The Republicans probably removed that "across the aisle" language because the pro-life Republican base, like myself (a former pro-abortion Democrat) is well aware that reducing unplanned pregnancies is the stated goal of Planned Parenthood. Yet, Planned Parenthood kills more preborn babies in the womb than any other abortion mill. Planned Parenthood has bought Barack Obama. The Democrats are the party of death.

Every day somewhere in America a Planned Parenthood abortion doctor kills a preborn baby every TWO MINUTES.

Posted by: Debbie | September 2, 2008 6:12 PM

Once again, the evangelical Christians show their true colors. They need to have dead fetuses in order to win elections. Anything that reduces the number of dead fetuses reduces their chances of winning at the polls.

Remember that when you hear them talk about God's Word with regard to unborn children. Ask them what it is worth to them to cut abortion by 10%. They know that increased social spending has been shown to reduce abortions, but of course that costs them money.

And we all know that Republicans value money more than life itself.

Posted by: ds0490 | September 2, 2008 6:32 PM

Jim, Your Sept 1 post was a glowing review on Obama despite the factual errors (factcheck.org) and now this post nit-pick verbiage in the irrefutably pro-life GOP platform??? Boo to you.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 2, 2008 6:36 PM

" They know that increased social spending has been shown to reduce abortions, but of course that costs them money."

How has this been shown?

Posted by: kevin s. | September 2, 2008 6:40 PM

I really have a hard time believing that a person whose sole means of support is abortions is going to agree to a 'reduction' in their industry. Maybe if they would come out with wording that states that they will reduce third trimester abortions you may find more support on the other side of the issue. Roe v Wade spoke to the viability of the fetus. The people who supported abortion on demand kept marching so that today we have third trimester. I again believe that if you want to attract prolife people to mediate on this issue. The other side has to make a good faith gesture that give up the third tri. And again - life of the mother has been the law prior to Roe. It is just that determination has to be made by the doctor.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: big guy | September 2, 2008 6:51 PM

If you go into an alley to kill your own kid, you do so at your own peril.

That comment just about says it all regarding the level of compassion for women in distress that some in the "pro-life" movement hold.

I wonder what Jesus would say to these words?

Posted by: Don | September 2, 2008 6:57 PM

The problem is the ban on abortions did not stop the rich from having abortions.
Prior to RvW, those who had money or means got their abortions; either by a friendly and well-paid doctor or off shore to a country where they are legal.
Those that did not have money, went to a back alley butcher.
RvW makes the procedure safe and legal. Now we need to make it unnessary because removing the law will not remove abortions.
Since life begins at conception, abortion is murder. RvW does very little to stop abortions. Even with RvW, abortions are decreasing because women are opting to either be careful or keep the child. We want to encourage responsible behavior and stop the nonsense that RvW allows women to murder their kids.
Remove the supply of unwanted pregnacies and RvW and the need for RvW will disappear.

Posted by: dog soldier | September 2, 2008 7:26 PM

If conservatives really cared about fetuses growing into people then they would do more to encourage their well being.
How about health care for all?
How about curbing environmental pollution?
How about working to stop the neend for abortions by helping women in poverty?

It is so easy to propose a law change and say mission accomplished. We who want to see RvW overturned own the process of making it unnessary in the first place.
And if we are going to demand women carry their unborn child thru term then we owe these people the support system to make it easier to happen.

Posted by: dog soldier | September 2, 2008 7:33 PM

Another huge problem in the pro-life debate is that young girls often want babies.

Talk to the average high school girl. They'll tell you some sad story about a friend of theirs who lost their baby, and it was really sad because she really wanted it.

For some I think they see it as a 'love child' and for others I think it's that being a teenager is a very lonely time and this gives them some type of purpose.

I'm no expert -- it's just my best guess as to why. The kids I went to high school with did not want to have a baby for anything. At least not until they lived at least some of the dream.

Posted by: frankie | September 2, 2008 8:03 PM

You missed my point, Peter. It's not about when life begins or whether she should be able to kill her child.

Think about it.

D

Posted by: Don | September 2, 2008 8:10 PM

I'm reading the posts here and I can't seem to find grace anywhere. How sad is that?

Posted by: Paul | September 2, 2008 8:12 PM

Do you think the two -- or more -- sides of this debate could agree on anything, such as being consistently pro-life? It's hard to take President George W. Bush seriously with his statements of a "culture of life" with the Iraq War, death penalty decisions as gov, anti-concern for the poor.

How about a party platform that condemns abortion, while also proclaiming a special concern for the poor, condemns racism, advocates for health insurance for all, etc.

Who'd be the first to give in: Dems or Repubs? Any bets?

Posted by: ando | September 2, 2008 8:26 PM

"Who'd be the first to give in: Dems or Repubs? Any bets? "

Not at all likely to happen.

Posted by: Gordon | September 2, 2008 8:58 PM

Why do we use the revolving argument that: If abortion is bad then why are we in Iraq? Thus we are hypocrites, thus we have no moral ground to object abortion.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 2, 2008 9:16 PM

I'm glad they dropped the language you want them to have in the platform. I wonder if you ever studied what the Scriptures said about prenatal life.
Don

Posted by: Don Costello | September 2, 2008 9:28 PM

Everyone must remember that the U.S. Supreme Court has a majority Republican number of appointments and they decided to keep Roe vs. Wade as the law of the land. So this majority Republican court is pro choice! The lawmaking body of the nation (Congress) was solid Republican from 1994 until beginning of 2007! How do the Republicans escape disillusionment?

Posted by: Steve | September 2, 2008 9:40 PM

I've been posting this issue for the last few days, but no one seems to want to address this reality. Based on the best scientific evidence, the abortion rate is lowest in countries with easy access to abortion and contraception and counter-intuitively highest in those countries with prohibitions against abortion. There was a recent study of the worldwide trend in abortions in The Lancet in 2007. The countries with the lowest abortion rate in the world? Western European countries, which have some of the best social programs in the world and has easy access to abortion and contraception. Outlawing abortion will likely do nothing about the rate of abortions happening in this country and will increase the number of complications of abortions being done unsafely.

Posted by: Stephen | September 2, 2008 10:02 PM

How do the very low birthrates in western Europe affect the statistics?

Posted by: Gordon | September 2, 2008 10:27 PM

Furthermore:

Worldwide 8 woman die every hour due to the complications of unsafe abortion.

REF: Grimes, David A., Janie Benson, Susheela Singh, Mariana Romero, Bela Ganatra, Friday E. Okonofua, Iqbal H. Shah. 2006. Unsafe abortion: The preventable pandemic. Lancet, Sexual and reproductive health series (4), pp. 65-76, published online November 1.

More Info (Not from me but copied):

The number of induced abortions declined worldwide between 1995 and 2003, from nearly 46 million to approximately 42 million. About one in five pregnancies worldwide end in abortion. [1]

• For every 1,000 women of childbearing age (15–44) worldwide, 29 were estimated to have had an induced abortion in 2003, compared with 35 in 1995.[1]

• The decline in abortion incidence was greater in developed countries, where nearly all abortions are safe and legal (from 39 to 26 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44), than in developing countries, where more than half are unsafe and illegal (from 34 to 29).[1]

• Most abortions occur in developing countries—35 million annually, compared with seven million in developed countries[1]—a disparity that largely reflects the relative population distribution.

• On the other hand, a woman’s likelihood of having an abortion is similar whether she lives in a developed or developing region; in 2003, there were 26 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 in developed countries compared with 29 per 1,000 in developing countries.[1]

REF: Sedgh G, Henshaw S, Singh S, Åhman E, Shah IH. Induced abortion: rates and trends worldwide. Lancet 2007; 370: 1338–45.

Posted by: stephen | September 2, 2008 10:53 PM

" They know that increased social spending has been shown to reduce abortions, but of course that costs them money."

How has this been shown?

--------------------------

Right here on our own Beliefnet, Kevin.

blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/08/can-social-spending-reduce-abo.html

* States that spent more on welfare -- or cut welfare more slowly -- had many fewer abortions. The authors estimate that if every state increased spending on welfare by $1,350 per person living in poverty, there would be a 20% reduction of abortion.

* States that spend more generously on aid to women, infants and children (WIC) had lower abortion rates. They estimate that if states were to increase spending on WIC we could see up to a 37% lower abortion rate.

* During the welfare reform of the 1990s, some states instituted "family cap" policies that would not pay welfare benefits for children born to women already receiving welfare. States that did not have a family cap -- and kept providing welfare even after new children were born -- had about a 15% lower abortion rate than states with a family cap. The authors estimate that getting rid of the family caps would result in 150,000 fewer abortions.

* States that had higher male employment had a 29% lower abortion rate.

The authors noted that other surveys have indicated that women often cite economic factors for having an abortion. They concluded therefore that women who had more economic help -- either from the government or a wage-earning spouse -- felt less pressured to have abortions.

These findings, they conclude, indicate that "pro-family policies reduce abortions."

----------

Interesting material, and exactly opposite what the GOP has been trying for the past 35 years.

Maybe it is time to try something else, something that we KNOW works to reduce abortions?

Or are you more worried about losing elections, Kevin S.?

Posted by: ds0490 | September 2, 2008 11:16 PM

"Which means that social spending likely won't do much...if anything it could increase abortions in the long-term, since it would encourage fathers to shirk their responsibilities."

Nice try, Jesse. The facts say otherwise.

blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/08/can-social-spending-reduce-abo.html

Posted by: ds0490 | September 2, 2008 11:22 PM

From Waldman's post:

"All in all, the authors said that if you added a number of these steps -- increased welfare payments and less Medicaid funding for abortion -- the abortion rate could be lowered by 37%. Now that's a statistical extrapolation piled on a statistical extrapolation so don't take that number too literally. Still, it's worth pondering. There were an estimated 956,000 abortions in 2003. So, such policies might reduce the number of abortions by roughly 350,000 -- even as abortion remained fully legal."

A 1/3 reduction in the number of abortions. Even if that is a generous number, and the real reduction would be closer to 10%, say 95,000, that would be more than what the GOP has given us in the past 35 years.

Now...all you conservative pro-lifers here...how much would 95,000 children be worth to you in taxes? Would you pay an additional 2% to see this number of children saved from abortion? 5%?

How much is the lives of 95,000 children worth to you folks?

Posted by: ds0490 | September 2, 2008 11:30 PM

"ds0490: So you want people to buy back aborted lives with increased taxes? Makes no sense at best, at worst some sort of ransom. Can't we all agree that Abortion is wrong and agree to do everything we can to stop it?"

Everything, that is, except spend a dollar to help. We've seen how the GOP has played the pro-life theme for the past 35 years and done nothing substantial to move the one thing that would end it all, the Human Life Amendment.

And here, you balk at spending a few dollars to save the lives of even a few hundred unborn children.

Which is more important to you, Peter S.: your money or unborn children? From the sounds of it you have a mammon problem.

Posted by: ds0490 | September 3, 2008 12:05 AM

ds0490,
This is an interesting study, and I'm not going to deny the basic findings that social welfare can help reduce abortions.

From looking at the paper itself, though, it appears that they use looser criteria than normal for researching topics of this type...e.g., they use a .10 p-value cut-off and 90% confidence intervals instead of the customary more conservative .05 and 90% confidence intervals. If you look at Table 2, you'll find that most of the alleged contributors are not significantly associated with abortion declines at the .05 level (this includes poverty rates, apparently).

It's also difficult to determine which analyses are multivariate...that is, are they always controlling for many different contributing factors, including some of the possible contributors they're identifying that have nothing to do with welfare payments...e.g., male employment? I don't think they are.

Economics is such that you can find a result easily without statistically controlling for competing explanations. Correlation also does not equal causation.

The authors are definitely overstepping when making their conclusions, which seemed to be set before their analysis of the data. I would be interested in seeing someone else conduct similar analyses using a skeptical eye. It would also be nice if more studies of this kind were published in peer-reviewed journals...I think it is a very interesting topic that should be researched more.

Posted by: jesse | September 3, 2008 12:30 AM

I know a lot of people mention 3rd trimester abortions on this website and how terrible they are.

I work in medicine and I live in California, one of the most accessible states for abortion, and I can tell you I know of nowhere where 3rd trimester abortions are being done. The latest time for an abortion to be performed that I know of in this state is 22 weeks. 3rd trimester is defined as starting at 28 weeks. Only in the case of grave disease of the fetus that would be incompatible with life, could I imagine a fetus being aborted at the "3rd trimester"

There may be a rare exception, but I have not seen that ever. Furthermore, many abortion clinics limit themselves to 1st trimester.

How do I know this? I have known patients who choose to travel 6-7 hours to do a late 2nd trimester abortion at 18-20 weeks down to a major university teaching center. The local planned parenthood only does 1st trimester abortions. I have friends on both sides of the aisle and am doing my best to hopefully inform these discussions.

I recognize the strong desire to have everything that I personally believe be mirrored in the world. I recognize the anguish and pain of many people who choose abortion, but I also recognize the pain that our lack of respecting life causes in this world.

I also know that public policy must be informed by science and not just by beliefs. It is fairly clear in the evidence that outlawing abortion in the US will not necessarily lower the numbers. However it is clear that safe, reliable birth control will lower the numbers quite a bit. See my above posts on this issue.

It is also clear that abortion happens to people a various life stages and people who choose this method often don't feel economically able to care for a child. There unfortunately haven't been lots of studies on the issue of access to social welfare programs and lower abortion rates. Yet, the lowest abortion rates are in Western Europe, with some of the most socially progressive programs.

Posted by: stephen | September 3, 2008 1:00 AM

Interesting... Strange how an election comes down to this hot topic for so many individuals. I can say for myself I don't personally advocate abortion, but at the same time I don't vote it either.

Posted by: John | September 3, 2008 1:23 AM

"I'm glad they dropped the language you want them to have in the platform. I wonder if you ever studied what the Scriptures said about prenatal life." Don Costello

Yeah! As you know, the Bible is required reading at most schools of medicine based on the depth and breadth of scientific knowledge that it has on the subject. It's a veritable treatise on the matter.

Posted by: JamesM | September 3, 2008 6:43 AM

We as followers of Jesus are no different than the "Law and Order" folks Jesus criticized; if we only ask government to enforce our morals and protect our property. Education and health care are a must.

Igor

Posted by: Deryll | September 3, 2008 9:07 AM

For people who want this election to be about "real" issues (poverty, war, environment, etc) and not "wedge" issues (abortion, gay marriage, guns, etc.) there sure are a lot of posts about abortion on the Sojourners blog.

Posted by: Eric | September 3, 2008 9:48 AM

It's a wedge issue Eric. Take a deep breath - both parties use them.

When President McCain runs for reelection in 2012, after 4 years of inaction on the issue, he'll be tossing that red meat out to those of you who have pinned your hopes on another Republican president actually doing something about abortion.

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 3, 2008 10:20 AM

[So if someone is in "distress" they should be able to kill their child? Why does this not apply to after-birth also? Perhaps because life is sacred and our convenience should not negate that. If life does not begin at conception then when does it begin?

Posted by: Peter S. | September 2, 2008 8:06 PM]

Sadly, Peter S, we too often apply this to after-birth situations. We'll go to war to protect "our" oil access. We'll say, don't tax me to educate my neighbors child. We'll say, Jesus didn't mean it when he told us to turn the other cheek and go a second mile. We trash our planet and ignore global warming. We do not wish to be inconvenienced; after all it's mine.

Igor

Posted by: Anonymous | September 3, 2008 10:33 AM

"We as followers of Jesus are no different than the "Law and Order" folks Jesus criticized; if we only ask government to enforce our morals and protect our property."

This applies equally to asking the government to enforce Christian charity.

Posted by: Gordon | September 3, 2008 10:54 AM

Gordon,
How so?

My point is that when we demand a moral path (which we agree abortion is not) we must (if we are following Jesus) also lift "a finger" to help. I believe we are to take our faith everywhere we go. If we enter the voting booth our faith must go along all the way and NOT then cop out with the selfish argument that it's my money and should not be used for charity.

Igor

Posted by: Deryll | September 3, 2008 11:16 AM

Making abortion illegal will change nothing with regard to the abortion rate. In fact the abortion rate is slightly higher in countries where it is illegal.

Unfortunately my previous comment that listed facts was deleted for some reason.

However if you make abortion illegal, you will have huge public health issues. As I noted above it is estimated that 8 woman die/hour/worldwide from unsafe abortions.

REF:1. Sedgh G, Henshaw S, Singh S, Åhman E, Shah IH. Induced abortion: rates and trends worldwide. Lancet 2007; 370: 1338–45.

Posted by: Stephen | September 3, 2008 11:24 AM

It's ok to torture people.
It's ok to invade a non-aggressing country and kill millions of non-combatants.
It's ok to hire mercenaries and let them kill citizens of a foreign country without legal accountability.
It's ok to secretly capture "suspects" and send them without due process to countries that practice torture.
It's ok to suppress scientific research paid for by public money because you don't like what they find.
It's ok to privatize immigration prisons and let them deny medical treatment to prisoners without accountability.
It's ok to spy on anyone anywhere by any means without a warrant.
It's ok to hand out billions of dollars of war money to your buddies in no-bid contracts.
It's ok to "deregulate" banks and allow what used to be the crime of loansharking to undermine the entire financial system of the US.
It's OK to load the court with extremely pro-corporate, pro-authoritarian(police, govt)judges under the thin guise of their pro-life credentials.
It's not ok to have an abortion.

I am talking about well documented facts that do not constitute a pro-life platform and are profoundly anti-constitutional . I also think abortion should be illegal. But the republicans have used this issue to accomplish all the other practices I listed and have not stopped abortion. If Roe v. Wade were reversed most states would still allow abortion as many did before Roe.

At least every woman in America has a choice. The same cannot be said for those killed and tortured via the illegal and unconstitutional actions of the Republican leadership . The fact is that the majority of Americans support choice. The militaristic extremism of the Republican party and the Christian right is doing little to persuade the American people of their compassion or of the moral truth of their position on abortion.

I believe Chris Hedges makes a compelling argument that the Republican/ Christian Right alliance constitutes a modern version of fascism. Hitler too opposed abortion for Germans. It isn't enough.

Posted by: jonabark | September 3, 2008 11:53 AM

When you go to the polls this year, remember that when we had Congress and the White house controlled by the so called "Pro-Life" Party, nothing was done to reduce abortions. If fact abortions increased during that time.

Now Congress in controlled by the Democrats. Even if McCain is elected, they will not present him with a anti abortion bill to sign. So all this talk about abortion is just that, TALK.

Let us move onto the issues that we can actually do something about.

Posted by: Paul, seeking wisdom | September 3, 2008 12:49 PM

He pushed for the ban on partial birth abortion and nominated two judges (Alito and Roberts) that have upheld that ban and could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade. Moreover, because this fight is likely to be waged in the courtroom, nominating justices becomes the key to overturning abortion.

We'll see about that. Keep in mind that the ban criminizing "partial-birth abortion" is limited only to one specific technique that was actually rarely used; Wallis said on this very site that the ban eliminated only about 2,500 abortions annually -- and it was concocted initially in the hope that it would separate Bill Clinton from his pro-choice support. Roberts has said that Roe v. Wade was settled law, thus indicating that overturning it would itself represent "judicial activism." (Considering that Roberts is a member of the Federalist Society, which is by definition activist, it wouldn't surprise me that he would try to do so.)

The question is never, 'Can we reduce abortions?' but does that child haver human rights? If he/she does, we should be protecting their life with the gusto of William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Note that many of the same people who oppose abortion today also opposed King back in the day and probably would have done the same for Wilberforce. Furthermore, they relied on moral persuasion and character, not threats, insults and propaganda campaigns, to push their message forward and cause cultural change.

Posted by: Rick | September 3, 2008 12:58 PM

"Note that many of the same people who oppose abortion today also opposed King back in the day and probably would have done the same for Wilberforce."

Rick,

Do I take it that you are accusing the pro-life movement of bigotry?

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 3, 2008 1:24 PM

"Sorry Rick you really should give some evidence when touting "threats, insults, and Propaganda" of your opposition. What evidence have you?"

Well, not to speak for Rick, but to start with, many of your comments here have been insults.

Bombing abortion clinics and even picketing them certainly amounts to threatening behavior.

Reducing a very complex issue into a black and white issue amounts to propaganda.

Posted by: squeaky | September 3, 2008 1:34 PM

Ted, we don't need your lies.

Obama did not "vote for infanticide" in the Illinois Senate.

http://www.truthfightsback.com/site/smear/248/

Posted by: Steven Kippel | September 3, 2008 1:40 PM

So your laundry list of so called conservative ills makes abortion ok? Please stop the diversionary tactics. We are talking abortion here.

Golly and by gosh, here I thought that the abortion topic was tied to the principle of "sanctity of life." Silly me.

So please tell my how the items in Jonabark's litany are not related to the sanctity of life?

And labeling these topics "conservative ills" is what amounts to diversion, not the list itself. Do you deny that the current administration is implicated in these actions?

Posted by: Don | September 3, 2008 1:42 PM

Darryl:

"My point is that when we demand a moral path (which we agree abortion is not) we must (if we are following Jesus) also lift "a finger" to help"

That is exactly my point. Your point applies to any Christian imperative, not just abortion. If it isn't legitimate for us to expect government to enforce our beliefs about the immorality of abortion, it is equally unreasonable for us to expect government to implement our program to ameliorate poverty.

Posted by: Gordon | September 3, 2008 1:52 PM

No, Gordon, you seem to be proposing the negative (that we do nothing) while I am proposing that we and we as the government should oppose abortion AND "lift a finger to help" girls, boys, women, men, children, (families) with education, including sex education, job training, health care, etc. Jesus did not tell the sinner to go on sinning; he did condemn those who would condemn the sinner and do nothing to help them.

Igor

Posted by: Deryll | September 3, 2008 2:23 PM

Well, Deryll,

You apparently misunderstand my point. I don't suggest we do nothing. I do mean to imply that I don't have to accept the entire leftist agenda in order to accept the idea that the government should do what I believe it can legitimately do: protect the helpless. Of course we should do whatever we can, to the point of self-sacrifice, for the poor. That is an imperative for the Church.

Posted by: Gordon | September 3, 2008 2:33 PM

Well, not to speak for Rick, but to start with, many of your comments here have been insults.
Bombing abortion clinics and even picketing them certainly amounts to threatening behavior.
Reducing a very complex issue into a black and white issue amounts to propaganda.
Posted by: squeaky | September 3, 2008 1:34 PM
--------------------------

Squeeky: I consider your #1 sentience to be an insult to me. #2 I would never bomb an abortion clinic and I support the death penalty for those who do. Re: #3 sentience please give me an example of an issue that is (to you) Black and white---i will then explain to you how you are incorrect and it IS complicated and "nuanced". how would that make you feel? Not good debating and not good logic and not courteous.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 3, 2008 2:43 PM

"Golly and by gosh, here I thought that the abortion topic was tied to the principle of "sanctity of life." Silly me."

It is an error of category to attribute sanctity to the flesh. Neither would the attribution speak to the moral efficacy of legal abortion.

That said, our consitution requires us to protect life. Unborn children are afforded liberties by virtue of the law of the land. Chief among those liberties is the right to live, of course.

Outside of this basic principle, we have no reason to expect a non-Christian nation to respect life. Of course, Christians believe murder is wrong, and so we can (and ought to) leverage constitutional language to protect other humans.

But an appeal to sanctity simply won't carry any weight, on theological or political principle.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 3, 2008 2:51 PM

There are two ways that the federal government has at its disposal to ban abortion. The first, and also the most comprehensive, would be the enactment of a constitutional amendment that would apply uniformly across all 50 states. The Bush Administration and Senator McCain has made no serious attempt to initiate such action.

The second method would be for the Supreme Court to reverse the Roe vs Wade decision of 1973. When this occurs, the issue would then be regulated by each state. California would have one set of laws and Alabama would have another set. Our country would be a literal checker-board of differing state regulations. Given the relative ease with which our citizenry can travel, I am not convinced that we would witness any change by simply reversing Roe. (Maybe the daughters of Republicans would have freer access than inner-city residents.)

Having said all of that, I sincerely wish for the day when all abortions are eliminated - where every child who is born is welcomed into a family who will love and nurture him. But folks, I don't think we can solve this issue by enacting laws. And I am frankly turned off by a party that is extending that false expectation to so many of its adherents election year after election year - and I am equally surprised at the number of people at this site that believe it!

Below is an excerpt of John McCain's response two years ago:

"On the November 19, 2006, edition of ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos said to McCain: "You're for a constitutional amendment banning abortion with some exceptions for life and rape and incest." McCain replied: "Rape, incest, and the life of the mother, yes." Stephanopoulos then asked: "So is President Bush, yet that hasn't advanced in the six years he's been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn't done?" McCain said: "I don't think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it's very likely or possible that a Supreme Court should -- could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support. ... I'm a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade returned to the states."

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 3, 2008 2:55 PM

re: Posted by: Paul | September 3, 2008 2:52 PM

Paul thanks for your comments. Sometimes I feel that Conservatives are villified to the point that they have no voice whatsoever in matters of compassion, justice and love. It may be that we just have different opinions on how to accomplish the same goals.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 3, 2008 3:11 PM

The burden of proof is on Jonabark to prove his allegations, not me to defend my objections to an undocumented list.

LOL!!!

Jonabark doesn't have to prove his allegations; they're fully documented form news reports over the past 7 1/2 years.

Squeeky [sic]: I consider your #1 sentience to be an insult to me. ... Re: #3 sentience please give me an example of an issue that is (to you) Black and white--i will then explain to you how you are incorrect and it IS complicated and "nuanced". how would that make you feel? Not good debating and not good logic and not courteous.

Ohh, Peter S., you are beginning to sound more and more like the "Watcher" of old, projecting your own nastiness and insulting behavior onto others like Squeaky who writes with the utmost respect to everyone she encounters on this forum.

Squeaky is absolutely right. Your comments here have been insults; more than that, they have poisoned the discussion, right from your first post yesterday when you derided and mocked Rev. Wallis' call for civility with your "boo to you."

Shame on you.

I think it's time for people of good will, once again, to petition Beliefnet and have the always right and never wrong Peter S. removed from this forum. I certainly intend to do just that.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 3, 2008 3:11 PM

Thanks Don. What is the difference between me saying "Boo to you" and you saying "Shame on you"? I am not the "Watcher" and have no idea who that is.

I do see that "it is complicated" being used a lot on this forum to dismiss dissenters. I'm sure others see it too and I think that is a belittling argument.

I have not accused anyone on this forum of "poisoning" the discussion as you just have. I believe differently than you. Please accept that. I welcome any inquiry from Beliefnet.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 3, 2008 3:24 PM

I must have hit "post" too quickly. That was me (Paul) asking that we don't rule Peter out of the discussion.

Posted by: Paul | September 3, 2008 3:29 PM

Don: re: "Jonabark doesn't have to prove his allegations; they're fully documented form news reports over the past 7 1/2 years."

I cannot believe that you made me document my claims yesterday (which I did twice) and now give these allegations a pass since they are on your side of the isle.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 3, 2008 3:36 PM

This is a response to Jonabark:

It's OK to torture people. First, John McCain rejects this. Second, so does George W. Bush, he just argues waterboarding is not torture (I disagree, but at least get the facts straight).

IT's OK to invade a non-agressing country and kill millions of non-combatants. Millions of non-combatants? According to Iraq Body Count (a website) civilian deaths are between 85,000 - 95,000. Granted, that is still tragic, but don't bloat the facts to support your points. Be honest. I did not support this war from the beginning and am sympathetic to your point, but hate dishonesty.

From that point forward you got real crazy, so I will try and respond as best I can. You say that at least every woman has a choice, which is better than the tortured, murdered, etc. What about the unborn child? Does it have a choice? Who protects it? Does it get human rights? And since when is protecting unborn life seen as militaristic extremism or facism? Because we want to see unborn children have rights?

Hitler opposed abortion. OK great. Lenin was pro-abortion. Can we agree you can be pro-choice or pro-life without being facists? I hope so.

Posted by: tim | September 3, 2008 3:48 PM

While I would not hold up Jerry Falwell, Jesse Helms, or Trent Lott up as models of tolerance, it should be noted that out of the three examples of racists in the pro-life movement Rick mentions, two are dead, and the third has retired from elective office.

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 3, 2008 3:48 PM

"Jonabark doesn't have to prove his allegations; they're fully documented form (sic) news reports over the past 7 1/2 years."

The snarky "(sic)" parenthetical only carries weight in an otherwise proofread statement.

Given that none of us wants to run our comments through spellcheck, can we all agree to dispense with this? I've said this before, so maybe this is just a pet peeve.

To Peter, welcome to one of the more curious blogs on the web. Conservative dissent here is tolerated, but not particularly encouraged.

I think you have some great things to say, but would do well to remember that not everyone carries your set of assumptions; even I don't, though I agree with many of your conclusions.

Rather, be prepared to defend both. To the degree that you do so honestly, and without personal attack, you will have fun. Or, at least, this has been my experience.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 3, 2008 4:02 PM

Thanks Kevin S. I think you will find that I am not a conservative attack-monger. I even welcome Don's criticism however I too am annoyed by the "sic"s. I'm sure Don's point is that every post should be a publishable work, however I think that compassion should extend to the grammatically challenged as well.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 3, 2008 4:16 PM

It sounds like the same uncreative arguments that have been taking place for the past 40 years. Pro-Lifers lay down the short sighted argument that if you put an end to Roe vs. Wade, you will put an end to abortion (just with more graphic detail). Look at Belgium and the Netherlands who boast the world's lowest abortion rates, while at the same time it is neither illegal nor condemned. What do they offer though? Free health care, proper education, and affordable/free child care.

It seems so hypochritical that "pro-lifers" claim that life is sacred up until the point that their taxes are threatened. I would like to see abortion illegal here in the US, but we just are not ready to illegalize something that would discriminate against those who have the money to have it performed in Canada and those who don't and would have it performed in a back alley. If "pro-life at conceptioners" were serious about life, I would see you at the family planning clinics, offering the single teenage mother-to-be a viable alternative to raise her baby with dignity and financial security.

Posted by: nathan mahlum | September 3, 2008 4:42 PM

Thanks for the defense, Don.

I wondered why Peter S took my comments so personally, but I think what happened was, since my first comment was a direct reaction to some of his posts, he thought the other three were directed towards him, too.

That's my take anyway.

Cheers

Posted by: squeaky | September 3, 2008 4:51 PM

It's great to see so much "sentience" on this blog.

Posted by: carl copas | September 3, 2008 5:03 PM

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Peter. I appreciate your clarifications.

Posted by: Squeaky | September 3, 2008 5:17 PM

After reading the comments on this site it becomes quite clear that many of the posters are deliberaly making mistatments or they do not know the facts.
Also, are pro-lifers actually pro-life? When they are only railing about the abortion of babies while they are at the same tine condoning capitol punishment and war. This is not consisitent pro-life. Either you are respecting the life of the born as well as the un-born really identies if a person is truly pro-life or are just using the abortion issue for political purposes.
It has ben claimed that Obama is pro- abortion is a half truth. He does not support abortion but he respects the right of people to make their own choices instead of being imposed uon the by right-wing religious persons. The last time I read the constitution it does not say that the Christian religion is to be imposed on others by the government.
We are to respect all of life not just the unborn, but at the same times we have no right to impose our beliefs on others. We can share the message of what Jesus taught us is God's will. That is our responsibility.

Posted by: Oliver | September 3, 2008 5:24 PM

Posted by: B-E-S | September 3, 2008 5:27 PM

Or perhaps we should allow the people of the several States to decide for themselves which morality to legislate.

Posted by: Gordon | September 3, 2008 5:35 PM

Uh, Peter: you are welcome to contribute here.

so much for sic

:-)

Posted by: Don | September 3, 2008 5:48 PM

Jesse wrote: "But the moral failures of prominent black leaders such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and every member of the Congressional Black Caucus--all of whom express no moral sentiment against abortion--must surely be blamed, as well."

Though I'm not with you on everything, Jesse, I agree with this part. Did anyone catch how Jesse Jackson was upset with Barack Obama for saying young black men need to step up to the plate and take responsibility as fathers? That's an example of where I see Obama standing up for personal responsibility and family values where old-school democrats want to maintain a whole demographic's victim status.

Posted by: Paul | September 3, 2008 6:27 PM

Jim, while I am pro-life I am also a pragmatist and a realist. You want to make abortion a thing of the past? Sir, there is one sure way to bring down the number of abortions. Contraception. Hold on a minute, follow me here. If you don't want unborn babies aborted, then the only real sensible solution is to make sure that a baby is conceived when the couple is ready to be parents. Abstinence? Fathers making "commitments" with their daughers to "save" themselves for marriage? If you look at real, serious numbers you will find that the incidence of abortion rises in these situations and falls when you have real sex education both at home and at school. Sarah Palin's daugher (God bless her) is a prime example. If she had been given serious information, and if Sarah had had "the talk" with her (many years prior) she would not be 17 and pregnant today. Before you lynch me, I have a daugher (20 years old) and we have talked about sex (yes we even use the word!) and how important it is to become a parent at the right time, when you're ready. And yes, birth control is an important part of her life, and she takes it seriously. She'll be a mom someday (hopefully), but it won't be because of a "mistake".

Posted by: Debbie Lackowitz | September 3, 2008 8:08 PM

Gordon-

Yes, we could go back to abortion being a state by state decision. However, for those who don't agree to the definition of life presented in this blog, the removal of the right to choose abortion is seen as the removal of the right of women to control their own bodies. Depending upon which state someone happens to live, they could lose that right. A friend has called the religious right the "american taliban" for wanting to impose their belief system on others. There should be a respect for differing views where there really are ethical and moral disagreements within the greater American community. (I am sure I will get flack for that last sentence!)

Posted by: B-E-S | September 3, 2008 8:16 PM

According to the GOP, human life and dignity is valuable when you are a fetus. Once you are born, that goes out the window, as we see with Bushco. Bushco tortures, starts illegal, immoral wars, and vetoes S-CHIP. Bush had no problem with prisoners being executed when he was Governor of Texas. The GOP promotes abstinence only education. Well, that's really worked out for Bristol Palin, hasn't it?

Posted by: Allison | September 3, 2008 9:19 PM

Rick,

While you never explicitly said that the pro-life movement was racist, you came awful close. How else are we to take the reference to "political descendents?

But of course you stopped just short of an accusation, because at bottom you know your evidence isn't really that strong: asked to name names, all you could come up with was two corpses and a has-been.

You say that there is a disproportionate number of racists among the pro-life. Not was, is:

"Note that many of the same people who oppose abortion today also opposed King back in the day and probably would have done the same for Wilberforce."

Today. As in now. Not the '80s.

So: got any current examples? Or would you like to consider backing down a little more from your oh-so-carefully worded non-accusation?

LV

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | September 3, 2008 9:56 PM

There will never be common ground on this issue. Abortion and related conversation surrounding the ACT will always be divisive in this society and all others. To demand people strive for common ground on this issue is disingenuous. There is Truth and their are lies. Any talk that does not condemn the ACT of abortion as wrong, for any reason, is laced with lies. It is the same as any talk that does not declare Jesus as Lord and The Only Way. Strive for "common ground" all you want. All you are striving for is the increase in those who follow Lies and The Liar.

DJ

AMDG

Posted by: Dan | September 4, 2008 1:32 AM

RE: "What is possibly so wrong with this statement" at
Robert Alu | September 4, 2008 3:01 AM

Robert, What is "wrong" is the context of the assumption that the GOP should adopt some specific wording at the request of Jim Wallis Et Al.

Posted by: Peter S. | September 4, 2008 10:29 AM

Thank you, Don, for getting this thread to the actual topic, which was the removal of the sentence. So far, with the exception of Peter S.'s unlikely explanation, no Republican sympathizer on the thread has tried to come up with an explanation for the removal, or even expressed disappointment that it was removed. So come on, folks, why was it removed? Isn't the reduction of the number of abortions the number one priority? And wouldn't you Republicans WELCOME efforts by Democrats, even those who believe in a so-called right to choose, to do so?

Posted by: I and I | September 4, 2008 11:09 AM

Because the Democratic Party is now under the leadership of a Presidential candidate who has demonstrated a rather cavalier attitude toward infanticide in his home state.

Yawn.

Posted by: Don | September 4, 2008 11:43 AM

Sister Marie, please don't confuse the issue with facts!!

Posted by: carl copas | September 4, 2008 12:36 PM

Okay, now that LV has responded with five reasons that the sentence has been removed, and retracted reason #2 becasue it was flat-out wrong, let's look at the remaining four.

"Because the Democratic Party is now under the leadership of a Presidential candidate who has demonstrated a rather cavalier attitude toward infanticide in his home state."

It's not fair to say his attitude is cavalier, and even so, is that really a reason not to reach across the aisle, especially when...

"Because the sentence is premised on there being someone in the other party who is interested in lowering the abortion rate and in a position to help in a meaningful way -- something that is very much in doubt right now."

..there are in fact Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate that are pro-life, and ones who are for "choice" who are also interested in lowering the abortion rate. See the Democrats for Life website. There are two pro-life Dem congressmen in my state of MI, out of six. Facts are stubborn, ain't they?

"Because there are those who want to portray the pro-life movement as one that is heavily influenced by bigots -- the sort of poisonous claim that makes trust and collaboration across party lines much more difficult."

Yes, the speeches by Mitt, Rudy and Sarah last night were so charitable toward their opponents. They were free of poisonous claims and false portrayals and were intended to build trust and collaboration across party lines. Sorry, guy, this isn't a good reason to take it out of the platform.

"And finally, because the GOP wanted a shorter platform."

This is just plain silly.

Sorry, but none of your justifications makes any sense.

Posted by: I and I | September 4, 2008 3:09 PM

Reply to Debbie: Except that the actual words in the draft platform are "reduce the incidence of abortion", not "reduce unplanned pregnancies".

Posted by: Susan | September 4, 2008 3:42 PM

Before there were abortions, there was infant exposure. When a family had an unwanted baby, someone would leave the baby at the outskirts of town to starve, be eaten by wolves, etc.

The bible is completely silent on the issue of infant exposure. Nowhere does it say, "By the way, don't expose your kids." Once the church was born, it's reasonable to assume that the church simply took care of the problem by raising and loving the unwanted child.

How strange it is that we think overturning RvW will solve anything. We are simply transferring the risk from the baby to the woman.

The fact is that neither the church nor the Republican party has an answer to this question: If you succeed in overturning RvW, what's next? What's your plan to tangibly help women facing the crisis of an unwanted pregancy?

The silence on that question has been deafening.

Posted by: Jane T. | September 4, 2008 5:02 PM

Ack! I should have proof-read before I posted. Sorry!
Should say:
"I know that the comments are NOW onto the actual topic"
and
"...when we discuss abortion WE talk about..."

There are probably other typos also...

Posted by: Anonymous | September 4, 2008 5:28 PM

I am a pastor of a church that does not condemn women who have abortions nor work to make abortion illegal. Never the less we have worked hard to decrease unwanted pregnancies, and to make the option of having a child easier for those who do have unwanted pregnancies. We aimed these efforts both at our own children and members, and for those in the community. A small measure of our success is that in the 30 years I have been a pastor, to my knowledge no woman or girl who was a part of the church I served was in a situation which tempted her to have an abortion. I realize that this is a small sample, but it does suggest that there are ways even more effective than legislation to decrease abortions. Nationally, girls who are members of our church have far, far, fewer abortions than girls whose churches are against abortion.

The mostly male posters on this topic seem to ignore what research suggests is one of the most important factors in decreasing abortion: the status of women, education, ava and a pro-child social atmosphere in a nation.

Young women with goals and education living in an egalitarian atmosphere are far less likely to engage in risky sexual behavior leading to teenage pregancy.

Women of any age who have access to affordable birth control and who have been educated about sexuality are less likely to have abortions.

Women who are ambivalent about a pregnancy, but who have the economic and social supports that make raising a child easier are more likely to choose to have that child. (Europe has lots of supports for parents --- great parental leave, health care, excellent and affordable daycare, decent wages and housing for those at the economic low end.)

In our church, we have a positive, egalitarian view of women not only in word but in deed. Our girls and women are educated. All our children are given education on responsible sexual behavior, the ethics of relationships --- and also explicit information on anatomy,sex, and contraception. I think this has helped our girls avoid becoming pregnant before they are ready to be parents.

Before I went into the ministry, I was a social worker. When I had a teen mother on my caseload I would often call groups who called themselves "pro-life" to see if I could get some help for these girls who generally did not want abortions. None was ever forthcoming and indeed I was usually treated as if I had dialed the wrong number. I realize that the anti-abortion movement has begun to realize that it needs to be more pro-woman if it really wants fewer abortions and some have started to help unwed mothers. But "prolife politicians" with only a few exceptions (Mark Hatfield, Bob Casey) have tended to be against legislation that would help those of us who want to avoid abortion, do so. They have vetoed family leave, day care, been against raising the minimum wage, been against equal pay, etc. So I think Jim Wallis effort to reach beyond back alley abortions as the pro-life solution to abortion, is admirable. And given the experience of our church, I think it would work if Pro-life people are really pro-life -- and not just wanting to punish women for sex.

Posted by: KJR | September 4, 2008 6:18 PM

Since there are so many "experts" on the Bible and abortion in this heated argument, I just wanted to know how you respond to an ancient Jewish commentary on this very issue taken from Exodus 21:22. It implies that although a fetus is valuable, the mother's life is worth much more. There is also much debate in the rabbinic world of when life begins, at conception, at ensoulment, etc. I am just curious to know where, Biblically, do people get that life begins at conception?

22. And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders].

(And should men quarrel with one another, and intended to strike his fellow, and instead struck a woman. [From Sanh. 79a]
and hit a pregnant woman Heb. נְגִיפָה וְנָגְפוּ is only an expression of pushing and striking, as [in the following phrases:] “lest you strike ךְתִּגֹף your foot with a stone” (Ps. 91:12); “and before your feet are bruised (יִתְנְַָפוּ) ” (Jer. 13:16); “and a stone upon which to dash oneself (נֶגֶף) ” (Isa. 8:14).
but there is no fatality with the woman. -[From Sanh. 79a, Jonathan]
he shall surely be punished to pay the value of the fetuses to the husband. They assess her [for] how much she was valued to be sold in the market, increasing her value because of her pregnancy.
-[From B.K. 49a] I. e., the court figures how much she would be worth if sold as a pregnant slave when customers would take into account the prospect of the slaves she would bear, and her value as a slave without the pregnancy. The assailant must pay the difference between these two amounts. -[B.K. 48b, 49a]
he shall surely be punished Heb. יֵעָנֵשׁ עָנוֹשׁ. They shall collect monetary payment from him, like וְעָנְשׁוּ [in the verse] “And they shall fine (וְעָנְשׁוּ) him one hundred [shekels of] silver” (Deut. 22:19). [From Mechilta]
when the woman’s husband makes demands of him When the husband sues him [the assailant] in court to levy upon him punishment for that.
and he shall give [restitution] The assailant [shall give] the value of the fetuses.
according to the judges Heb. בִּפְלִלִים, according to the verdict of the judges. -[From Mechilta]

23. But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life,
But if there is a fatality with the woman.
you shall give a life for a life Our Rabbis differ on this matter. Some say [that he must] actually [give up his] life, and some say [that he must pay] money, but not actually a life, and if one intends to kill one person and kills another, he is exempt from the death penalty and must pay his [the victim’s] heirs his value, as [it would be if] he were sold in the marketplace. -[From Mechilta, Sanh. 79]

Posted by: nathan | September 5, 2008 12:47 AM