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