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: | 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: | 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: | 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