a step backward – for it’s creating a façade by which even good and decent people are being fooled.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the similiarities with the Dem's new ideas on abortion and attitudes toward slaves in the 19th century. Let me illustrate: Back in the early 1850’s, John Bigot got a compassionate idea. He said, “Of course we should not do away with slavery, since them black folks are simply property of us good white folk… and, of course we have the right to kill them if they become an inconvenience – seeing that it wouldn’t be murder since they are only 3/5ths of a human being (after all, we wouldn’t want to be goin’ against the Good Book). But, let's get on some common ground here: I propose that before we kill them, we ought to talk to their owners and try to talk them out of it if possible -- maybe even takin’ em off their hands if they don’t want them any more. Reducin’ the killin’s like this, well, that just seems like the compassionate thing to do. I mean, how can anyone disagree with this?

In this story, President Lincoln didn't agree. He didn't even think that this was progress, and couldn't seem to bring himself to jump in to this "common ground" idea, since he viewed the black man as a human being, made in the image of God - just as valuable as himself or any other person...born or in the womb.

Just read the language of their "new" view on abortion, but simply substitute "the killing of the unborn" for "abortion" and see how much common ground there really is. NONE!

In an interview with Christianity Today, Barack Obama said, "I do think that those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren't expressing the full reality of it." Remember, this is coming from Barack Obama -- the one who voted to make sure the born (not unborn) baby of a botched abortion should be left to die... becasue he didn't want to punish the mom. That's Obama's morality.

As Mother Teresa said, in her historic speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, February 3, 1994:

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself…

...And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

...to which President Clinton responded, "How can anyone argue with a life so well-lived?"

Make now mistake about it: this issue is not just about saving unborn babies, or saving women avoiding the effects of abortion. This is about saving America from God's discipline.

Here's common ground: One side says, "Abortion is murder and it must be stopped!" The other side says the same. Period. The same way we had to call slavery evil, the same way we must call abortion murder. Once we get to that point we’ve reached a common ground. If we don't call it for what it is we will never establish any common ground.

Posted by: Michael | September 25, 2008 4:40 PM