I was on the weekly O religious outreach call last night, and I again brought up the issue of abortion. And, again, I was outnumbered. But what I said there I’ll say here: I don’t expect any of you who are ideological about the issue of abortion to be swayed by my reasoning, or by BO’s for that matter. You can go ahead and vote for McCain/Palin and assume that they’ll actually change things. You can keep telling yourself, “We just need one…more…justice to overturn Roe v. Wade.” You can keep throwing good money after bad and support candidates who pander to you on ideological grounds. That’s your prerogative.
But for my part, I’m more interested in convincing moderate and progressive evangelicals to vote for BO. So, to those of you on the fence, let me say a few things: progressive Christians don’t love abortion, they despise it. It’s a terrible blight on our society. But criminalizing an activity does not eliminate it from society, be it crystal meth, rape, or graffiti. So when people say to you, “The point isn’t to reduce abortions, the point is to eliminate them,” you can say to them, “I think you need to go feed your unicorn and see if the leprechaun is still guarding your pot of gold.”
The point was made again on the call last night that BO is going to go straight after the systemic causes that all too often force women into the terrible predicament. He is going to propose legislation that provides significant tax credits for adoption; he’s going to increase the funding to programs that aid single mothers (particularly young ones) in finding childcare and finding work; he’s going to make more robust education programs for ill-prepared moms; and he’s going to signifcantly enhance early childhood family education funding (a program that I’ve been involved with in my own community).
Let's try and put this logic to a different issue than abortion. Let's say we are not going to outlaw stealing, we are just going to look at the factors that contribute to a persons need to steal and seek to eradicate those. Once we do that we'll all be fine. Does that work? Of course not. If that was the case some people would change, but others will always want to steal no matter what, thus we have to have laws that serve as a deterrant. Does anyone want to live in a country where the above is the policy on stealing? I know I don't and I grieve the fact that I live in a country that enables the killing of the innocent, defenseless and voiceless.
Here is the big problem: Killing an innocent life is worse than stealing.
All those things that BO is proposing are great... for the mother. And we SHOULD have compassion on single moms that have been deserted by their deadbeat impregnators, but at the end of the day the mother will still have the legal right to kill the child. That is the problem. Where are the laws that protect the child? BO is all in favor of helping moms, but at the end of the day is enabling her to kill as a legal option really true help? Legislation will not change anyone's heart, thus we have to have real consequences legally in order to make the choice to kill an actual deterrent. Will laws against abortion make abortion completely go away? Not anymore than rape, stealing or child abuse will go away, but are not we all thankful that we have laws against these things that are wrong?
One more question: In all this talk about helping moms and doing what is in their best interest...since when should we as a society say that it's in the women's best interest to be enabled to kill? Over and over again we hear about the weight of guilt that these women who have had abortions carry around with them day after day. I don't want to enable that.
**Update**
Check out these posts from JT on similar issues. Here and here.
13 comments:
"He is going to propose legislation that provides significant tax credits for adoption; he’s going to increase the funding to programs that aid single mothers (particularly young ones) in finding childcare and finding work; he’s going to make more robust education programs for ill-prepared moms; and he’s going to signifcantly enhance early childhood family education funding (a program that I’ve been involved with in my own community)."
- Reading this paragraph makes me understand so much better where he's coming from. He sees answers flowing from government programs. He sees answers in government. Sadly, too many people have gotten caught up in that thinking.
His argument throughout has very little to do with abortion. Tony simply wants government to provide answers for society's ills. It's what makes him feel good that counts.
Unfortunately, as pointed out by Standford economist Thomas Sowell in "The Vision of the Anointed", most of the do-gooder government programs that have been installed since The New Deal have done two things: (1) They've made the supporters "feel good" and (2) Haven't helped, or in many cases have actually harmed, those they were intended to help.
Recognizing that, and the fact that Obama has taken this "feel good" rhetoric to unprecedented levels, it becomes apparent that actually helping these people isn't the intended goal. The goal of these programs is to make people "feel good" about supporting them.
One political philosopher long ago noted that democracies have a 200-300 year shelf life (America has just passed 200). The reason, he theorized, was that eventually, the masses would realize that they could vote themselves other peoples' money, under the guise of "helping people".
We're at that point, unfortunately.
One of the things that I find amazing among people like Tony and other Christians that support Obama is this expectation that suddenly things are going to be different once he is in office. Poverty, oppression, and racisim will all end and peace will reign. The dark days of Prince John will end once King Richard's realm is established.
Unless Obama is planning on sitting in the basement of the White House printing money, somebody, namely American citizens, are going to have to pay for all these programs he mentions. There are no "free" childcare centers or "free" robust education programs. A President Obama will find himself straddled with the same budget other presidents have to deal with and the dilemma everyone of them has faced, "At what point are the American people going to allow themselves to be taxed to help alleviate, what is often, someone's poor choices."
I think JT's posts remind us that so many abortions are not sought by poor women facing difficult situations. There are many seeking abortions that are merely inconvenienced or embarrassed by an unplanned pregnancy or a potentially disabled child.
very good thoughts on stealing. I have often thought the same thing. When people say, "I am against abortion, but I think the best way to address is to help pregnant women facing the choice," I want to say, "why is it either/or? Why not BOTH help pregnant women facing the choice AND make it illegal?" When you think of a different issue like stealing, it becomes obvious that fighting the issue itself as well as the conditions that lead to the issue are not mutually exclusive.
Jones reveals himself as nothing more than a run-of-the-mill partisan hack right here:
"You can go ahead and vote for McCain/Palin and assume that they’ll actually change things. You can keep telling yourself, “We just need one…more…justice to overturn Roe v. Wade.” You can keep throwing good money after bad and support candidates who pander to you on ideological grounds. That’s your prerogative."
If Jones wants to play this kind of card, then he has exited the arena of theological/faith-based discussion and moved into a strictly political one.
McCain/Palin are the only ones pandering? That's rich.
Frankly, I could care less about seeing John McCain elected President. I simply fear the aggressive pro-abortion policies that will be offered in an Obama administration.
hags,
I know it was harsh, but was what he said wrong?
"I know it was harsh, but was what he said wrong?"
- Yes
Yes, he's completely wrong.
First: Bush gave us Roberts and Alito, which yes, leaves us one vote short. With Obama, we will get the same type of judges that Clinton gave us, probably worse (Ginsberg and Breyer).
So that dispenses with Jones' argument that I'm being pandered to, because clearly I/we have gotten clear results.
Secondly: Jones doesn't even answer his own argument about the importance of being just
"one vote away". He's using poor reasoning skills to try and justify his liberal politics to a skeptical majority of Christian believers.
"First: Bush gave us Roberts and Alito, which yes, leaves us one vote short."
One vote short of what? Pushing abortion back to the states? The majority of abortions are occuring in states where abortion will never be outlawed. And in those that it is, it's a simple drive across the border to get one.
The courts can not and will not end abortions.
Also, how, pray tell, is McCain (known for compromise) going to get that last pro-life judge through the majority democratic Senate? A simple "up or down" vote isn't going to work any more...
This is like arguing with a brick wall. You and Amy keep coming back to this odd notion that the Supreme Court doesn't impact abortion law in this country. It's simply not true.
Most recently, we need to look at Gonzales v. Carhart. The SCOTUS on a 5-4 ruling upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion. Two questions:
1. Do you think that Obama appointees would have voted with the majority in that decision?
2. Do you think Obama would have signed this ban into law, or vetoed it?
The Supreme Court matters. McCain appointees probably won't be ideal, but they'll be far better than what we got with the last Democrat President (Ginsberg and Breyer).
Hags,
You just did the same thing you accused me of doing. Ignored my whole post, and then hammered away using the same points you have been using in all these threads.
BTW, "better than Ginsberg" isn't that much of a standard. The judge will either be pro-life (and willing to say that Roe was bad law) or they will not. I'm saying it will be nearly impossible for McCain to get one on the court. You can continue to ignore this all you like, however.
Dp,
If some of those Democrats were voted out of the Senate and replaced by Republicans, why wouldn't John McCain be able to get another pro-life judge on the Supreme Court?
"If some of those Democrats were voted out of the Senate and replaced by Republicans, why wouldn't John McCain be able to get another pro-life judge on the Supreme Court?"
You really think that's going to happen?
Post a Comment