I agree... To me this argument is similar to that of the "war on drugs"... We can ban drugs all we want and make longer sentences for drug users but that is not getting at the root cause. Banning abortions are not going to stop them... that is NOT saying that they are then a good idea.

But, if reductions of abortions or rather a world where abortion does not happen is the goal, it will not happen by simply banning it... Like so many things in this world it takes work... it takes caring for the individual who is pregnant... it takes helping people not get unwanted pregnancies... it takes loving your neighbor and sometimes even your enemy.

Even if overturning Roe v Wade was a sure thing, shouldnt we be doing stuff in the mean time to reduce the abortions currently and making sure that those kids have a liveable life to live.

I am against abortion and that is why I think we need to stop yelling about overturning Roe v Wade because it is not solving the problem... the argument is getting in the way of helping people.

Posted by: jason | August 15, 2008 6:45 PM

This compromised stand is a clear example of what happens when people put political expediency ahead of biblical and moral fidelity.

To advance a political agenda, one suppresses his convictions. It is a tragedy.

Posted by: Dave Miller | August 15, 2008 7:08 PM

What I don't understand is why Sojourners/Jim Wallis' rhetoric sounds so much like Planned Parenthood's. I suspect that it's because they both want the same ends: Democrats in power of both the Legislature and the Presidency. Unlike ESA, I do believe that Sojo is in the pocket of the Democratic Party, just as Focus on the Family is with the Republicans. I don't see where Jim Wallis has taken any middle ground on the abortion issue. What would he think if people thought the same way about alleviating poverty.

I'm very discouraged.

Posted by: ando | August 15, 2008 7:18 PM

Jim,

The Republicans have used the abortion issue as a device to get votes but haven't done much to actually reduce abortions. I believe this is a fairly deliberate political ploy. The Republicans would really be hurt if pro-lifers actually won on abortion, because they get so many votes from the issue that they would not get otherwise. So I'm with you on the criticism of pro-lifers putting faith in the Republicans.

But I don't agree with your spin on the Democratic platform. I think avid pro-choicer Linda Hirshman's gloating in Slate over the great victory for pro-choicers (who she admits are a minority) in the Democratic platform is closer to the mark than you are. See http://www.slate.com/id/2197363

Obama's pledge to make the "Freedom of Choice Act" his first priority as President would increase the number of abortions. The idea that Democrats are the pro-lifer's hope is ridiculous.

I listened to the entire transcript of the Sojourners arranged statements of 6 religious folks who support the new platform language, including that of Kmiec, who has endorsed Obama and so hardly can be claimed as a Republican voice. I didn't find the statements very convincing. I notice that the reporters didn't seem to buy the spin on the Democratic platform either, and even got some concessions from the 6 on their points. And I noticed that you and Tony Campolo refused the opportunity to criticize the strident pro-choice part of the Democratic platform. If you are pro-life, why refuse the opportunity to say so?

Jim, you have become so associated with the Democratic Party that they used you as a spokesman on the radio. You spend your efforts putting lipstick on the pig of the Democrats, and have abandoned your prophetic stance.

Your abandonment of Christian principles for Democratic partisanship is not just on abortion. It is also on militarism, on which Sojourners was once good. The issue of national priorities is critical, with over half of the discretionary budget going to the military, and Obama and McCain have identical positions calling for even more going to the military.

Your newly released voter's guide seems designed to curry favor with the Democratic Party. Its peace section covers only very limited issues, and on Iraq calls only for a phased approach to withdrawal (exactly the Democratic Party stance). It fails to mention military spending, Afghanistan and Iran, all areas where Obama's policies are really terrible.

I was a supporter of Sojourners in its early days when it was a prophetic Christian voice. But I strongly oppose it today, because it has jettisoned the Gospel in favor of a political party.

You have become just as much a shill for the Democrats as the religious right was for the Republicans. You did not learn the right lesson from their mistake. The problem with them was not mainly that they allied with the wrong political party, but they became partisan rather than speaking Christian truth. You have aped them with the other Party.

I am much more impressed with Evangelicals for Social Action, which is still unafraid to be prophetic and speak out against wrong policies of both major parties. Ron Sider has managed to become close to politically well connected people, without selling his soul. You have failed to do that. You have sold out.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | August 15, 2008 8:06 PM

"Some time ago on a similar thread I cited several studies that demonstrated that sex ed and availability of contraceptives do not increase promiscuity."
--I believe these studies related to sex ed rather than contraceptive availability, which was not a point I was arguing against. Even so, I very much doubt there is any good research on the effects of contraception availability on sexual behavior.

Also, regardless of your views on the morality of birth control, do you deny that the availability of the pill has contributed to increasing promiscuity in our society? Just look at sexual behavior before and after its introduction. Since it reduces the negative consequences of sex outside of marriage, simple logic dictates that it should increase the likelihood of sex outside of marriage, since the probability of pregnancy has been greatly reduced with its use.

Posted by: jesse | August 15, 2008 8:51 PM

“What would the world look like if we went to bed one night and woke up the next morning and the "pro-life-overturning-Rove-v-Wade" position prevailed?...How would the criminalization be enforced?”

From the little I know about that department, there are ways to medically terminate a pregnancy without calling it an abortion. “Therapeutic D&C” is an old-time favorite.

“Even so, I very much doubt there is any good research on the effects of contraception availability on sexual behavior.”

Actually, I believe it’s well documented in the medical literature. You probably won’t find it on Google, and I don’t expect that you have access to medical databases. I just don’t’ have the time to go looking for it right now. You don’t have to take my word for it.

“do you deny that the availability of the pill has contributed to increasing promiscuity in our society?”

I don’t know – too many confounders. Causal relationships are extremely difficult to demonstrate, so I think I can safely say that there is no evidence to support a causal relationship between the two.

“Since [the pill] reduces the negative consequences of sex outside of marriage, simple logic dictates that it should increase the likelihood of sex outside of marriage.”

Again, that sounds intuitive, but intuitive assumptions are not always correct.

One could also say that since the pill reduces the negative consequences of sex within a marriage, simple logic dictates that it should increase the likelihood of sex within marriage.

Any takers?

The clothing and entertainment industries are making money hand-over-fist sexualizing prepubescent girls – it seems intuitive to me that that would have a much more profound effect on adolescent sexuality than the availability of contraception.

Who’s complaining about that? No one, because that just good ol’ capitalism at work.

Anything for a buck – even our daughters.

One need only look at the trends in the number of abortions in the U.S. to realize that who is in office – White House, Congress, or both -has no effect on the abortion rates in this country. The sharpest decline in abortion occurred during the Clinton presidency.

On a previous thread Jesse pointed out that the most dramatic rise in the number of abortions occurred during the Cater administration. If I am not mistaken, abortion became legal in the U.S. under Carter.

The CDC did not start actively collecting data on abortion rates until the mid 70s’, so there are no good estimates on the number of abortions performed in the U.S. prior to that time.

When Obama is elected president there will not be a dramatic increase in the number of abortions performed in this country; all of the evidence contradicts that assumption. The downward trend will continue without a bump no matter who is elected.

What’s my basis for that statement?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 15, 2008 9:33 PM

OK - see how long this lasts.

I am on record as pro-life! Womb to tomb. I have also gone on record as willing to give in on the first tri if they will give up on the last tri. The life of the mother - that has always been the case even prior to Roe v Wade so it is not a factor. The pro-abortion people will always make the case for third tri terminations based on 'the life of the mother'. Translated meaning - 'if I have this baby - I'll kill myself' therefore she qualifies for an abortion even though there is no 'physical' reason for it.

We have seen the 'change' in the pro-abortion people from -
Pro-Abortion to Pro-Choice to NARAL to 'whatever' is next to make them more appealing to the masses. The name 'changes' but the agenda stays the same.

I wish we could make some significant changes but after dealing with the DFL in MN - it won't happen. The Dem Party in the US has just adopted the MN prardyme and so it will not change.

Obama is on record that even if the fetus survives the later term abortion - it has to die and so now what are we becoming? Are we just adopting the Arian Race only it is multi-colored but only perfect babies are allowed?

So - any on those wonderful Dems that are making the 'change' will to talk about first vs third trimester?

God is Good - All the Time
.

Posted by: big guy | August 15, 2008 10:36 PM

"Actually, I believe it’s well documented in the medical literature. You probably won’t find it on Google, and I don’t expect that you have access to medical databases. I just don’t’ have the time to go looking for it right now. You don’t have to take my word for it."
--You forget that I'm an academic researcher who has access to these databases. I have no doubt that there are studies out there presenting null findings, which I think would be easy to find given the widespread availability of contraceptives throughout the country. Though some researchers have actually found that it does increase promiscuity: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1055892.ece . Anyways...I think most, including many contraception advocates, would argue that the sexual revolution was fueled in part by the introduction of the pill.

"On a previous thread Jesse pointed out that the most dramatic rise in the number of abortions occurred during the Cater administration. If I am not mistaken, abortion became legal in the U.S. under Carter."
--Roe was decided in 1973, though states such as California and NY legalized it earlier. Carter served from 1977-1981. I actually believe the increase during Carter's administration is due to the fact that its legalization led to its increasing acceptance...it wasn't due much to Carter's policies, per se. This, of course, provides support for an idea frequently ridiculed on this site: that laws will not change abortion rates.

"When Obama is elected president there will not be a dramatic increase in the number of abortions performed in this country; all of the evidence contradicts that assumption. The downward trend will continue without a bump no matter who is elected."
--Though the important question is whether there would be fewer abortions here and abroad if our government did not fund them and whether restrictions allowed by Republican-appointed judges would lead to a decline in the abortion rates.

Look at California. They provide abortions for any reason for Medicaid recipients and they also have one of the highest rates (the highest rate??) in the country.

Posted by: jesse | August 15, 2008 10:59 PM

I respect your views Mr. Wallis, but there is something about the argument you use that I just cannot accept. A third option of voting 3rd party or working apart from the partisan system seem much more preferable than working with either party. I cannot support a party nor a canidate that thinks genocide is a matter of choice nor a party that considers genocide a "matter of second importance" and a random issue to manipulate millions.

Posted by: Joseph | August 16, 2008 12:11 AM

"Though the important question is whether there would be fewer abortions here and abroad if our government did not fund them and whether restrictions allowed by Republican-appointed judges would lead to a decline in the abortion rates."

That hasn't been the case for the last 16 years.

To some extent I agree with Kevin's statement about stalemate.

For the record, I am Catholic, and opposed to abortion (although not to contraception). I agree that it is galling that Federal monies are spent on abortions, and I agree that banning abortions would reduce, but not completely eliminate the number of abortions performed in the U.S.

I am not one to toe any party's line. I don't trust politicians of either party, and don't count on dramatic results from the outcome of the upcoming election.

Regardless of my feelings about the Democrat's position on abortion, there are other issues about which I am much more concerned and upon which the bush presidency has had a disastrous effect.

If, as I believe, the outcome of the election will have no effect on the abortion rates in the U.S., then why should I, as a Catholic, or any other Christian for that matter, feel compelled to vote for Republicans?

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 16, 2008 12:32 AM

" . . . simply overturning Roe would result in a patchwork of state laws . . ."

What would be wrong with that?

Gordon, I gave an answer to that question on the abortion thread. I'll repeat it here, below, so you won't have to go back there and find it.

Neuro_nurse, I agree with your last line. There was a time when I didn't, but that was then. The reason why I've changed is also in the post I'm copying below.

D

Here it is:

Although I'm pro-life and would ideally wish to see Roe v Wade struck down, I cannot see sacrificing judicial restraint to achieve that end. Conservatives have bent and twisted the judicial system for the past 27 years (at least), so now we have judges that run roughshod over constitutional rights and who have abandoned any restraint on corporations having their way. (Jeff: one of the reasons why I'm in the lower left quadrant of the Political Compass is because I mistrust Big Business as much as I mistrust Big Government. You might want to pick up some essays by Wendell Berry in that regard.)

And, 27 years later, Roe still stands. It has been a failed policy. It hasn't achieved it's stated goal, and it doesn't appear that it likely will (do we really know that Alito and Roberts would actually vote to reverse Roe? No, we don't. When push came to shove, the first justice nominated by this litmus test process, Sandra Day O'Connor, couldn't do it.)

And even if Roe were overturned, it doesn't mean abortion would be outlawed. It only means that the states would once again decide. Sure, some states would outlaw the procedure, but others wouldn't. And then we'd have unproductive dogfights in our legislatures every session--just like we now have with hot-button topics like guns--as interest groups on both sides would lobby and jockey to no end in their attempts to get their agendas passed. As a result, and again like with other hot-button topics, the legislators' time would be wasted on these matters while more vitally important legislative initiatives would languish.

We need a new strategy. If we want to make abortion illegal, we must win the hearts and minds of the American people, not try to get the "right" judges on the Supreme bench. It's a much longer process, but in the long run it's the only one that assures any degree of success.

As a result, I've abandoned the abortion litmus test for judicial appointments as a criterion for deciding which candidates I should honor with my votes.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 16, 2008 7:27 AM

Row v Wade was 7 to 2. Five of the seven were Republican. One of the 2 was Republican. There were only 3 Democrats on the court. That was the highest number till now.

Only two Democrats in the White House since then.
For a total of 12 years out of 35. For 12 years the Republicans were in charge of congress. Both houses!

Just why do we still have Abortion?

Posted by: Bob Klingle | August 16, 2008 8:14 AM

The truth is we don't know what the rates would have been without rulings such as the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, which allowed certain restrictions and likely contributed to some of the decline since it was decided.

The actual name of the case was Casey v. Reproductive Health Services, and its effects have been dubious; that actually was a "compromise" bill. A year or two before then an anti-abortion legislator in Pennsylvania sponsored a bill that was a direct assault on Roe, and Bob Casey Sr. vetoed it because he knew it had no chance of being implemented. And to show you just how extreme parts of the "pro-life" movement have become, just recently the Catholic League blasted Bob Casey Jr. for supposedly voting with NARAL 65 percent of the time.

Posted by: Rick | August 16, 2008 9:16 AM

"The actual name of the case was Casey v. Reproductive Health Services."
--No, it wasn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

"just recently the Catholic League blasted Bob Casey Jr. for supposedly voting with NARAL 65 percent of the time."
--That's because Casey Jr supports the morning after pill and voted for abortion funding overseas. I'd say they have reason to be upset, but you've always expressed the opinion that anything and everything the prolife movement does is wrong, so it's unsurprising that you'd interpret it this way.

Posted by: jesse | August 16, 2008 9:27 AM

"As a result, and again like with other hot-button topics, the legislators' time would be wasted on these matters while more vitally important legislative initiatives would languish."
--Don, it sounds like you don't want Roe to be overturned because that would lead to legislators wasting precious time on abortion. You can say you care about unborn lives all you want, but that explanation is just calloused and, frankly, disingenuous. There is no evidence that state legislators somehow don't have enough time to spend on "hot-button topics."

"We need a new strategy. If we want to make abortion illegal, we must win the hearts and minds of the American people, not try to get the "right" judges on the Supreme bench. It's a much longer process, but in the long run it's the only one that assures any degree of success."
--How do you propose winning the hearts and minds of the American people? Is it possible to work both to persuade the public AND change laws? Don't laws affect the public's views about abortion?

Posted by: jesse | August 16, 2008 9:38 AM

Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. That is really all that need be said.

Do followers of Jesus really take innocent human lives? Are they (we) really following Jesus if we do? Be honest, dig deep in your souls for the answer to this. Do that, because the wages of sin are still the very same as they always were.

Posted by: joekc | August 16, 2008 10:20 AM

Jane,

I share your pessimism about our ability to change public views of abortion, but I am not sure our desire to do so requires that we embark on a monumental new set of entitlements. joekc has it right, I think: this is a moral issue and we should end this practice, whatever else we do.

Posted by: Gordon | August 16, 2008 10:37 AM

Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. That is really all that need be said.

Do followers of Jesus really take innocent human lives? Are they (we) really following Jesus if we do? Be honest, dig deep in your souls for the answer to this. Do that, because the wages of sin are still the very same as they always were.Posted by: joekc

So are you against Christians participating in wars because they result in the loss of innocent civilian lives?

Posted by: JamesM | August 16, 2008 11:10 AM

"It has. You don't accept it and never will, no matter what Jim Wallis and his colleagues say."

Sojo hasn't even begun to deal with the implications of the pro-choice position. The most Jim Wallis has said is that he doesn't want to criminalize the desperate decisions of women in dangerous corners.

That's a good talking point, but it is not an argument.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 16, 2008 11:31 AM

"No.

It didn't work with prohibition, and it wouldn't work with abortion.

Posted by: Jane | August 16, 2008 10:09 AM

Says you...once abortion became legalized, it became more acceptable, which is why rates increased more and more each year after its legalization. The numbers are there.

There is also research showing that abortion attitudes became more liberal after its legalization. For ex., in the article "Trends in Attitudes Toward Abortion: 1972-1976." By: Tedrow, Lucky M.; Mahoney, E. R.. Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer79, Vol. 43 Issue 2, p181-189, 9p, the authors found that "The overall trend in attitudes toward abortion for the 1972-76
period shows an increase in approval for each of the six (hard and soft) reasons for an abortion."

Note that abortion was already legal in certain states before 1972, but this provides further support for the idea that opinions can follow laws. Prohibition was a much different matter, since most don't see consumption of alcohol as having any moral component and drinking alcohol is not inherently wrong.

Posted by: jesse | August 16, 2008 11:50 AM

Note that abortion was already legal in certain states before 1972, but this provides further support for the idea that opinions can follow laws. Prohibition was a much different matter, since most don't see consumption of alcohol as having any moral component and drinking alcohol is not inherently wrong.

Posted by: jesse | August 16, 2008 11:50 AM
______________________________
Can we prove that opinion followed law, rather than law following public opinion?

Some people see alcohol as having a moral component and drinking alcohol as inherently wrong. I was raised in such a church. Some people, myself among them, see abortion as sad and preventing a potential human life, but not as murder, and sometimes the least bad of some awful choices.

Earlier this week, on another thread, someone made the point that it is impossible to enforce a law forbidding something, unless everyone agrees that the behavior is wrong. Whereupon somebody else immediately responded that "everyone" agrees on abortion. No, they don't. Good people can disagree on this.

Jane

Posted by: Jane | August 16, 2008 12:13 PM

"Sojourners is on record in support of a ban on partial birth abortions and other restrictions but we don't believe that simple bans are possible or even the most pro-life solutions."

This is news to me. Is there any chance someone could put up a link to articles or news releases where Sojo advocated any of these things?

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 16, 2008 12:27 PM

"Some people see alcohol as having a moral component and drinking alcohol as inherently wrong. I was raised in such a church. Some people, myself among them, see abortion as sad and preventing a potential human life, but not as murder, and sometimes the least bad of some awful choices."
--The difference, of course, is that abortion is inherently immoral but alcohol is not (even Jesus drank). We will probably just have to disagree on this, though...

"Earlier this week, on another thread, someone made the point that it is impossible to enforce a law forbidding something, unless everyone agrees that the behavior is wrong."
--And there are all sorts of laws in the book that there is not complete consensus on. Many people were in favor of slavery and segregation when laws were passed outlawing both.

Posted by: jesse | August 16, 2008 12:50 PM

As a woman, I'm surprised to see how dominant men's voices seem to be in this dialogue. To me, Ms. Cynthia's comment resonates the loudest yet the most overlooked. Abortion is a women's issue, and Jim Wallis' stance profoundly understands this. We need to *empower and educate* women to make the best choices for their bodies and their families. Since the Bush administration changed puiblic school sex education in this country that preaches abstinence, the teenage pregnancy rate has increased for the first time in over a decade! So as a counterpoint to those who say that contraception has increased sexual behavior, I would argue that the public school education has failed to provide children the knowledge and cognitive tools to make educated choices regarding sex and relationships! Our sexuality is part of God's image in us, yet we often dismiss this as too carnal, sinful etc. My stance is that abortion and sexuality is fundamentally a mind and attitude issue not just a behavior issue. Women who, in Wallis' words, "feel" the need to have an abortion are likely the result of poor self-esteem, self-image, have poor social support etc. We need to *equip* women from "womb to tomb" (to borrow another blogger's words) not just protect life. Also, we need to educate our boys and men to respect women's bodies and minds - after all, have we forgotten that for every pregnancy there was a guy involved? Hello? What about men's sexual and relational behaviors??? It is about time that we stop criminalizing women and take a deeper look at ourselves and how we are part of such a broken society where *multiple* factors contribute and interact to produce this problem we call "abortion". It is terribly simple-minded to attribute the rise of access to contraception as the reason for increased sexual behavior and therefore the rise in abortions. Please. People are more intelligent than you give them credit for. Build their minds and understanding about relationships, not just about sex, and they will make their own choices. Mistakes are bound to happen, sure, and to be like Jesus in our world, we need to provide the resources, infused with compassion, that will help these individuals rebuild their lives! That is what Jim Wallis is talking about, and I fully support the intelligent yet compassionate stance that he takes.

Posted by: Sue | August 16, 2008 1:03 PM

I've stayed out of the last two threads because I really have nothing new to say. Reading this discussion, though, makes me want to go back to a point that I've raised several times in the past without ever getting a satisfactory answer.

Is abortion murder? If the answer is yes, then a woman who has an abortion is guilty of contracting for a murder and should go to jail for a long time. Kevin S. has argued that abortion is a lesser kind of murder (or words to that effect), but that doesn't hold water. The only legal basis for distinguishing degrees of guilt in murder is intentionality, and by that measure, abortion is the most cold-blooded, premeditated kind of murder there is.

Or else it's not really murder, and those on the pro-life side who keep claiming it is to bolster their case are guilty of distortion.

Like most who have posted here, I also consider myself pro-life, and believe Roe v. Wade was a mistake. However, I want to see this issue addressed honestly. If abortion is something less than murder, then all the rhetoric, all the comparisons to the Holocaust, all the screaming at women not to kill their babies, has been a sham, used to drum up emotional support by people who would not really follow through on the implications of their claims.

If we are not willing to send a million women a year to prison, then it seems obvious to me that we need a new language and a new vocabulary to talk about this issue. That is exactly what the Democrats, for all their shortcomings, are trying to provide, and I applaud them for it.

Now, is anybody clear-headed enough to admit that life in prison for a woman who has an abortion is simply not in the equation, and that comparing our abortion rate to the Holocaust and abortion with murder is therefore intellectually dishonest?

Posted by: Another nonymous | August 16, 2008 1:12 PM

Another non - I think you ask a good, tough question. I'd like to qualify it though a little. We'd half to assume that if all abortions were made illegal there wouldn't be a million women (or what ever the current annual rate is) having abortions. Just the fact that they'd be made illegal would greatly reduce the rate. In addition, very few people seem to get a life in prison for murder these days anyway.

But still, it's a good question. I'd say that should abortion, or certain types of abortion, be criminalized then there should be criminal penalties for anyone who participates (the mother, father, doctor, facilitators, etc). I’m not sure what those criminal penalties should be. I’m not a legal expert and I don’t even know what they are today for murder of various degrees. But I’m also in favor of increased public social services for low-income parents along the lines of what Jim is talking about. I’d like to see a compromise minded group formed that would advocate for a ban along with greatly increased social services for low-income women. I think you’d get a lot of “pro-life” support for this.

Posted by: Eric | August 16, 2008 1:34 PM

Sue - I agree with you that abortion is a women's issue, but it's not only a women's issue. It's also a men's issue. It's a society-wide issue. One of the main reasons that women turn to abortion is because the man who assisted in the pregnancy isn't helping her through this tough time in her life. If more men owned up to the responsibility that comes with sexual relations with a woman then there'd be a lot fewer women turning to abortion. From reading your comments, I think you agree with this. So I'm just not sure why you think this is a women's issue only. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting what you wrote.

Posted by: Eric | August 16, 2008 1:48 PM

Eric - I agree that this is a men's issue too, and I made it clear in my comments that men need to be involved. But, abortion is still more of a women's issue because it is relevant to her body and, despite the rhetoric about equal roles of the sexes in family affairs, women still dominate in child-rearing matters whether they are single-moms or rearing their child(ren) with a spouse. Moreover, both experiences of being pregnant and having an abortion can be quite traumatic to a woman both physically and psychologically, not so much with a man even if he fathered the child. For the man, it is primarily a psychological issue when he unexpectedly fathers a child and he's not ready. Thus it is the physicality of bearing the child that makes this a women's issue. You also have to consider that if the relationship between the man and woman who conceived the fetus was not a committed one in the first place, the woman's choice takes precedence over the man's, including the choice to have the father involved or not in her decisions about having the child or not, rearing the child etc. That's why I say this is a relational and educational issue, that we need to educate kids from young about relationships and sex. Quite a number of people have sex because it's fun and gratifying in the short-term without necessarily considering the relationship that provides context for the sexual behavior. And I think it's women/girls who need to ask themselves, if I accidentally got pregnant by this person, could I live with this decision? Men should ask this question too, of course, but they are not burdened with the prospect of the physical consequences as women are. Hope this answers your question.

Posted by: Sue | August 16, 2008 2:16 PM

OK - I am pro-life - period. I have stated that I am willing to talk about 1st tri vs 3rd tri but not much discussion currently and that is OK. We also know that NARAL will never enter into that conversation as that would limit the clinics revenue base and that can't happen.

But if you look into this from an equality standard. Why can't the 'father' have a say in this? The woman has the right to terminate or not and it is only her decision. What about the father that wants the child? I know - she has to have the baby. OK - so it is her choice alone, I understand that. But she can also make the decision to keep the child and when press the father to pay for the child even if he does not want it and is willing to pay for the termination. So the 'father' has no choice and could be held responsible financially even if he does not want to have a child. This is a major flaw I see from a secular point of view.

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 16, 2008 3:10 PM

Sue,

" . . . what would you do if, hypothetically, your sister or female friend came and told you that they were unexpectedly pregnant and were considering an abortion?"

Actually, I've been in that situation several times, and I did pretty much what you suggested. There is a bit of a difference in how we approach this thing as an issue, and how we approach it when confronted with an individual.

Posted by: Gordon | August 16, 2008 3:40 PM

Gordon - I appreciate your distinction between your personal approach and public approach, and that is true for many men and women. Yet I believe they need to be integrated, our awareness of what goes on in the lived experience of women's lives as well as our religious, moral, and political (and therefore personal) convictions. There is a difficult dance between these, and this debate cannot be done without some degree of internal conflict for all of us who believe this is an important issue.

I just think there needs to be humility in this dialogue/debate, that the presentation of a clear answer is, as someone else pointed out among these comments, "intellectually dishonest." People who are keeping up with this may notice that I have shied from explicitly stating my political stance or my faith convictions because I think that obscures the debate and would skew people's views of what I had to really say. Our declarations of whether we are "pro-choice" or "pro-life" is fundamentally artificial, a mere guise for more divisiveness. This is not a football game where you need a camp to root for. This issue is about people and about our fundamental humanness. This issue begs humility and awareness that we could be wrong in God's eyes. We need to listen to each other, not try to win by articulate arguments to determine who is more right, who is more moral, who is more righteous.

You know, there are people of faith who support Roe vs. Wade, including myself, not because we love abortion, but because it is part of a solution (ie. reduce the number of abortions) that I believe can work for this complicated and broken world where abortions are bound to happen. But our voices are often ignored, or we are considered too liberal, immoral or secular etc, and I am tired of feeling like my faith is watered down or I am unfaithful because of my political beliefs. I love God and Jesus too, you know, I know He died for my sins and others, and I am grateful for this blog where I can express my opinions. We need to be united, not along political camp lines, but on our love and respect for one another in His name - yes, even when we disagree and are incredibly frustrated by our neighbor.

Posted by: Sue | August 16, 2008 4:20 PM

you don't have to invent bizarre police-state scenes to imagine what it would be like.

Posted by: jesse | August 16, 2008 12:53 PM

I would think that federal agents frisking 85 year old grandma's in airports and designated free speech zones would be a bizarre police-state scenes as well but we live in a new world today and since the "war on terror" crowd would likely be enforcing bans on abortion what's to say they wouldn't declare those who participate in abortions as enemy combatants? It's not 1973 anymore.

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 16, 2008 5:02 PM

Gavin's link was to a nauseating video of an abortion being performed. Tragic viewing.

Jane reminds us that women who have abortions are women who are in a desperate situation. Unless we address the desperation, we will fail to make progress in eliminating abortion.

Eric would criminalize abortion for all involved parties- I think Eric would penalize doctors.

Sue notes the dominance of a male point of view. You all probably figured out, given my moniker, duh-sciple, that I am obviously a male.

Joekc identifies abortion as murder of the most innocent.

Naturallaw criticizes Jim Wallis for shifting to a "results" orientation, arguing that "just processes will lead to just ends."

Several have said that "nothing new" has been offered.

One "formula" for action...

Radically increase support for desperate women +

Fully fund crisis centers ($$$ & people power)+

Create a national "pro-life" adoption list where anti-abortion folks sign up to adopt "unwanted" children=

Dramatic progress towards elimination of abortion

Peace, Duh-sciple

P.S. As noted by my "formula," I am not convinced that criminalizing abortion is a good solution. I hope that my suggestion, however, is a "just process."

P.P.S. Further, I appreciate the SoJo attempt to move the conversation forward, as I have also tried to do here. May we all explain the actions of others in the kindest, most gracious manner, possible. Amen.

Posted by: Duh-sciple | August 16, 2008 7:01 PM

Neruo_nurse: Richard Nixon was president in January 1973 when Roe v Wade was decided. Carter didn't become president until four years later, in January 1977. Gerald Ford was president in between the two (from August 1974 through January 1977).

Don, it sounds like you don't want Roe to be overturned because that would lead to legislators wasting precious time on abortion.

No, I don't want Roe overturned because it's not a viable long-term solution, for the reasons I gave, including the wasting of legislators' time and the distortion of the judicial nominating and vetting process in the attempt to "pack" the Supreme Court with abortion opponents.

In addition to the arguments I gave earlier, if Roe is overturned, say, in 2010, what's to prevent a future Supreme Court in, say, 2047, from reversing it again and reaffirming a Constitutional "right" to abortion?

The way to make abortion illegal is through a constitutional amendment. Nothing short of that will really do the job. But the will to do that doesn't exist right now. So a better strategy right now is to do what Rev Wallis suggests--to work with all sides in trying to make abortion unnecessary in the eyes and minds of those who might choose to have one, and to keep our eyes on changing hearts and minds in the meantime.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 16, 2008 7:27 PM

...[Kevin S.] actually presents arguments and ideas. You don't do that. You just snipe at people.

Never say never, Ryan. For an example, see JamesM's comment on the "Step Forward on Abortion" thread"

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

Also, on the same thread, he pays a complement to Kevin S:

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

Posted by: Don | August 16, 2008 8:34 PM

" . . . if Roe is overturned, say, in 2010, what's to prevent a future Supreme Court in, say, 2047, from reversing it again and reaffirming a Constitutional "right" to abortion?"

Stare decesis - I suspect this has more to do with its not being overturned so far than anything.

Posted by: Gordon | August 16, 2008 9:49 PM

In the absence of a better forum here, a couple of observations on the Saddleback forum:

1. Rick Warren did an excellent job of hosting this forum. Even the staunchly secular Charles Krauthammer was impressed by the way that this forum was set up and the way it revealed both the views and personalities of the candidates.

2. Barack Obama acquitted himself fairly well: he was calm, thoughtful, and his demeanor reflected a sense of respect for evangelicals.

3. John McCain, however, was more straightforward, almost blunt, but I think he did very well for himself. It will be interesting to see how his very direct answer on abortion will go over. My guess is it will do very well. And his stories, both about his imprisnment in Vietnam, and adopting a Bangladeshi child, should also be effective. McCain made it clear that, even beyond political issues, he shares many of the values of evangelicals at least as well as Obama does.

4. We may -- emphasis on may -- have just seen the high tide of the Evangelical Left in this election. Obama did well. McCain, IMHO, did better.

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 16, 2008 10:45 PM

I'd say they have reason to be upset, but you've always expressed the opinion that anything and everything the prolife movement does is wrong, so it's unsurprising that you'd interpret it this way.

Politically it has been a disaster from the word do, making demands, condemning everyone who doesn't follow it in lockstep and allowing itself to be used for political purposes. That has nothing to do with me

I would like to see Sojo post the new ad made by God's Politics contributor Brian McLaren, which takes a swipe McCain regarding his past adultery in his first marriage. How McLaren can defend the ad is beyond me, since Clinton's adultery obviously didn't keep him from supporting him for president.

Apples and oranges. If you notice, Bill and Hillary stayed together; McCain left his first wife for Cindy.

Posted by: Rick | August 17, 2008 12:13 AM

Jim,

(1) The abortion rate has indeed come down, and this is partially due to people (like W) keeping alive the idea that abortion is wrong.

(2) It is hard for the government to do anything to bring rates down further while the Supreme Court overrides democratic institutions. You (and pro-choicers generally) should call for an end to Roe v. Wade too. The Court thought it could save Congress from the trouble of dealing with this issue. It was wrong then and the issue should be returned to the States and their legislative branches.

(3) I'm for more pre-natal funding, poverty prevention, etc. Let's do it all, not just bob and weave to defend Roe by blaming the disenfranchised for focusing on the Court.

http://republicantreehugger.blogspot.com/2008/08/discerning-call.html

Posted by: republicantreehugger.blogspot.com | August 17, 2008 1:04 AM

"Politically it has been a disaster from the word do, making demands, condemning everyone who doesn't follow it in lockstep and allowing itself to be used for political purposes. That has nothing to do with me"
--In other words, helping to get Republicans elected and having the nerve to criticize Democrats for their extreme policies.

"Apples and oranges. If you notice, Bill and Hillary stayed together; McCain left his first wife for Cindy."
--Right...so if a Democrat would have done the same thing (Kerry? Kennedy??), that would have kept them from supporting him? Mind you, I think this would be a horrible ad for Republicans to run against any Democrat. It's disgraceful that Christians who believe in the concept of repentance and forgiveness would attach their names to it. If that isn't dirty politics, I don't know what is.

Posted by: jesse | August 17, 2008 8:26 AM

Figured that this thread would be talking about the discussion last night with RIck Warren and the canidates. I watched it and was impressed. Many things were cleared up and somethings remain a little foggy. Can't wait to read what Wallis has to say about this! It was considerably better than the liberal love fest that someone put on CNN a few months ago. (did they ever get the conservatives on for their questioning? no - because the questions would have been different and phrased so that it was impossible to answer. Life - "have you stopped beating your wife?")

Rick Warren did a great job and was respectful to both canidates. The round table discussion afterwards was very good on a few of the channels.

Hope to see more discussion like this in the future.

God is Good - All the Time.

Looking forward to seeing the convention in Denver.

Posted by: big guy | August 17, 2008 10:10 AM

"The Real Truth About Obama wants to post ads on its Web site and on the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity talk shows in key states..."

Maybe it's because I pay very little attention to the media anymore, but are those guys even relevant? Is it really worth getting upset by anything those guys say or do? Aren't most people bored with them? Isn't it transparent enough that people can see that the outrageous things they say are just a pitiful attempt to draw attention to themselves?

Granted, there are the 'faithful,' who tune in to hear what they want to hear, but I doubt there are a significant number of people out there who would take them seriously enough to change their opinions about Obama.

Maybe I'm missing something because I don't watch TV and only listen to non-commercial radio.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 17, 2008 4:19 PM

Maybe it's because I pay very little attention to the media anymore, but are those guys even relevant? Is it really worth getting upset by anything those guys say or do? Aren't most people bored with them? Isn't it transparent enough that people can see that the outrageous things they say are just a pitiful attempt to draw attention to themselves? - Neuro Nurse

Excellent questions! And I'll add, "Who are those guys anyway?" But it appears there's no organization too small or insignificant for justintime to rant about or to use to tar all of the people he opposes with the same brush.

And I'm definitely with you on the no TV and commercial radio!

Posted by: Wax | August 17, 2008 4:29 PM

Maybe it's because I pay very little attention to the media anymore, but are those guys even relevant? ... Aren't most people bored with them? Isn't it transparent enough that people can see that the outrageous things they say are just a pitiful attempt to draw attention to themselves?

I certainly want to agree with you, neuro_nurse. However, Jerome Corsi's (author of the 2004 anti-Kerry blockbuster ) recently published abomination, Obama Nation, just completed its second week on the NYT best seller list. It's only been in the bookstores for two weeks.

It's listed in the Hardcover Nonfiction section. It should have been listed in as fiction.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | August 17, 2008 5:30 PM

In other words, helping to get Republicans elected and having the nerve to criticize Democrats for their extreme policies.

No, being extreme themselves and painting the Democrats as extreme. If you're an extremist everyone who doesn't agree with you, no matter how moderate, looks extreme. (That doesn't mean, however, that their opponents were.

Right...so if a Democrat would have done the same thing (Kerry? Kennedy??), that would have kept them from supporting him? Mind you, I think this would be a horrible ad for Republicans to run against any Democrat. It's disgraceful that Christians who believe in the concept of repentance and forgiveness would attach their names to it. If that isn't dirty politics, I don't know what is.

That pales to what conservative Republicans have done to Democrats over the years, and don't think for a second that, had Barack been stepping out on Michelle, the GOP attack machine wouldn't have exploited that.

In fact, you just reminded me of the Democratic National Convention four years ago when Teresa Heinz Kerry told that guy to "shove it." When I learned who he was, however, I recognized the context -- he was the editorial page editor of the right-wing (local to me) rag that published the stories that Bill Clinton may have had Vince Foster murdered, that he and her husband John Kerry had had affairs with the same woman and that her foundations had funded some "violent radicals."

Posted by: Rick | August 17, 2008 5:47 PM

"That pales to what conservative Republicans have done to Democrats over the years, and don't think for a second that, had Barack been stepping out on Michelle, the GOP attack machine wouldn't have exploited that."
--So, you're saying at the very least that two wrongs make a right and that it's cool for pastors and Christian leaders to make digs at candidates for past sins that they've long repented of.

And you're totally right about Democrats and abortion...they are completely moderate. They would never make support for Roe v. Wade a litmus tests for judges. And there are lots of restrictions on abortion they would support, too. Plus, they would never spend my tax money on something they all claim to be "personally opposed" to.

Posted by: jesse | August 17, 2008 6:42 PM

justintime - You wrote that "All Americans -- not just anti abortion activists -- are deeply troubled by the act of aborting human life in its development..."
Why are all Americans troubled by this?

I think it's just because we're all born into this world with a conscious mind and the capacity for conscience.

Secular view of conscience:

Modern day scientists in the fields of ethology, neuroscience and evolutionary psychology seek to explain conscience as a function of the brain that evolved to facilitate reciprocal altruism within societies.

Bio-Psychological view of conscience:

Conscience can prompt different people in quite different directions, depending on their beliefs, suggesting that while the capacity for conscience is probably genetically determined, its subject matter is probably learned, or imprinted, like language, as part of a culture. For instance, one person may feel a moral duty to go to war, while another feels a moral duty to avoid war under any circumstances.

A Biblical view of conscience:

Romans 2:14-15: " When Gentiles who do not possess the law carry out its precepts by the light of nature, then, although they have no law, they are their own law; they show that what the law requires is inscribed on their hearts, and to this their conscience gives supporting witness, since their own thoughts argue the case, sometimes against them, sometimes even for them."

Do you personally know anyone who isn't troubled by the act of aborting the development of human life, Ryan?

Posted by: justintime | August 17, 2008 7:21 PM

Bradley: That being said, no way in Hades that I'll vote for Obama.

Why not?

Posted by: justintime | August 17, 2008 7:42 PM

McCain is a hypocrit who will say anything to anybody to gain their support.
First he was pro-choice, now he is pro-life and says he was always prolife, which is a lie.
He was against the Bush taxcuts befre he was for them.
Hypocrits can't be trusted. Obama is vowing a push to end unwanted pregnacies. He does support RvW which I regret. But he has never changed in this belief. McCain bounces back and forth depending on who is listening.
I prefer the honest person who I may not totally agree with vs. the dishonest person who changes their story to fit the audience.
McCain sez he will appoint anti RvW judges. Dems will still own congress so that isn't going to happen. Besides, since he is a nother shape-changer, how do we know?

Having lived in Arizona for a number of years and worked on several McCain campaigns, I never heard him mention religion. We just knew he was a jerk to all who disagreed with him.
Obama is consistent in dealing with the least of us.

Posted by: battlebob | August 17, 2008 7:53 PM

Neuronurse: Maybe I'm missing something because I don't watch TV and only listen to non-commercial radio.

neuronurse: Don't worry, you haven't missed anything important.
Avoid teevee, retain your sanity -- most teevee addicts have lost theirs.

Republican smear merchants have a substantial negative effect on the American political dialogue and have even affected the outcome of elections in America.
Democracy doesn't work with a misinformed electorate.

It's not surprising you haven't heard of 'The Real Truth About Obama' group before and you don't know anyone who belongs to it.
This is just a group of professional hit men, hired by the GOP to smear Obama.
In this political ad they are using the pro-life movement in smearing Obama with a pack of lies about his stand on abortion.
If you're a member of the pro-life movement, you should be outraged by these professional smear merchants, just like the rest of us are.
This is a smear on the pro-life movement too.
But many anti abortion activists secretly approve of these assaults on American democracy.
Winning is everything when you're on a crusade.

McCain says you should keep a sense of humor when this happens.
Well it's not funny when your candidate gets smeared and loses the election.
McCain should know -- Bush's hit men smeared him in the South Carolina(?) primary, putting an end to the roll McCain was on.
It's only funny when someone else is the butt of the joke, isn't it?

Posted by: justintime | August 17, 2008 8:44 PM

dog soldier,
If you are saying we should all be giving more to our churches and local charities and giving of our time to help those in need, I agree. Have Christians dropped the ball and done too little? Absolutely!

If you are saying that I should shut up and accept the legality of the "termination" of people who are deemed to be less human than others, that is asking too much.

Posted by: Bradley | August 17, 2008 8:51 PM

Hey Gordon,

Rick doesn't have a chance.

I'm afraid of a McCain presidency.
Are you afraid of Obama?

Posted by: justintime | August 17, 2008 9:12 PM

So, you're saying at the very least that two wrongs make a right and that it's cool for pastors and Christian leaders to make digs at candidates for past sins that they've long repented of.

I'm saying that we need one set of standards. Off the top of my head I can think of a half-dozen conservatives who went hard after Bill Clinton due to his "moral failure" who, it turned out, themselves had multiple marriages -- and none of those people to my knowledge have apologized to him for that.

And you're totally right about Democrats and abortion...they are completely moderate. They would never make support for Roe v. Wade a litmus tests for judges. And there are lots of restrictions on abortion they would support, too.

Many in fact do -- a number of the Democratic congressmen that won two years ago hold "conservative" positions on abortion and guns. That's especially the case in the South, where the GOP has lost a number of special elections for Congress.

That being said, no way in Hades that I'll vote for Obama. Maybe I'll write in Rick.

I don't want the job -- way, way too much compromise involved; I'll have everybody mad at me within six months.

Posted by: Rick | August 17, 2008 9:40 PM

"Modern day scientists in the fields of ethology, neuroscience and evolutionary psychology seek to explain conscience as a function of the brain that evolved to facilitate reciprocal altruism within societies."

Two words that do not belong together: explain consciousness.

There is no explaination for consciousness.

One guy wrote a book called "Consciousness Explained." His name is Daniel Dennett...

...and he was wrong.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 17, 2008 9:42 PM

"In one of my VN tours, I witnessed a VC soldier being tortured by having large nails shoved thru the ends of his fingers and thru the first knuckle. I can still hear the screams. I am ashamed of not stopping the event. Every other time, I either shot or ordered the victim shot before any more torturing was done. I also threatened the torturers. There was an attempt to file charges against me but no one was willing to take the public heat allowing torture.
Torture yields information, but none of it is useful. To see if it is useful, more and more people need to be tortured to verify it. It debases the torturers and brings everlasting hatred from the populace whose members are being tortured. Anyone who sanctions torture gives up their pr-life membership." Posted by: dog soldier

Thank you for your contribution, dog soldier. It is compelling. You will find that much of the moral outrage and bluster from the pro-lifers ends once the baby is out of the womb.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2008 10:04 PM

Justin -

I share your alarm about a McCain presidency, for different reasons. I am intrigued by your assessment of the prospects for an Obama presidency. I am as concerned about an Obama presidency as I am about a McCain presidency, principally because I see Obama as much too far to the left.

Posted by: Gordon | August 17, 2008 10:19 PM

Another nonymous and Sue, thank you both for elevating this discussion.

Don, I agree with you about endless legislative catfights. That is NOT democracy, it's political babytalk, and I for one am getting awfully tired of it.

Posted by: carl copas | August 17, 2008 10:31 PM

"How McLaren can defend the ad is beyond me, since Clinton's adultery obviously didn't keep him from supporting him for president."

Democratic advocates are going to tsk-tsk Republicans for marital indiscretion, but ask for mercy for Democrats. Republicans are going to tsk-tsk Democrats for the same, and plead mercy for Republicans.

Each will find some sort of nuance that acquits their guy somehow (at least Sen. Kennedy gave the lady a ride home). This is the sort of politics that I initially hoped Sojourners would move beyond, but no dice.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 17, 2008 10:51 PM

Neuronurse: Two words that do not belong together: explain consciousness.
There is no explaination for consciousness.
One guy wrote a book called "Consciousness Explained." His name is Daniel Dennett...
...and he was wrong.

There have been many theories attempting to explain the mystery of consciousness from Plato to the present. Modern science has advanced our knowledge about consciousness, but I agree, it's the height of presumption to title your book, 'Consciousness Explained'.

Haven't read Dennett's 'Consciousness Explained' but I did read Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.
Jaynes makes a case that the development of language was prerequisite to the development of human consciousness.

On the other hand, Eastern philosophers say language is nearly useless for explaining the mystery of consciousness.

I believe humans are born with a capacity for consciousness and with the basic elements of a conscience. The culture of human societies provides a framework for the further development of consciousness.
Dominant cultures will often suppress the human conscience for material ends.
But the conscience never goes away completely, does it?

Posted by: justintime | August 17, 2008 11:18 PM

"Frankly, that's fair game, especially for Christians who believe in only one standard."

I didn't say it wasn't fair game. I'm just bored with the game. In Minnesota, we've got one ad calling Norm Coleman a puppet of special interests, and another ad calling Franken a pornographer. I see the same level of substance in the emergent/sojo political engagement.

Dobson and Sojo play out the fight on an ostensibly religious battlefield.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 18, 2008 12:09 AM

to those who are Christians here...
when did we start thinking that law works for issues like this?
Is not the new covenant to show us that it failed, and grace, [which includes understanding and practical support], is the only effective means of changing things.
To depend on Law, as some do regarding abortion and also issues to do with moral lifestyles, is to miss the point of which 'method' our Saviour wants to equip us for.

Posted by: marion | August 18, 2008 5:53 AM

"To depend on Law, as some do regarding abortion and also issues to do with moral lifestyles, is to miss the point of which 'method' our Saviour wants to equip us for."
--Can say the same thing about slavery, segregation, etc. Abortion is as much a human rights issue as these.

Posted by: jesse | August 18, 2008 7:00 AM

"To depend on Law, as some do regarding abortion and also issues to do with moral lifestyles, is to miss the point of which 'method' our Saviour wants to equip us for."
--Can say the same thing about slavery, segregation, etc. Abortion is as much a human rights issue as these.

You can add temperance to that as well. As I was saying, laws can be passed only with a moral consensus, otherwise it won't last. That's why Prohibition ultimately became a failure.

Can't Christians simply ask and expect the state to discharge its limited duties (protect the basic human rights of the unborn baby) and at the same time work as churches to offer holistic help to families in need?

That calls for a commitment that many of us Christians aren't willing to make -- we just want the problem to "go away" so that we can live our self-absorbed lives.

Posted by: Rick | August 18, 2008 8:30 AM

Rick,

"That calls for a commitment that many of us Christians aren't willing to make -- we just want the problem to "go away" so that we can live our self-absorbed lives."

As it read it, you imply that if people aren't willing to be charitable, they must be forced to be charitable.

Posted by: Gordon | August 18, 2008 9:09 AM

"The assumption being, of course, that everything that McLaren does speaks for SOJO. "

This is not a necessary assumption, given that Wallis himself treats adultery cases differently, depending on the political affiliation of the person involved.

That said, McLaren serves on the board for Sojo, as does Bart Campolo. The organization uses almost precisely the same language in advocating Obama's candidacy as does Sojo. The two are tied to a sufficient degree that I think it is reasonable to argue that Sojo likely supports the content of the Matthew 25 ad.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 18, 2008 10:53 AM

These stats say that abortions have gone down under the Bush administration.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

Yes, but that’s a half-truth. The stats you cited use the CDC’s abortion surveillance reports as their source, and as I wrote above, there has been no change in the trends of abortion rates since the Clinton administration – when the current decline began.

bush deserves zero credit for the current decline, it started eight years before he took office.

“Haven't read Dennett's 'Consciousness Explained' but I did read Julian Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.”

I have read some of Dennett’s writings on consciousness, I have also read a number of other authors who contradict his theories. I read Jaynes several years ago – beautifully written and an interesting model - I can't say I agree completely with him, or anyone else for that matter.

The bottom line is that since Plato, there has been no good explanation why the piece of meat in our skulls seems to have self-awareness and self-determination.

If I was independently wealthy I would spend a considerable amount of time reading about consciousness. It’s a fascinating subject.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 18, 2008 11:15 AM

The advent of pre-natal screening has had a major impact on the abortion rate. It would be silly to attribute any drop (or rise) in the abortion rate to Bush or Clinton.

"I beg to differ because, as I said before, the hypocrisy doesn't lie there."

Sure it does. If you treat similar issues differently, there is an element of hypocrisy. Disseminating information on political scandal is always a means to an end.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 18, 2008 12:26 PM

Dear Mr. Wallis,

Thanks for being a peacemaker and trying to make a difference in the democratic party for Christ.

David

Posted by: David Marinegold | August 18, 2008 12:37 PM

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph. 6:10-18) | August 18, 2008 11:47 AM

There's been some talk about compromise on this thread, so how about this: A total ban on abortion coupled with a total ban on war.

Wait; what's that I hear? Impractical? Unenforceable? Sometimes necessary to prevent an even greater evil?

I can barely hear myself think for all the noise from the moral relativists.

Posted by: Another nonymous | August 18, 2008 12:46 PM

Mr. Wallis, I too appreciate your efforts and I thank you especially for acknowledging that there is typically no "need" for abortion. I was also pleased that Senator Obama avoided using that term during the Saddleback interview Saturday. I hope that means that work is still going on to revise the platform language to change this highly offensive language. If it doesn't get changed, I'm afraid the use of the term "need" will drown out the positive intentions of the party to focus on prevention and poverty issues as realistic and intentional programs for reducing the number of abortions.

Posted by: pj | August 18, 2008 1:13 PM

LV: Just want to clarify something. McCain stated that he is for embryonic stem-cell research as "at this time the benefits outweigh the rest". He is also not opposed to a pro-choice running mate so his supposed pro-life position is thin and I question his schizophrenia on life issues and his commitment to such across the board.

Posted by: Michele | August 18, 2008 1:26 PM

"Do you have any other ideas for ending abortion besides the failed tactic of criminalizing it?"

You can't declare a tactic failed when it has yet to be tried. And if you are arguing that we should give up trying because the opposition won't cave, and so we should therefore vote for the opposition, well, that's not a convincing argument at all.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 18, 2008 2:18 PM

What does it mean to be "Pro-life?"

In my opinion, Pro-life is believing that many of our youth should not be killed in war that never should have been.

Pro-life is believing that children should not die because they do not have enough to eat.

Pro-life is believing that People should not die because they do not have health insurance.

Pro-life is believing that people should not have to live under bridges because they lost their jobs and cannot afford a place to live in.

Pro-life is believing that people should not die or become sick because the environment has been destroyed with harmful things.

Pro-life is believing that people should not become sick because we have not cared enough about safeguards for our food supply.

Pro-life is believing that we should be able to trust our products to not contain harmful contaminates from goods made in other countries that our companies have used to make our goods.

Pro-life is making sure that our citizens have good jobs to take care of their families.

Pro-Life is saying that we truly care about our wives and husbands, families, and neighbors.

Pro-life is truly caring about the lives and education and future for all of our children and grandchildren.

What are we as Christians doing to address these Pro-Life issues?

I have taught classes of Junior High students, many of whom are sexually active. Over 60 % of my students (nearly 200 a day) are from divorced homes, or live with other relatives (grandparent, etc.)and have little, if any moral or parental guidance. I firmly believe that the breakdown in the family (meaning long-term, loving, committed relationships Christian or other) as well as the valuing of children, period, not to mention the continued objectification of women in multi-media (TV, music, magazines, films, video games, etc.) as sex objects, sets the stage for a culture that will consider to choose abortion.

I personally do not "approve" of abortion, but if I were put in the place of someone who has had to go through this decision making process, I do not feel that I could judge that person for good or ill. The only one I can judge is myself...I feel that it is the choice of the individual woman, and that she (I) would have to live with this choice.

This is not something that can be legislated, that, I do believe, needs to be viewed and treated according to Jesus' precept of "love" ... on a case by case basis, apart from stereotypical generalization, with education and resources and supports in hand for making an informed decision that will benefit the lives of all, and be supported by the community, rather than be handled "behind closed doors" in secrecy and shame.

This is not just an "issue", it is, after all, about human lives--that of the child AND the mother, and the commuunity--we need to work towards solutions, not just tidy mandates that produce nothing but polarization and no real answers.

Posted by: wepublius | August 18, 2008 2:29 PM

If you treat similar issues differently, there is an element of hypocrisy. Disseminating information on political scandal is always a means to an end.

You said it, not I. Beginning in the 1980s conservatives protected their own because they didn't want to lose the "religious right" -- in fact, the Reagan Administration was easily the most corrupt presidency in my lifetime, but when folks tried to bring that up they were shouted down. But much of what was said about Clinton was either false or blown out of proportion and was done so for the purpose of lynching him.

You can't declare a tactic failed when it has yet to be tried.

To use an analogy from American football, that's like telling the defense what play you've called but still expecting it to work properly -- doing so gives them time to come up with a scheme to stop you. Or consider the classic definition of "insanity" -- doing the same things with the same mindset and yet expecting different results. That's why the "pro-life" movement has failed miserably.

Posted by: Rick | August 18, 2008 3:00 PM

Posted by: big guy | August 18, 2008 2:24 PM

"I believe that our side has always been 'pro-life'. The other side has gone from 'Pro-abortion' which they still are. To 'pro-choice' to 'NARAL' so what next?"

I was done with this topic, but I can't let this go by. I remember when "your" side deliberately changed their name from "anti-aborttion" to "pro-life", to reframe the conversation and make themselves look nice. In spite of the name change it was still pretty clear to most people that they were "pro (some) life", mostly fetal life.

Not to be outdone, the abortion rights crowd decided to rename themselves "pro-choice". Pro is good, right?

NOBODY (YES, I AM SHOUTING) is pro-abortion. That would mean thinking that every difficult pregnancy should be ended with an abortion, and no other choice should ever be considered. I know you will agree that is silly.

It's hard to come up with a snappy phrase that means "women are adults and born human beings and should not be treated like mere fetus-carriers or children incapable of making a moral decision all by themselves." It just doesn't have the same ability to whip people into a frenzy as "pro-abortion". But it's a lot more honest.

Jane

Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2008 3:08 PM

Posted by: | August 18, 2008 3:08 PM

Jane

NOBODY (YES, I AM SHOUTING) is pro-abortion.

My friends wore - Pro-Abortion buttons in the 70's. (I think I might have one in a box in the basement somewhere) The articles of the 70's and 80's tell a different story. I do not remember the 'anit-abortion' label but will do some research on this.

We are all pro-choice, once you have made your decision - that is what defines you. I choose life.

Posted by: Tim McMann | August 18, 2008 3:03 PM

Your facts just might be in error?
We think the same on many issues and we are good friends but we are different in some ways. He warned me about some on this site and I have elected to follow his advise in some situations. I wish he was still allowed to be here - but he can not and that is sad. Some that were more disrespectful than he was are still here and I am not sure why?

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 18, 2008 3:31 PM

My friends wore - Pro-Abortion buttons in the 70's. (I think I might have one in a box in the basement somewhere) The articles of the 70's and 80's tell a different story. I do not remember the 'anit-abortion' label but will do some research on this.

If you find that button tell us what it really says, big guy.

Posted by: justintime | August 18, 2008 3:43 PM

What other reason can you think of, Gordon?

Posted by: justintime | August 18, 2008 3:57 PM

Posted by: justintime | August 18, 2008 3:18 PM

the rate is dropping -

Woman 15 - 44 years old

19.4 abortions per 1000 women in 2005
29-3 abortions per 1000 women in 1980

So it is going down. I personally believe that it will never be a Pres. that will bring an end to abortion on demand in the US. It will be a change in the hearts and minds of the citizens in the US that will cause the change.

The percentage of people that believe abortion should be available and unrestricted - about 38%

The percentage of people that believe abortion should be restricted or illegal - about 52%

The trend is going the other way - so when it becomes (if it does) 20% for and 80% against. What are you going to do?

ALl the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 18, 2008 4:04 PM

What other laws should we get rid of because they have failed to utterly eliminate the crime? Murder? Robbery? Extortion? Pedophilia? Rape? Aggravated assault? Drunk Driving? Drug possession?

Except that abortion and drug possession have at times been legal in this country, which is also the reason why we have this failing "war on drugs" -- neither deals with root causes. Sure, just pass a law and everything will be hunky-dory, right? A cultural change also is required, and when it come to abortion we're nowhere near that.

The percentage of people that believe abortion should be restricted or illegal - about 52%

But even at that, most people still don't want Roe v. Wade changed.

Posted by: Rick | August 18, 2008 4:15 PM

>>So it is going down. I personally believe that it will never be a Pres. that will bring an end to abortion on demand in the US. It will be a change in the hearts and minds of the citizens in the US that will cause the change.

then why all the hot air? huffing and pufing about about i'l give you first tri but not seconnd and third?

Posted by: bud duncan | August 18, 2008 4:23 PM

Justin,

" . . . just pass a law and everything will be hunky-dory, right?"

I don't think anyone meant to imply that.

Posted by: Gordon | August 18, 2008 4:26 PM

Rick: I put the drug possession in there to see if someone would take the easy route - thanks for obliging me. Now perhaps you should tackle the others in the list or would that not work in this scenario?

Justintime: Abortion is murder. It is capital punishment of an unborn child, therefore criminalizing abortion will prohibit law abiding citizens (who would otherwise have a legal abortion) from having an illegal abortion... Regardless, you didn't answer the question - what other laws are you OK with repealing because they don't eliminate the crime?

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph. 6:10-18) | August 18, 2008 4:34 PM

Posted by: Rick | August 18, 2008 4:15 PM: "Except that abortion and drug possession have at times been legal in this country, which is also the reason why we have this failing "war on drugs" -- neither deals with root causes."

Rick, in your opinion, what is the root cause of abortion? Is it "I didn't know this activity would lead to pregnancy?" or is it "Oops, I did it again - better get an abortion - this would be way too embarrassing and inconvenient"?

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph. 6:10-18) | August 18, 2008 4:43 PM

Posted by: justintime | August 18, 2008 4:29 PM

You never wore those buttons, did you big guy?

Never in public - that does not mean that they were not worth collecting. I have used several as examples when I talk with church and organizations about what needs to be done in their group. Sometimes a 'sucessful' example of something you disagree with can be very motivating. Even a dead clock is correct twice a day.

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 18, 2008 4:47 PM

>> I personally believe that it will never be a Pres. that will bring an end to abortion on demand in the US. It will be a change in the hearts and minds of the citizens in the US that will cause the change.

>> I am willing to give in on the 1st tri - you can have your abortion on demand. But the 2nd and 3rd are not an option.

more gum flappping out of both sides of yuor mouth. these 2 comments togehter don't make sense.

Posted by: bud duncan | August 18, 2008 4:53 PM

On loving the enemy

In discovering the mind of your enemy you may come to realize that you have an enemy only because of something you've been doing that maybe you don't need to be doing after all and that if you merely stop doing whatever it is, you can redeploy this energy plus the energy you were wasting on your conflict towards achieving your original objective.

Your former enemy will also find equivalent energy is now available for redeployment towards their objectives.
Your former enemy may even become an ally, deploying some of their new found energy towards your objective.

Since this is a reversible equation, one must be ready to embrace peace whenever it's offered by one's enemy.

Such is the power of love.

Posted by: justintime | August 18, 2008 5:26 PM

"Abortions did not begin in 1973 when the Roe opinion was issued and they will not end when the SCOTUS finally voids Roe."

Or the "scrotus," which is what we may as well call the court when Justice Ginsberg retires and is replaced by a male.

Posted by: I and I | August 18, 2008 5:43 PM

Ok -- please understand that I am mostly pro-life. Some of you seem to think that women use abortion as a form of birth-control because they are too irresponsible to take a pill every day or something. It's not that easy, so please don't treat this topic like it is.

Lots of older women I know speak of getting abortions -- women who have already raised their families and cannot stand the thought of going through all that again. I'm not saying I agree with that choice -- but I do understand it. They run a much greater risk of having babies with special needs, which only increases their dread. Most of them are in good marriages and are not having irresponsible sex. But most forms of birth control lose effectiveness by the time a woman is about 40 -- and most of them learn just how ineffective when they end up pregnant.

The easiest way to solve this problem, is for their men to take care of it on their end. Most older single women I know, jump for joy when they meet a guy who's had a vasectomy. Men usually bring up their vasectomies pretty early on in the relationship, so the discussion is out there pretty early. It doesn't leave the woman guessing, "Does he want children if we get married?"

I'm not saying that every man should have one -- but you know when you're done having kids. You may want to initiate the discussion with your spouses and even some of the more irresponsible men you know. There are still options if you decide you want children later. But if we're talking about stopping unwanted pregnancies, there is a lot you can do.

Posted by: frankie | August 18, 2008 5:45 PM

Dear moderators,

Several veteran progressive posters here (myself included) were disappointed to find out that both moderatelad and Wolverine have been banned from the God's Politics forum for not following guidelines regarding respectfulness.
We're not aware of any progressives who have actually felt insulted by comments from moderatelad or Wolverine, yet we're their perennial adversaries on God's Politics.
Although at times their comments have been tedious, mildly disrespectful and sometimes even disruptive, we feel they've both made a substantial contribution to the dialogue here simply by representing mindsets and positions held by many evangelical Americans.

We realize that the spirited discussions that go on here can be misunderstood, and we understand your concern, as moderators, about vigorous argumentation turning off outside observers, who occasionally jump in to express their distaste for the tone of some of the discussions.

But this is politics in America.
What do they expect?

We hope, in the interest of preserving the vitality of the dialogue here, that you will revisit your decision to prevent moderatelad and Wolverine from continuing to make their contributions to God's Politics.

On a related topic, some of us have arrived at the conclusion that moderatelad is now posting on God's Politics in spite of the ban, under the handle of 'big guy'.

Would it be disrespectful if we were to address him as 'big moderate guy?

Posted by: justintime | August 18, 2008 6:37 PM

"Assuming the goal is to end abortion, the present tactics used to criminalize it just aren't working, are they?"

I don't think they have been utilized. Such is the problem when unelected officials decide for the American people by judicial fiat. That said, the plan to craft a more conservative judiciary had worked swimmingly of late.

You know the numbers game, as do the left wing bloggers, which is why they want Obama doing the nominating.

"They have made it even more difficult for themselves, even in achieving the short term goal of criminalizing abortion."

The anti-abortion groups were secondary partners in the two most recent judge battles. Meanwhile, NARAL and PFAW were torn to shreds, hence the demotion of creepy Ralph Neas.

"When a movement fails to achieve a short term objective after 30 years of relentless effort, there has to be something wrong with the tactics they're using."

Who said this was a short term objective? I certainly didn't say that. This has been, and will be, a lengthy battle.

"Or the "scrotus," which is what we may as well call the court when Justice Ginsberg retires and is replaced by a male. "

Janice Rogers Brown is a female, and I will give better than even odds that she would be McCain's pick.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 18, 2008 7:46 PM

Justintime, you have yet to answer which crimes should be made legal due to the inability to completely eliminate them.

Can anyone answer with clarity if it is OK to murder an unborn child in the light of current laws on the books regarding murder.

Can anyone answer with integrity if it is OK to kill an unborn child in light of what Christ did 2000 years ago to save that child, and in regard to testimony through scripture that God knew us before we were born and He knit us in the womb?

Any takers?

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph. 6:10-18) | August 18, 2008 9:06 PM

Unfortunately, you cannot separate ‘pro-life’ candidates (i.e. Republicans) from the rest of their policies, many of which I feel are repugnant and immoral.

There are those who feel that abortion is the most important issue in an election, one that takes precedent over all others.

Disagreeing with that opinion does not make one any less of a Christian.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 18, 2008 10:17 PM

Taken in tandem, these statements are cognitively dissonant, reflecting a misunderstanding of the significance of Roe more than anything. Is it a healthy situation when a plurality of Americans lack a cohesive worldview with respect to a very important moral issue.

Not really. More likely they're conflicted about giving authority to a group of ideologues more interested in that than governing and using the abortion issue as a Trojan Horse. In other words, we'd likely have no problems with dealing with abortion had the conservatives not hijacked it in 1978 for the sake of power. Indeed, I have rarely voted for anyone seeking state or national office who shares my anti-abortion views because they actually promote policies that made abortion more attractive.

Posted by: Rick | August 18, 2008 10:50 PM

Who said this was a short term objective? I certainly didn't say that. This has been, and will be, a lengthy battle.

So, Kevin, is the ultimate goal of your "battle" to end abortion or just criminalize it?

Posted by: justintime | August 18, 2008 11:11 PM

"But if you talk to practicing OB-GYN's they will tell you that with the technology we have today - they can save both."

Sometimes.
Abortion can't be negotiable. It is an absolute. If "human rights" begin at conception then we couldn't choose to make any exception. If life begins at some point of "viability" before actual birth, how does this life advocate on its behalf? I consider myself to be Christian and believe that life that demands intervention and advocacy begins at birth.

Here's my personal reasoning. We take more risks for life and the chance to give life more often than we do to avoid pregnancy or to end a potential life. Women oftentimes take risks to their lives (and future quality of life) to give life. Sometimes that decision requires the use of technology/medicine to battle the forces of nature to self-abort. In other cases, it requires them to allow cancer and other life threatening disease to continue to grow long enough for the potential life inside of them to become viable outside of her womb. And we use technology/medicine to in that attempt to save Mother and to enable life before it is fully developed. I know four women that made the decision to take that risk with very different results. It is not easy for me to choose a side on this issue because women self-abort without explanation and in some cases without knowledge that they were ever pregnant, and are still blamed for not taking care. Even when we do all we can, and our bodies and mental health suffer, we are still blamed in the whispers of family and friends. Because we cannot believe it was God's plan when it goes "wrong".

If I were challenged to choose between my life and the potential life growing inside of me, I would choose my own. If technology or medicine enables me to prevent a pregnancy I will consider using it. If I'm raped and a technology or medicine enables me to end any possibility of pregnancy I will use it. I wouldn't advocate for terminating a life OR giving away a child based on economics or social/cultural mores.

Posted by: SJ Berry | August 18, 2008 11:40 PM

Allison,
Thanks for educating me with completely unbiased information from prochoice dot org.

Posted by: jesse | August 19, 2008 12:52 AM

Too bad we could not have a President stand up for the poor and the unborn . I would join a political party that did that .

X republican who most often still votes that way

Posted by: Michael | August 19, 2008 3:24 AM

"Not really. More likely they're conflicted about giving authority to a group of ideologues more interested in that than governing and using the abortion issue as a Trojan Horse."
--Yes, this is probably the answer (verbatim) that most of the public would give.

The reason for the conflicting answer, of course, is that pro-choice politicians and the media have perpetuated myths about Roe v. Wade. An overwhelming majority of the public (yourself included, Rick--up till a few weeks ago, at least) don't understand how radical Roe is and don't understand that overturning it would not make abortion illegal.

And it takes some real audacity to argue that the reason Democrats didn't take up the prolife cause has nothing to do with any moral failures of the Democratic party and is due solely to problems of the prolife movement. All this makes for a nice and simple narrative, though: Prolifers, conservatives, and Republicans=bad. Democrats=good.

Posted by: jesse | August 19, 2008 7:03 AM

How ironic it is that those posting here who would make the abortion issue the central focus of their selection the next president have no problem in supporting a man who would continue prosecuting a war that has taken the lives of 4000 Americans and over 100,000 Iraquis. No, ladies, please don't have an abortion. Carry the baby to term so that we can send him to a foreign country to die for a corrupt government!

Posted by: Sister Marie | August 19, 2008 8:15 AM

I have always wondered if responses are ever read by the author! Mr. Wallis, I would like to take this opportunity to tell you why I recently realized I am not a Republican and probably never really was in my heart.

After regularly going to Townhall.com and reading very cold-hearted and really mean-spirited essays by conservatives I began to feel out of place. I was already disgusted with people like Robertson and Hagee who are Republican icons and who I am embarrassed to be associated with. Pat Robertson is a glaring fraud who indulges in the most ridiculous self-aggrandizing I have ever heard of and he helped his son Gordon cheat on his wife with Gigi Lacey. Those two 700 Club holymen never stopped telling others to confess their sins and they never stopped their on-air "healings" and "words of knowledge" either
throughout Gordon's extramarital affair or the cover-up. Reverend Hagee said in a sermon that God sent Katrina because there was a homosexual parade scheduled in New Orleans. Robertson and Hagee both attribute terrible storms and terrorist attacks to this sinful and disobedient nation which elects democrats. Dumbfounded is what I am that our media and our politicians give those two idiots any attention, yet they do. CBN is called on regularly by the mainstream media in spite of Pat Robertson's ridiculous ramblings and self-aggrandizing. Much of our media is aware of the Robertson/Lacey affair and I am waiting for that "media blackout" to be lifted as CBN is
called upon by our media for commentary concerning the evangelical vote. The very people who should be exposing frauds are the ones giving them the welcome mat. Our media does not care about evangelicals, Mr. Wallis.

Anyway, one day at Townhall.com I commented on a Medved essay that I thought free lunches for poor children in our public schools was a good idea and I got ganged up on by other commentors. I realized how out of place I was. I realized how out of place I was in the Republican party too. I realized how the Republican party uses the Bible for its rules and laws and ignores it for its heart for sinners and for the needy. As a Christian, I think I had bought the lie that the Republican party was the party for me. Christians are very trusting people and have been manipulated by the Christian Right with a few issues which they have enlarged and turned into political issues, a reason to hate the Democrats. The Christian Right has caused division and strife with its fearmongering and powermongering and divisive rhetoric. I know the democratic party has its problems and its hypocrites too, but at least it does not invoke God in its platform, in political maneuvering, exploiting people whose faith is genuine with convenient legalism.

Mr. Wallis, I am a democrat and I am a Christian.
I wish you would read my profile at Huffington Post. I am Lewes17266 there.

Posted by: Cheryl Spencer from Lewes, Delaware | August 19, 2008 8:49 AM

Posted by: Cheryl Spencer from Lewes, Delaware | August 19, 2008 8:49 AM

You have got to see that there is hypocracy on both sides of the isle. You are a liberal/democrate - fine, frejoice in your convictions. You are a Christian - I do not doubt that at all.

Frauds in the political area - scandelous.

Let me tell you about Sen. and former VP Wally Mondale walking down the street of Mpls promising the people that he would make sure that they did not have to work and their welfare check would still be in the mail for them. Oh - he didn't do that in the burbs - we have to work so that there will be checks for them.

Free Lunch - it is here and in many cases breakfast too. These children are not getting fed at home so we are doing it at school. Lunches in most schools are about $1.10 on an avg. But you have to realize - Lotto tickets are $1.00 and too many of these people are spending their money there and not on food. Not all of them but too many of them.

My kids play soccer for their school's team. I paid $180.00 for each of my kids. I also took them to the local outlet mall and purchased shoes that we on sale - that is what I have to do to make the budget work. Those who are on the free lunch program don't have to pay for their children to play. OK - I want every student to have an opportunity to experience school to the full extent. But these kids also that $200.00+ shoes to wear and play the game in. Maybe they should be required to pay 'something' to be involved in the game. Also - and I know that there are exceptions. But for the most part - the parents of these students refuse to do their part in running the consession stand, stadium clean-up, anything that needs to be done so that we can have a soccer program.

You know what - you are correct. I am going to be on your page. You screw up and then try to cover up - you are out and disgraced. (you want to tell Clinton that one...thought not) You can't pay - you don't play. Hold all accountable - I like that. You hold Hagee and Robertson accountable for what they say - great, right there with you. Al Franken is running for the Sen from my State and he more than likely will win. He failed to pay taxes etc and then tried to cover it up. He has some of the most hate filled speeched on record. He has gotten paid for saying things that if I had said them in public - I would have been fired or taken to court or both.

Screw 'grace and dialog' we are going for the gold and holding all accountable and going to judge and jury all together.

Over the top - yes. Am I serious - no. Are there problems on both side - saddly, yes.

So what are we going to do? Tell you what - you stop quoting Robertson and Hagee like they are the only ones that speak for the conservatives / Republicans and I will leave Franken - Mondale and Mahr on the sidelines so that we can talk. Remember - all these people have the right to speak - but we need to deal with the 80% of us in the middle.

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 9:47 AM

McCain is an antagonist of sensible family planning and effective sex education. In 2005, he voted "no" on a $100-million allocation for preventive health care services targeted at reducing unintended pregnancies, particularly teen pregnancies. In 2006, he voted against funding for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education for teens.

McCain is much more comfortable with President Bush's wasteful and utterly ineffective abstinence-only approach.

Posted by: justintime | August 19, 2008 9:58 AM

>>Big Guy/Moderatelad's of August 19, 9:47 a.m.

Are you drunk alraedy at 3d hour of the day? stream of conscioiusness rant.

Posted by: bud duncan | August 19, 2008 10:50 AM

It seems like the same arguments are being run 'round and 'round. The one question I have that hasn't been answered by anyone is this:

There's a lot of "concern" expressed about abortion by people on this blog. Everyone says they're concerned about the abortion rate and that we need to reduce it. Why this concern? If a fetus isn't a human being yet, what's the problem with aborting it? Why should anyone be concerned about abortion if a fetus isn't a human being (other than that abortion is sometimes a symptom of larger societal problems such as poverty)? Why should we be trying to reduce the abortion rate? I’ve yet to hear this addressed by anyone.

Posted by: Eric | August 19, 2008 12:51 PM

No, ladies, please don't have an abortion. Carry the baby to term so that we can send him to a foreign country to die for a corrupt government!

Posted by: Sister Marie

That is your real understanding of the issues ?

Posted by: Michael | August 19, 2008 1:05 PM

Jesse, I actually appreciated Alison's posting of the prochoice.com link on crisis pregnancy centers. It showed me who the real enemy is. Now I know that those evil centers are just sexist, deceitful players in a nefarious plot to reduce the number of abortions!

The abortion industry is just that: an industry. It uses the language of rights to insure that there will be enough demand for its services to keep its bottom line healthy. I pretty much lost my appetite for lunch after going to the site, because I now realize the extent to which this interest group will go to protect itself.

But I still will not vote for sleazoids like Tom DeLay or Mitch McConnell or (closer to home) Dick DeVos simply because they are (conveniently) right on the abortion issue. I will support pro-life Democrats whenever I get the chance becasue the agenda of the current Republican Party is absolutely unacceptable to me, for reasons well enunciated by many on this blog. I hope all of you who feel the way I do will work to give pro-life Dems a fighting chance in your state and local elections. This is really the only hope: to rip assunder the party delineation on the issue of abortion and make the Dem Party a big tent.

Posted by: I and I | August 19, 2008 1:12 PM

Eric: "There's a lot of "concern" expressed about abortion by people on this blog. Everyone says they're concerned about the abortion rate and that we need to reduce it. Why this concern? If a fetus isn't a human being yet, what's the problem with aborting it? Why should anyone be concerned about abortion if a fetus isn't a human being..."

If a fetus isn't a human being? I think many of us on this thread who want to reduce the abortion rate believe a fetus is in fact a human being. You're preaching to the wrong crowd--take that argument over to the Hillary Clinton folks.

Posted by: I and I | August 19, 2008 1:19 PM

Why should we be trying to reduce the abortion rate? I’ve yet to hear this addressed by anyone.

Posted by: Eric | August 19, 2008 12:51 PM

This question has been asked an answered several times in the last week or so. I have personally answered it twice, but probably not on this thread.

A fetus is a potential human being and should be treated with respect for that reason. The fetus should normally be nurtured and carried to term. However, it is not the moral equivalent of a toddler or my 86-year-old father. Hence the nuances that have been discussed over and over.

I hope this helps you understand why at least one person (me) thinks that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Jane

Posted by: Jane | August 19, 2008 1:26 PM

Posted by: bud duncan | August 19, 2008 10:50 AM

Are you drunk alraedy at 3d hour of the day? stream of conscioiusness rant.

No - but that might not be a bad idea. Rec'd too many rejection notices for jobs over the weekend. I think they send them out at about 5:00 PM on Friday so that they have the weekend to allow us to cool down and forget.

Just tired of people quoting Robertson and Hagee as if they are the only ones that speak for conservatives - they're not. That is as stupid as me saying that Clinton (Bill) and Kennedy (Teddy) are the moral standards for the liberals and what they do is acceptable behavior for all liberals - stupid.

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 1:44 PM

Posted by: Sister Marie

No, ladies, please don't have an abortion. Carry the baby to term so that we can send him to a foreign country to die for a corrupt government!

Com'on Sister - you're better than that. At least I thought you were - I have been known to be wrong.

God is Good - All the Time
,

Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 1:48 PM

Just tired of people quoting Robertson and Hagee as if they are the only ones that speak for conservatives - they're not.

Well, when conservatives themselves quote some other folks whose views have wide dissemination we'll judge accordingly. Trouble is that they probably won't say anything much differently -- which is the point.

Posted by: Rick | August 19, 2008 1:59 PM

Eric: "I and I, not everyone here is in agreement with you. See Jane's response to my post."

Mea culpa. I should have read back much further in this very long thread.

Posted by: I and I | August 19, 2008 2:01 PM

Eric: "I and I, not everyone here is in agreement with you. See Jane's response to my post."

Mea culpa. I should have read back much further in this very long thread.

Posted by: I and I | August 19, 2008 2:01 PM

Jane says: Actually, we cross-posted this time. Yes, it's a very long thread.

Posted by: Jane | August 19, 2008 2:21 PM

Armed2Win -- You just spelled out a strategy guaranteeing not only defeat but also ridicule.

As for simply making abortion illegal, only a minority of Americans favor that in the first place. Favoring laws assumes a moral consensus, which in this case doesn't exist -- as we've seen on this thread. Prohibition failed for similar reasons; it was considered a good idea at the time but proved unworkable in practice. Who's to say that Planned Parenthood and other groups won't operate under radar and that law enforcement wouldn't "look the other way"? The civil-rights movement took a slightly different tack -- make the opposition look so ignorant and revolting that people had to react. That won't happen in this case.

Focusing on adoption isn't a practical solution either, as 90 percent of unwed mothers today keep their children because there's less stigma involved.

Any real solution has to deal with strengthening families, including getting Dad a good job so that he has the respect of his wife and time to spend with his kids (especially his daughters -- so that they don't fall for the first lech who pays them any attention). That's practical and long term but not very sexy -- but then again not everything is.

Posted by: Rick | August 19, 2008 2:39 PM

Posted by: Sister Marie | August 19, 2008 2:26 PM

I agree. The problem is that some of those who are most vocal in opposing abortion are equally so in their opposition to sex education.

Your above statement is true and I am one of them if you are talking about showing elementary school students how to apply a condom on a banana. Talking about methods in a class at the high school - I could be on the same page as you. I believe that we should talk / teach all the options contraception including abstenance. I was a part of a committee that 7 years ago looked at the sex ed in our district and the asst adm that was leading this committee literally shouted me down when I brought up the abstenance word. She was very demeaning and told me to keep my R%^& religious values to myself. I let her rant and rave awhile and then told her that she was the only one to bring religion into the discussion. (I worked for the school board canidate that beat the board member that was her biggest supporter. She is nolonger with our district.)

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 3:09 PM

Abortion is an awful choice. To my knowledge, no one in my family has ever been involved in abortion. I am not ready to send women who have made that cloice and their doctors to prison.

Posted by: Sister Marie

Like I said , that is your understanding of the issue ?

Posted by: Michael | August 19, 2008 4:18 PM

Posted by: justintime | August 19, 2008 4:13 PM

As Sister Marie point out, it's more likely that criminalization of abortion will make lawbreakers out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

(edited quote)

So - if I am to follow this logic. To criminalize drugs will just make lawbreakers out of otherwise law abiding citizens? To criminalize rape...to criminalize imbezelment, conterfiting, robery, murder etc.

Most things that are legal in the US have restrictions. Some in Gov't are trying to limit people ability to smoke in their own backyards. That could become an offense that would require jail time.

Just a thought

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 4:35 PM

"Abortion is an awful choice. To my knowledge, no one in my family has ever been involved in abortion. I am not ready to send women who have made that cloice and their doctors to prison.

Posted by: Sister Marie"

"Like I said , that is your understanding of the issue ?

Posted by: Michael | August 19, 2008 4:18 PM"

All right, Michael. The short answer is yes, but allow me to explain it further:

The year is 2009, and John McCain, our 44th president gives his first State of the Union Address. In his speech, he outlines his plans for a Constitutional Amendment to ban all abortions (something he failed to offer during his long and distinguished senate career.) The amendment is worded very simply because it would make all abortions a federal crime thereby negating the patchwork of state laws. It would make no exceptions for the life of the mother, no exception for rape or incest, and it would also outlaw several commonly used birth-control procedures which kick in after the sperm meets the egg. (See the link below.)

Now up until now, this amendment contains very simple wording so that there is no room for ambiguity. But I'm going to let you fill in the blanks for the remainder of this amendment. Please tell me what the penalties should be. If you are a supporter of the death penalty, then you will have no trouble supporting the same for this woman and her doctor. After all, it is premeditated and neither can claim self-defense. If the death penalty is a little too strong for you, how many years should we lock her up? You can continue to address this issue with a single sentence - just fill in the blanks to President McCain's Constitutional Amendment.

Here is a link to the web-site that explains the birth-control methods that cause abortion.
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/II-D-2-types.html

Posted by: Sister Marie | August 19, 2008 5:16 PM

A report released Feb. 28, 2008 indicates that in the United States more than 1 in 100 adults (totaling roughly 300,000)is now confined in an American jail or prison. The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population. It costs an average of $88 dollars a day per prisoner.

An estimated 1.2 million abortions were performed in the United States in 2005.
If abortion were to be criminalized, there would be potentially a million new criminals created every year in America.

Have the 'criminalize abortion' think tanks put these facts together?

Probably not.

Posted by: justintime | August 19, 2008 5:50 PM

Big Guy: Feel free to answer my question to A2W. Why stop at abortion?

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 19, 2008 6:07 PM

Posted by: justintime | August 19, 2008 5:17 PM

It is just 'big guy' - period, please.

OK - but we have laws that limit activity for many things. We are allowed to drive - but we have to follow the speed limit. We can work for a company but we are limited to a 40 hour week and over that amount of time - most places have to pay some kind of overtime pay. Even though I believe that abortion is wrong - pure and simple. I think that to achieve a common goal of making abortion limited and rare. I will have to give in on the first tri and other will have to give on the third tri. (mothers life - yes we all understand) Other issues that relate to this - there it will take more discussion.

That is my take on this issue.

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 6:14 PM

The way government provides its safety net is often promoting destructive family practices . My wifes best day care worker had to quit for instance , so her child could get medical from our state . Her income was two high because she worked two jobs .

Posted by: Michael | August 19, 2008 4:35 PM

Michael, you just made one of my points for me. Thank you very much. Medical care should be available to everyone, at a price they can afford. Some of us have been saying from the beginning that abortions would be reduced that way. And not only that, people would not have to quit low-paying jobs in order to qualify.

Jane

Posted by: Jane | August 19, 2008 6:19 PM

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 19, 2008 6:07 PM

I believe that we had laws on the books but they have been removed or are not inforced. But #7 - no one is dead, #6 someone is. I believe that talking about 6 would be more applicable. It was that #7 allowed the person in the marriage to be compensated for the failure of the other. That does not happen today with no-fault. One can have a discussion and maybe through counseling the relationship can be repaired. (seems to be working for the Edwards) #6 - no discussion and no making the situation beneficial to both parties. One is dead and much of the time - the other is wounded.

But this is not about the commandments. And as new testiment believers we are to love God with our heart, soul and mind and our neighboors as ourselves. So - the fetus, what love is shown to there? Is it one of God children? Is it part of His creation? When does the fetus get these provisions? I believe that from the time of implantation - it is a person and my pay-grade is a lot lower than Obamas.

I am willing to compromise so that we can move on and deal with other issues but what is the other side willing to conceed? I am not happy with my decision to give in on this issue but both sides have to be willing.

Not sure if that answers - but at least it should open some discussion.

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 6:34 PM

moderatelad: "So - now because it would cost too much we should not criminalize it?"

No no no.

1st point: Criminalizing abortion won't solve the abortion problem.

2nd point: Criminalizing abortion, while not solving the abortion problem, will generate enormous new social problems.

3rd point: The 'criminalize abortion movement' is based solely on moral outrage and ignores the inevitable practical consequences of criminalizing abortion -- their only myopic 'solution' to the abortion problem.

4th point: The 'criminalize abortion movement' stubbornly refuses to adopt viable solutions for reducing the abortion rate.

5th point: The 'criminalize abortion movement' is sucking the oxygen out of the American democratic process.

6th point: America can't afford to fund a solution to the abortion problem that won't work.

Posted by: justintime | August 19, 2008 7:08 PM

Good point, Jane.

Posted by: justintime | August 19, 2008 7:23 PM

justintime,
What do you think about coupling an abortion ban with increases in social services for low-income parents so that their financial situation was improved so that they felt they had other options other than aborting their baby?

Posted by: Eric | August 19, 2008 8:13 PM

Actually, Eric, we have no point of reference concerning pot because we don't have an era during which it was legal. (Immediately following the Civil War, soldiers from both the North and the South returned to their homes with what was called "Soldier's Disease" which simply meant that they became addicted to the pain-killers that was used to treat their wounds.) At any rate, our drug laws don't seem to work very well... but I am drifting off the subject.

What I have tried to say in previous posts (and apparently have not been very effective in doing so) is that this issue inevitably runs the risk of being overly simplified. (Witness the posts above in which bloggers have hypothetically offered to trade the 1st trimester for the 3rd.)

Despite all of the demagoguery, there has been a fair exchange of opinions. I'm sure that the opinions of those who are pro-life have provided the margin of victory in many of the elections of the past 28 years, and could well be decisive this November. Perhaps your candidate this year can deliver on the goals that you seek. I remain unconvinced that this issue will be resolved in the political arena.

Posted by: Sister Marie | August 19, 2008 8:55 PM

"If abortion were to be criminalized, there would be potentially a million new criminals created every year in America."

This isn't an argument. If we legalized everything, there would be no prisoners. This doesn't mean we should legalize everything.

You're right Kevin.
It's not an argument.
It's a fact.

Posted by: justintime | August 19, 2008 9:24 PM

Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 8:55 AM

"..We as a society have advocated many times for those who can not.."

In both cases, there are individuals that cannot make a decision, and a family member, friend, community, church, "society" could intervene or advocate on behalf of that individual. That is not the case of a potential life at conception. A woman can test herself and terminate a pregnancy without anyone consulting anyone or anyone having to know. Technology and medicine enables a woman to make that choice without permission. Please explain how society can advocate for a specific fetus or embryo and intervene as in your example?

-----

I said-- '...it requires them to allow cancer and other life threatening disease to continue to grow long enough for the potential life inside of them to become viable...'

You responded--But this is a conviction that they have - it is not imposed on them. I as a pro-life person would not condemn a woman / couple for terminating because she has cancer. I look as this is a 'life of the mother' issue. ....I don't like it - but am willing to give the abortion rights people the first trimester. They have to conceed the third trimester and we can talk about the second trimester. But I don't think we will have meaningful conversation about that because a true abortion rights person will fight with anyone in any arena except in the arena of compromise.

I'm not sure what an abortion rights person is, but you sound pro-choice to me and that's my point. You are presenting a hierarchy of value based on the potential quality of life and circumstance of the Mother. As a woman, I don't think that I can be made to have a baby. Access to technology and medicine enables choice.

So, the question for me is when are we going to deal with accountability and responsibility? I don't think women are choosing abortion based on economics. We have sex and as we used to say "get caught" and have to make a decision. Unplanned and unwanted pregnancy are not necessarily going to be addressed with economic programs. We need to talk about sex, responsibility, and choice. If we could have that conversation we would have less need for this one.

Posted by: SJ Berry | August 19, 2008 9:55 PM

Just a couple of things:

1. I vote by the "ceteris paribus rule" - all other things being equal, I will determine my vote based on a single issue. So far, I have yet to make this choice based on the abortion issue, but if I were faced with two candidates who agreed on everything else but differed on abortion, I would vote for the anti-abortion candidate. Not a likely scenario in Kentucky, a largely anti-abortion place.

2. Although I don't favor the idea of government-provided healthcare for everyone, if it were linked to overturning roe v wade, I would go for it.

Posted by: Gordon | August 19, 2008 10:57 PM

I'm gonna sleep on this.
g'nite all.

Posted by: justintime | August 19, 2008 11:19 PM

'That's where it was going. It is sort of a race issue because 1) blacks suffer disproportionately from the social ills to which I was referring and 2) "pro-life" organizations are now accusing Planned Parenthood of being racist for supposedly targeting the black community (when it's only about marketing)."

No Rick your wrong , I was not going there . I have had three children by three women . Two out of wedlock . The first two I suggested abortions . Like I said , from everything I know NOW , God created life , He is the one In control .
Not Government . I was looking for a solution , those who say government does that , we need to do that , or more money for that , basically to be honest , inside myself I thought abortion was always wrong . I believe many people who have that are for selfish reasons , Me comes first .

"I am willing to compromise so that we can move on and deal with other issues but what is the other side willing to concede? I am not happy with my decision to give in on this issue but both sides have to be willing."

You have nothing to give in on Rick . You blamed the right for the problem , your in the clear .

"Militant anti-abortionists are conceding essentially nothing -- it's "my way or the highway" -- and they will chew you out for "selling out." Get them to compromise and we may get somewhere, but I don't see that happening.'

Like I said , its not your problem . You obviously have made it clear and the liberals here it is the fault of conservative minded and traditional minded people . Thats between you and God .

But in the future , suggesting where my thoughts and beliefs were going is something God can do , you can't . I have enough sin in my own life and past to be concerned about others heaping their issues in there . Ok

Posted by: Michael | August 19, 2008 11:22 PM

That's where it was going. It is sort of a race issue because 1) blacks suffer disproportionately from the social ills to which I was referring and 2) "pro-life" organizations are now accusing Planned Parenthood of being racist for supposedly targeting the black community (when it's only about marketing).---Posted by: Rick | August 19, 2008 7:25 PM

Where are your stats?

Posted by: SJ Berry | August 19, 2008 11:35 PM

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

You're not fooling anyone with your new handle, moderatelad.

You know - have your fun. But there are several that use to be on this site that are no longer allowed because of Wallis blocking them. They were over the top several times but not anymore than many of the liberals that are still allowed here. Go ahead - try to out me and then Sojo can kick others like me off with the rest. Then this can be the liberal heaven that is so saught after by some. I have been very civil to others handles and not poked fun at them. I will not expect to be treated the same because 'no - no - no, that is not the Sojo way'.

loosing it and going to bed.
.

Posted by: big guy | August 19, 2008 11:53 PM

But in the future, suggesting where my thoughts and beliefs were going is something God can do, you can't. I have enough sin in my own life and past to be concerned about others heaping their issues in there.

God has given me enough insight and experience in such matters to show me where things are going even before people say anything. You say I'm being judgmental, but having been there and seen that I honestly can predict that path (and have usually been right). You also probably consider me a liberal -- in fact, I have opposed legal abortion since it became an issue in 1973.

That said, it is very clear from a historical perspective that the political right since the 1960s has used polarization for the sake of power, which is where the abortion issue comes in because the more religious of that camp borrowed it in 1978 for the express purpose of defeating "liberals." Christians allowed themselves to used by such folks as a trade-off, and in the process they were basically told how to think on economic issues not addressed in the Scriptures, putting them at odds with even fellow believers. But as has been said, little movement has been made against abortion because it's in the best interests of some of the powers that be to keep up the fight (because they get their "authority" from the fight itself) rather than solve any problems. About 20 years ago USA Today published an article about small groups from both sides meeting in several cities to find common ground, which made sense but probably got nowhere.

I also mentioned that race was indeed becoming an issue when it comes to abortion; this is undeniably true and will color the discourse more than is obvious right now. The reality is that family break-ups in the black community have been going on since probably the turn of the last century, especially in the North where there were fewer and less closely-knit communities, in large part due to the social isolation caused by racism, and finances had plenty to do with that. Then, the unemployment rate for black men is considerably higher than the population at large. What's so controversial about that? I remember on this blog last year someone who claimed to be a social scientist insisted that illegitimacy caused poverty; I argued back just the converse for a number of reasons.

Posted by: Rick | August 20, 2008 12:16 AM

What this does is commit the Democratic Party to supply real support for the child and for the woman facing this question in terms of pre- and post-natal healthcare, in terms of income support, the kind of support like paternity leave, family leave and an improvement in the accessibility in adoption. These are tangible things and very much related to Catholic social teachings."

What makes people think that Democrats are not already committed to the notion of 100% cradle to grave welfare for all, in exchange for votes?

My goodness... The first two paragraphs are so full of hypocrisy in this original entry that I am dumbfounded. Are the Republicans cynical for recognizing they have little chance of ever enacting the reforms they want, but the Democrats virtuous for promising more handouts in return for votes?

What's even more amazing, is the notion proffered that voting for PUBLIC WELFARE is Catholic teaching (inferred Biblical support) and virtuous at that.

Is this all you have to do to be a Saint in his mind... "Tax the rich, Fund programs that pretend to give to the poor. I'm going to the coast for the weekend..."

Christ himself laid that gem to rest...Read the story of the Widow's mite... God values our heart, money is meaningless.

Posted by: Watcher | August 20, 2008 12:24 AM

"What's so controversial about that?"

Nothing is controveral about your points Rick . I disagree with you idea of polarization , you appear to do that just fine as liberal politics has always done. Understand having discernment , The Lord has blessed me with it myself , it is a Gift from God not to stop a person from sharing a view or to believe your discernment is so righteous it can not be deluded with your own issues . Reasons for abortion are numerous and complex.

I share the belief that having children out of wedock adds to poverty , and makes it harder to get out of the cycle. The increase of abortion rates and children born out of wedlock at the same time conflicts with what ecualarist tell us . Secualarist believe abortion keeps unwanted children from being born , while abortion haqs been increasing more Mothers have been having children where they are the only support for that child since we have been keeping such records.
Liberal Christians here seem unable to grasp or try to understand that either. The same 'me" philospy that promotes abortion ,promotes out of wedlock births.

Two people living together with incomes with one child can be over the poverty level ,one person with the same income with a child would be in the poverty level. As was in my case two children and just myself, you are in the poverty level. I am white by the way.
Now the circumstances leading to that poverty level can be spoken to, just the same the sin of having children comes back and hurts all involved . Stealing is a sin, regardless if you are poor or just shoplifting for kicks.

Abortion is a sin if you and I are talking on the same level of understanding ?,

Being pro choice in this day and age means you are tolerant , to be pro lif you suffer all the baggage that you seem to be have no problem with heaping onto the person you are talking with , as if it it is not a one to one conversation , its Rick against the religious right .

It hurts the ones having the abortion also , as all sin does . People have been making excuses for why the devil made me do it since the Garden. Christians have abortions, all races , for various reasons. If the world was all middle class, all white ,selfishness would still promote abortions. People in my church have had them , as I said I suggested to the Mothers of two of my children to have one .

Having a better job may have changed my view, as circumstances may change the views of all of us .
If I walked in your shoes , perhaps I could better understand why you projected these isssues,
bottom line in my opinion , the life of a living gift from God really should not have more or less value because of our circumstancs or views or political discenrment or insight .

God's Soverignity is not justified by us or our circumstances.

Posted by: Michael | August 20, 2008 1:14 AM

Why should we listen to ANYONE who can't answer that with conviction and reason?

Posted by: Watcher
I don't believe the Saddlebrook Church forum should be taken as any right or wrong answers . Those two men were sharing their beliefs , their faith , and their hearts . I thought they both were quite honest and sincere . You and I didn not like Obama's abortion answer because we are pro life , he is not . I wish he was , I think I might vote for him if he was . I believe he has that much character actually,

Watcher I think some people here believe that the life inside of a womb has nothing to with God's soverignity .
From some of the nasty remarks and caricatures of people who are prolife I can discern some conviction from thoe making those comments, but mostly just contempt. They are not mad at you , they are mad at Christ. Just kind of sad really .

Its not an issue important to them, its something from what I have read here is to be an issue that will take care of itself when other MORE IMPORTANT issues have been . The selfishness that causes and promotes abortion will always be with us.

Posted by: Michael | August 20, 2008 3:17 AM

"Pastor Jeff, abortion is not just a crime based on moral/religious principles, it is a crime against life"

So are Sabbath breaking and covetousness which is idolatry. These are acceptable,even endorsed, in American society.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 20, 2008 8:30 AM

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

You're not fooling anyone with your new handle, moderatelad.

Congrats justintime - just got an e-mail that they are looking into 'big guy' to see if there is any direct connection between him and 'moderatelad'. You know - same e-mail, IP address whatever. So - you may have accomplished your goal of getting rid of conservatives on this site. Didn't know you believed in 'outting' people for your amusement or pleasure.

whatever -
.

Posted by: big guy | August 20, 2008 8:50 AM

Pastor Jeff,

So what about murder and thievery? I would assume you aren't advocating for the elimination of those terms as crimes?

We aren't under a theocracy, so your argument is bogus. So, you don't think abortion is murder? And if not, what are you basing it upon?

And what about the double-standard? Guy murders pregnant woman and gets charged with double-homicide. But if woman wants to abort baby, that's OK.

Please... Abortion rights = genocide and capital punishment for the unborn.

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | August 20, 2008 10:26 AM

Justintime - criminalizing abortion would not only deter law-abiding citizens from having abortions, but would put actual and current abortion clinics and operations out of business - closed - shutdown.

You keep ignoring one issue I keep trying to raise -- moral consensus; you assume that the authorities would simply obey just because it's the "law." However, if enough people disobey it it begins to lose standing. Prohibition, mentioned earlier, is one example; non-violent resistance practiced during the civil-rights movement is another. If enough people fill up the jails as happened in the latter instance -- jail no longer being a deterrent -- don't you think there would be more sympathy for a law's needing to be changed or repealed? And Planned Parenthood likely would have or raise enough money to bail demonstrators out of jail.

Posted by: Rick | August 20, 2008 10:46 AM

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | August 20, 2008 11:06 AM

Part of the process of eliminating abortion is admittedly working to change hearts and minds.

It has worked for seat belt and helmet laws.

Thanks for putting down so well!

I am pro-life but have comprommised on the first tri so that many we can eliminate the third tri. Then we could work on the 'heart and minds' toward a common goal. I believe that there will be no takers on the 1st v 3rd trimester conversation. Abortion has become an industry and there are too many people making money on this industry.

God is Good - All the Time
.

Posted by: big guy | August 20, 2008 11:25 AM

Back in the day - many laws were established that were later found out to be wrong. Abortion is an inturpertation of law - not a law itself. This could be changed if the Congress passes a law limiting abortion and NARAL would go crazy at that point. There is historical evidence of where the Congress has passed a law to correct what the Supreme Court ruled on previously.

If I remember my civics. The Supreme Court prior to the Warren Court, if there hasn't a specific law to based their decision on - the passed or refered it to congress. Warren is the father of 'legislation from the bench'.

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 20, 2008 11:35 AM

If I remember my civics. The Supreme Court prior to the Warren Court, if there hasn't a specific law to based their decision on - the passed or refered it to congress. Warren is the father of 'legislation from the bench'.

Meaningless. Under the same rationale, so was the Brown decision, which half the Court initially opposed.

Posted by: Rick | August 20, 2008 11:41 AM

"Warren is the father of 'legislation from the bench'."

No, Warren is the father of the modern activist court. In the Brown vs. Board of Ed case, the legislature was not doing its job, and the ancestors of slaves were barred legally from getting the education they needed to fully participate in the economy and bring themselves out of poverty. This was a shameful sin on the part of America and thank God the Warren Court took over where the legislature failed.

But it has been pointed out many times, there are conservative activist justices and decisions as well as liberal. And there was certainly judicial activism before the Warren Court; it just did not have the far--reaching implications that the Brown decision had.

I am all for the separation of powers and generally believe that the court should not "legislate." But the line between interpretation and legislation is not always clear, and that is why we have such a variety of opinions in the courts. And I will add that the Warren Court only slightly stepped over that line, basing their decision on the spirit of the law rather than the letter or original intent of the law.

Posted by: I and I | August 20, 2008 11:49 AM

Big Guy: "I believe that I would start working with young men about respecting women and understanding what happens when they make a baby and then make tracks. Putting the accountability and the responsibility on them."

I agree, which is why I have to give Planned Parenthood credit for promoting vasectomies among men and working to make them available for free or at reduced cost for low-income men. It makes no sense to expect the woman to undergo that procedure when it is so much more complicated, and asking men to make this "sacrifice" is a good reminder to of their reproductive responsibilities.

Posted by: I and I | August 20, 2008 11:58 AM

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | August 20, 2008 11:47 AM

'...no moral equivalence between abortion and Dr. King's heroic civil rights movement. None. Zero. Zip.'

Well stated my frined - keep preaching it loud and clear.

All the Time - God is Good
.

Posted by: big guy | August 20, 2008 12:58 PM

"when did we start thinking that law works for issues like this?"
Marion

I think many got upset when the numbers and acceptabality of abortions started hitting close to home , when abortion became equal to birth control in many eyes . I noticed the pro life political movement actually more by the hostility and hatred it got from the secular progressives in my neck of the woods . I was little disappointed to find the progressive church in their ranks also .

Then when he even the liberal church started supporting the government using funding to support abortions . When Pastors started defending abortion as a EQUALITY issue , I think many saw that the Creator was being undermined by a idealogy that promoted the same philopical political movement as does any godless society . The belief we are god . Its all about me

I don't think the law will ever stop abortion , too late now . But the conversation tells me to some people its not about God's soverignity or His Lord Ship , its about their issues from race to redistribution . .

Posted by: Anonymous | August 20, 2008 1:58 PM

No, abortion has always obfuscated the real issue, which is about the "lordship" of conservative ideologues --
Posted by rick

Your simply wrong . Regardless if a conservative or liberal screams at a person to not steal , allow two men to marry or your a bigot , make a person go to a different school, or use those issues as a reason to dominate as you say , stealing is still a sin , racism is still a sin , abortion is still a sin , sex out marriage is still a sin .Has nothing to do with liberal politics or conservative politics promoting their issue for power , as you know liberals suffer from the same ailment . Or perhaps you don't know ?

The majority of people here are sharing views , none that I know of have any kind of political position to gain power . Your
If it makes you feel better good , but I do not see Christ reflecting you at this moment and in this conversation either.
Thank you for the dialogue , but I was hoping for an understanding that life comes from God . Some kind of middle ground . To go forward . You discernment is wrong in this case . Regardless the labels you want to put the fault on , the bottom line millions die that God created every year because we do not honor his Gift of Life as a culture .

I would have been open to any kind of thoughtfull advice , inspiration , lifting up of another brother , my jouney has taught me also this is something that has no political answer .

But I will continue to do what i can by supporting say a Pregnacy Crisis Center when they ask for donations for a crib , or whatever .
Obviously those things are not enough, and as you have pointed out , they have "those" kind of people involved in them that don't fit your litmus test . But I actually don't know what to do , and believe we as a Church should be trying . I thought this was a web that considered many here were part of the church ? It appears their are good kinds of Believers and Bad kind of believers . Appears if your pro life your a bad one.

Posted by: Michael | August 20, 2008 3:55 PM

Has nothing to do with liberal politics or conservative politics promoting their issue for power, as you know liberals suffer from the same ailment.

You mean you haven't you noticed that only religious conservatives go on TV and radio saying "Thus saith the LORD" and denouncing the other side when He said and did nothing of the sort? And as for all these things you mention as being "sins," Paul wrote, "For everything that does not come from faith is sin."

You discernment is wrong in this case. Regardless the labels you want to put the fault on, the bottom line millions die that God created every year because we do not honor his Gift of Life as a culture.

Depends on who's life it is, doesn't it? And as for my discernment being "wrong," wait a few years and then say that -- hopefully by then you'll get a fresh perspective on the "sanctity of life."

Posted by: Rick | August 20, 2008 4:13 PM

I'm afraid they're not listening to us.

Par for the course, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Rick | August 20, 2008 5:46 PM

Pastor Jeff - moving away from Biblical morality, how is abortion any different than "regular murder" that is illegal? How do you "judge" that outside of a religious context?

What I find astonishing is that there is more weeping and gnashing of teeth on this blog over a felled tree than the murder of an innocent baby. What's more astonishing is that it is coming from those who proclaim belief in a loving God.

Mind blowing stuff.

By the way, Justintime and Rick, you never answered my questions and you've appeared to leave. That's too bad. I relish a good debate and its unfortunate for you to have bowed out before responding. I would have liked to hear your responses. Regardless - God bless you both and thanks for a lively debate!

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | August 21, 2008 9:51 AM

Jeff S,
Would you make that same argument when it comes to the death penalty? There's no real moral consensus on whether it should be allowed or not. I think the death penalty is wrong but I'm not going to wait for a moral consensus to emerge before advocating against it.

Posted by: Eric | August 21, 2008 11:05 AM

Eric - well stated and very valid point. I am assuming that a majority here are against the death penalty (as am I). My question is why are these same people not against the death penalty for the unborn? I have brought this up multiple times and no-one has had the courage to address it.

Thanks Eric for bringing it up again. Its another example of a pro-choice double-standard.

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph. 6:10-18) | August 21, 2008 11:25 AM

A2W's singular message on this thread has been "abortion is murder and should be criminalized", repeated over and over, ad infinitum.
His message is irrelevant to a discussion of how to reduce the abortion rate by other measures besides criminalization.

If A2W would only read and try to comprehend what others have been saying on this thread, instead of ignoring them, he might discover that his questions have already been answered.
It appears A2W incapable of thinking outside of his ideological box.
This is not dialogue -- A2W is only talking to himself.

Now A2W takes credit for winning an argument with himself.

Posted by: justintime | August 21, 2008 11:53 AM

Justintime,

Welcome back - I love your sense of humor. Thanks again for providing some needed humor in an otherwise very stressful day.

Actually, if you would read through my previous comments - I have held at least 3 other methods of reducing abortion rates outside of, yet along side of criminalization. Did you miss those?

The problem is that you have provided no solutions yourself - at least not that I can see, and you cannot answer with any sense of conviction some valid questions I posed.

So, if criminalization does not work, working to change hearts and minds doesn't work, adoptions don't work, promoting abstinence doesn't work, support groups don't work, Justintime, what will work?

Perhaps a time-out for those who have an abortion?

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph. 6:10-18) | August 21, 2008 12:08 PM

Not all christians agree that abortions must be prevented, and many American citizens would argue that, whether or not making abortion illegal would stop them being done, it would be unconstitutional interference with the patient's body. This will be a difficult legal and constitutional matter, not easy to deal with on party or theological grounds.

Legislation has never been able to stop women from from performing abortions on themselves or others, rich women can travel to Canada, and poor women can take their chances. Preventing unwanted pregnancies through easily available birth control, and comprehensive sex ed. courses in school which have proven to increase age of onset of sexual activity are two very good ways to prevent abortion.

Having a job, and a hope for the future, you can give your baby the life he deserves.

Posted by: Arachne | August 21, 2008 5:53 PM

Eric: Thanks for supporting my point. How can you oppose the death penalty and abortion when the Scriptures clearly support capital punishment and oppose abortion?
"moving away from Biblical morality," A2W
One moment we want to a Christian Taliban and the next we want to move away from Biblical morality. Then you have the temerity to accuse me of a double standard. Wow.

Pastor Jeff

Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | August 21, 2008 11:11 PM

Pastor Jeff,

Nice try in twisting my words. My point is that since we can't, in your opinion, use Biblical morality for basing laws, lets move away from Biblical morality for a second.

So answer the question p moving away from Biblical morality, how is abortion any different than "regular murder" that is illegal?

How do you "judge" that outside of a religious context? What makes it wrong?

Posted by: Armed2Win (Eph 6:10-18) | August 22, 2008 7:16 AM

On other thing: would those who are conservatives please show me any concrete steps you think have been done by Bush, other than the PBA ban? I haven't seen any evidence myself.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 23, 2008 12:05 AM

BTW, I’m not voting for Obama this year, I’m voting against McCain.

I’m old enough to remember some of Nader’s activism in he 70’s, and I respect him for that, but I can’t vote for him.

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 23, 2008 11:33 AM

Kevin Wayne,

Unfortunately, the lesser of two evils is what we have - that is, until Americans are ready to acquire some intestinal fortitude and stop letting the media do their thinking for them.

I'm afraid integrity is a liability, rather than an asset for U.S. politicians.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 23, 2008 5:49 PM

I think we know where Obama comes from and where dhe is going - he evens votes to do away with babies who have survived abortion. His talk about his Christian values sounds hollow and I see him as corrupt at the core.

Someone above posed the question about what it would be like if abortion was illegal tomorrow - what should be done with all the babies on our hands, the economically disadvantaged or suicidal mothers, etc. Wow! It would be wonderful to have the chance to be a life-affirming society. Let's try it for a year with a "sunset" type law - would the democrats go for that? I can see things really changing in our culture if we had those decisions had to be made.

How can one bring up individual cases of injustice when millions of babies are killed every year! What is the effect on youth when they grow up in a culture that says their life can be determined by a "choice"? It's certainly not an inalienable right to life. How do you expect men to take their proper role in the family when you deny their place at the very start? What is the effect on people who grow up in this climate to make laws ("we must accept the lesser of 2 evils"), and those who make economic decisions affecting other's lives("we must obey the shareholders")?

Posted by: Rich | August 23, 2008 11:13 PM

Self righteousness and a persecution complex --
two sides of the same coin.

Let go of one and the other goes away by itself.

Posted by: justintime | August 24, 2008 1:30 PM

I've never voted for wiretapping or funding the war.
And I want full health care for all Americans.
So why not write my name in?

Posted by: justintime | August 24, 2008 11:00 PM

Look, I’m not going to tell you that you are throwing your vote away by voting for Nader.

If I didn’t think that defeating McCain was important not only to this country, but to my wife and me, I might consider voting for a third-party candidate.

I hate this war. I hate what it has done to the reputation of this country and, because I plan to make a career out of working in Africa, I hate the position that this war puts me in as an American.

On two occasions in 2002 when I was travelling in Ethiopia after spending a year volunteering in that country, I was approached by young men who confronted me saying, “george bush is bad!”

At the time I was amused by their surprise when I agreed with them, but in retrospect, the thought that I might be mistaken for a supporter of this war and this bellicose president frightens me.

This so-called ‘war on terror’ has done nothing but create a new generation of people who hate this country. The number of attacks on U.S. citizens outside the U.S. has increased since the beginning of this war.

Maybe some of the people reading this feel safer as a result of the ‘war of terror,’ but I don’t.

McCain is bellicose. I voted for Obama in the primaries because I believed he was the most likely candidate to defeat Clinton, who also lost my respect due to her bellicosity.

Maybe, as you say, Nader is the only candidate truly opposed to war, but I believe he cannot defeat McCain. The weight of evidence is against the probability of that outcome.

To those who ridicule those of us who feel that there are more important issues than abortion at stake in this election, let me put it to you this way; the CDC’s abortion surveillance reports that there are currently less than a million abortions performed in this country every year. Over a million children in sub-Saharan Africa die every year from malaria, a curable and preventable disease (and one that nearly killed me the second time I had it).

I plan to go back to Africa (despite having had malaria and a few other nasty disease prevalent in the tropics) to work towards reducing the number of deaths due to malaria.

What are you doing besides blogging and voting for – what’s a euphemism for liars? The thesaurus lists 'tellers of tales.'

PX

P.S. Before any McCain voters respond, please note that nothing in what I've written suggests that Obama is not a 'teller of tales' as well.

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 25, 2008 1:25 PM

Justintime & Nuero Nurse: Hey you both can let the 2 party-duopoly do your thinking for you all you want, but in the end it looks as if the Democrats may sorely regret their current choice. All the reports I've been reading indicate that Clinton's supportes aren't happy about the way thier candidate was manipualted out of contention by the skulduggery of the Demo hierarchy.

The time to work on building 3rd party alternaives is NOW: or thier will always be an excuse.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 26, 2008 3:04 PM

If we had a system of proportional representation in America, instead of our easily rigged electoral voting system, it would make the emergence of alternative political parties -- Greens, Christian Democrats, whatever -- a natural thing, easily initiated and grown.

With our present electoral voting system, a third party invariably ends up being a spoiler, sometimes allowing the worst of the two main candidates to get elected.

Remember Ross Perot?
Now we have Ralph Nader.

I would go for a constitutional amendment to institute
1. proportional representation
2. instant run off voting.

This would have eliminated the nasty outcome of election 2000, among others.

If you find it necessary to vote defensively, as in Obama/McCain, you could vote defensively in that race and vote Green (for example) if you have a good local Green candidate to vote for who has a chance.
This is how a party is built, from the grassroots up.

Posted by: justintime | August 26, 2008 9:11 PM

justintime: That was blown out of proportion as far as I'm concerned. That's not where the bulk of Nader's support came from.

NN wrote:

The majority of Clinton supporters aren't going to stand by and let McCain get elected. I would have held my nose and voted for Clinton if the primary had gone the other way.

Ah, Clinton- remember when Bill was the candidate who used change as his byline? And what did we get? Welfare deform, no healthcare, war in the Balkans, capitulation to the timber industry, NAFTA, China as favored nation trade status... I could go on & on.

Which reminds me: I distinctly remember student activists in my left-leaning city of Portland organizing anti-Clinton demonstrations back in the day, and on the very issues I listed above. Both of you forget that Nader's candidacy came out of dissatisfaction on the left with Democrat capitulating to the GOP!

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 27, 2008 10:18 PM

"Ah, Clinton- remember when Bill was the candidate who used change as his byline? And what did we get? Welfare deform, no healthcare, war in the Balkans, capitulation to the timber industry, NAFTA, China as favored nation trade status... I could go on & on."

Have you ever heard me defend Bill Clinton?

"Having noted that reports of the current DNC convention I watched on CNN tell us of current dissatisfaction by the Hillary camp and how many intend to vote for McCain"

That's laughable!

Do you believe what you hear on CNN? As far as I can tell, CNN is just slightly to the left of Fox.

For a number of reasons, some of them directly related to personal experience, I have zero trust in the U.S. news media.

"I distinctly remember student activists in my left-leaning city of Portland organizing anti-Clinton demonstrations back in the day"

Yes, and I just watched a video interview of the comments about election from a very dear friend of mine who is a radical leftist who lives in Seattle and participated in the WTO demonstrations. I love the guy, but so what?

"Both of you forget that Nader's candidacy came out of dissatisfaction on the left with Democrat capitulating to the GOP!"

That's the politics of getting elected. The idea is to appeal to as many people as possible. The best way to do it is to be as close as possible to the mean - the middle of the bell-shaped curve. You don't win elections by being close to either of the tails of the curve. Republicans do it too, they just try to act like they don't.

In the end, I can only hope you're right, but considering that in 2004 Nader received 463,653 votes, for 0.38% of the popular vote, I'm not betting on it; I'm not willing to spend my vote on a very long shot like that.

You're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you. Vote as you see fit, and I'll do the same.

PX

Posted by: neuro_nurse | August 28, 2008 9:46 AM

The site seems to be holding my comment with a link to the YouTube vdeo "Why I Support Nader - Ashley Sanders" - but go look that one up. Solidly refutes the "non-viable" issue once and for all!

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | August 28, 2008 8:53 PM