02.24.05
Posted in politics, culture at 12:41 pm by
Benjamin was kind enough to point out that he and I have been so honored to be placed on the Democrats for Life bloggers list.
Benjamin @ Romanes eunt Domus offers an interesting comment on being placed on this list. Namely, that it is so short. I think that the brevity of the list is simply the result of only a brief compilation effort. I highly doubt that the list is so short because there really ARE so few of us Democrats for life.
Now, I appreciate the fact that groups like “Democrats for Life” are out there doing what they do. I think it’s important to see some divides from party lines on issues like abortion. But, I do have some concerns with being placed on the list as well.
Actually, one concern, in particular. Namely, I’m not sure that I should be called pro-life. Or at very least, I know that many pro-lifers wouldn’t call me pro-life. Frankly, I don’t think that abortion should be illegal. I think that many pro-lifers are wasting their precious time trying to outlaw abortion.
You see, I don’t believe that outlawing abortion and stopping abortion are anything close to the same crusade. Soooooo many pro-lifers have been blinded by the legislative effort to make abortion illegal that they’ve all but given up the effort of stemming the actual tide of abortions.
People like George W. Bush believe that by outlawing abortion practices we’ll actually see abortions subside. Actually, though, now that I type that, I’m not sure I believe that Bush really cares if abortions stop. Frankly, I suspect he really just cares about getting the votes of people who think abortion should be outlawed, but I don’t know for sure–since I can’t read his mind (even though many conservative Christians claim to not only be able to read his mind but his heart and soul, too. I guess they can just look him in the eyes and see his soul…that must be some evangelical ‘trick.’ I need to learn how to do that.)
Anyway, I digress. The point is this: Am I a Democrat? Yes. Am I pro-life? That depends. If it means am I interested in making abortions rare, yes, then I’m pro-life. If it means I am interested in making abortions illegal, then, no I’m not pro-life.
So, if you meander here from the ‘Democrats for Life’ page, welcome. Please understand where I come from, though. I am not about the outlawing of abortion practices, that’s probably not going to help the systematic problem. Without getting into the issues of feminism–which are very valid and important issues in this debate–I really can’t go much farther.
Well, I could. But that would probably turn into a post full of Bush Bashing (someone should submit that term to Webster’s for the ‘new term of the year’ contest). And everyone knows while Bush Bashing is fun…it doesn’t get us anywhere terribly constructive…it just gets us frustrated. Satisfied, but frustrated, all at once.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/02/24/a_democrat_for_life/trackback/
Posted in politics, culture at 12:41 pm by
Benjamin was kind enough to point out that he and I have been so honored to be placed on the Democrats for Life bloggers list.
Benjamin @ Romanes eunt Domus offers an interesting comment on being placed on this list. Namely, that it is so short. I think that the brevity of the list is simply the result of only a brief compilation effort. I highly doubt that the list is so short because there really ARE so few of us Democrats for life.
Now, I appreciate the fact that groups like “Democrats for Life” are out there doing what they do. I think it’s important to see some divides from party lines on issues like abortion. But, I do have some concerns with being placed on the list as well.
Actually, one concern, in particular. Namely, I’m not sure that I should be called pro-life. Or at very least, I know that many pro-lifers wouldn’t call me pro-life. Frankly, I don’t think that abortion should be illegal. I think that many pro-lifers are wasting their precious time trying to outlaw abortion.
You see, I don’t believe that outlawing abortion and stopping abortion are anything close to the same crusade. Soooooo many pro-lifers have been blinded by the legislative effort to make abortion illegal that they’ve all but given up the effort of stemming the actual tide of abortions.
People like George W. Bush believe that by outlawing abortion practices we’ll actually see abortions subside. Actually, though, now that I type that, I’m not sure I believe that Bush really cares if abortions stop. Frankly, I suspect he really just cares about getting the votes of people who think abortion should be outlawed, but I don’t know for sure–since I can’t read his mind (even though many conservative Christians claim to not only be able to read his mind but his heart and soul, too. I guess they can just look him in the eyes and see his soul…that must be some evangelical ‘trick.’ I need to learn how to do that.)
Anyway, I digress. The point is this: Am I a Democrat? Yes. Am I pro-life? That depends. If it means am I interested in making abortions rare, yes, then I’m pro-life. If it means I am interested in making abortions illegal, then, no I’m not pro-life.
So, if you meander here from the ‘Democrats for Life’ page, welcome. Please understand where I come from, though. I am not about the outlawing of abortion practices, that’s probably not going to help the systematic problem. Without getting into the issues of feminism–which are very valid and important issues in this debate–I really can’t go much farther.
Well, I could. But that would probably turn into a post full of Bush Bashing (someone should submit that term to Webster’s for the ‘new term of the year’ contest). And everyone knows while Bush Bashing is fun…it doesn’t get us anywhere terribly constructive…it just gets us frustrated. Satisfied, but frustrated, all at once.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/02/24/a_democrat_for_life/trackback/
Kent said,
February 24, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Did you hear about the new tapes that were secretly recorded of Bush? Bush covered all grounds of the political and moral issues with a friend. He didn’t know that anybody else would hear what he was saying BUT his friend. That just shows you how much he does care about these problems such as abortion and same sex marriages. You should look into those tapes. It’s not good to jump to conclusions. Oh…and I think that all abortions ARE against what God would want. Just think, what if Mary–Jesus’ mother–had an abortion? She was scared, nowadays when girls are scared, they just kill the baby. Or perhaps your mom? Good thing they didn’t…huh? It could’ve been that easy for your parents……
Brandon said,
February 24, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Well, that certainly is an opinion you have there, Kent. Anyone else care to respond to the phrase, ‘nowadays when girls are scared, they just kill the baby.’ ?
And one other thing, Friend, you state that it’s not good to jump to conclusions…but you seem to be assuming that I think abortions are the best thing since sliced bread–even after I explicitly stated that they AREN’T!
I really could go on and on, but I fear that this may simply be a hit and run post. Damn, and it was my New Year’s Resolution not to respond to any more of these. My commenters usually do a much better job, anyway.
A thought for all who would come after our friend, Kent. If you’d like to make a rebuttal to this post, please feel welcome. In order to NOT be dismissed out of hand (like Kent) please respond wisely and thoughtfully; I’ll even give you a thesis statement, here it is: “I hold that a necessary step in ending abortion is to enact legislation that makes abortions illegal under U.S. Law.” Then, you support that point.
Making the ‘aborting baby Jesus’ arguments make people like me want to sarcastically, cynically, and satirically respond, “Well if Jesus were aborted we wouldn’t have such a big damn problem with Christians all over the place.” (Satire.)
ryan said,
February 24, 2005 at 1:14 pm
A couple things..
First of all, Kent, I think Brandon would completely agree that abortions are tragic, he (and I) just don’t think that outlawing them will reduce the number of abortions. There are alot of other factos which must be weighed along with the legal issues (like socio-economic ones).
Secondly, I think its quite obvious that Bush isn’t too intent on reducing the number of abortions in this country. The only thing he’s done along these lines since he’s been in office is to sign the partial birth abortion ban- quick only account for a small portion of abortions and doesn’t reduce the number of abortions noticibly (because they can always just use another method). And, I think Bush’s lack of action on abortion makes sense when we tak into account the fact that Mrs. Bush has spoken out as being pro-choice before.
Wendy said,
February 24, 2005 at 1:56 pm
I think what Brandon is trying to say, but didn’t really flesh out, is that in order to stop abortions, you have to target the factors WHY women abort their children. Factors like irresponsible intercourse, lack of commited relationships, poverty, low wages, lack of affordable, quality daycare, etc. Brandon is right in that outlawing abortions won’t really help much in stopping them, just make them more dangerous. Brandon, maybe a post about what you think will stop abortions is in order? And for Pete’s sake, consider being a little nicer to your readers, won’cha?
Brandon said,
February 24, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Generally speaking, Wendy, I am pretty nice to most of my readers. What I tire of, from time to time, is reflexive comments from people whose email address doesn’t work (as Kent’s didn’t.) These folks tend to post and run. I admit, I should have replied more kindly–although in re-reading, I don’t know that I was any less gracious than Kent. My tone rather matched his. Nonetheless, I’m willing to have a dialogue on the issue–dialogue, not a pissing match.
Also, I’m actually planning on a post about abortion. However, I want to wait until the latest CDC stats come out so I have some evidence with which to support my points.
Benjamin said,
February 24, 2005 at 4:13 pm
One question I always like to ask my conservative friends is “if you could reduce abortions by raising your taxes, would you?” Takes away some of their cover…..
Ol Cranky said,
February 24, 2005 at 7:12 pm
Benjamin:
Do those same friends also complain about supporting all those welfare mothers and all the babies they keep having too? I have come across a lot of people who say all life is sacred, contraception is murder (even when used for the health of the woman), abortions must be outlawed and complain about their insurance companies covering abortions which they claim increases their premiums (hence their premiums pay for the abortions). I’ve noticed that these same people also complain about supporting “welfare mothers and their crack babies” and get very angry when you suggest if they look into private health insurance that doesn’t cover abortions (to which they scream that it’s more expensive than the health insurance they get through work). They don’t seem to see these stands as incongruous for some strange reason.
Wendy:
I think if Brandon supplied the outline you suggest, he’d be attacked as being Pro-Choice; especially if he delineated ways to prevent the unintended pregnancies (other than chastity belts for those who won’t adhere to abstinence).
benjamin said,
February 24, 2005 at 11:12 pm
Well, they want the illegals gone and their produce cheap as well, so there’s no reasoning with them really….
Liz said,
February 25, 2005 at 2:01 pm
In response to the original post, not necessarily the comments that have followed:
I appreciate what you have to say on this issue. I, for one, agree.
Mike Collins said,
February 26, 2005 at 12:07 am
Since I’m the guilty party for putting together the list it prob’ly behooves me to make a few comments. You’re right, the list is small and it’s also the result of a lot of searching and a lot of reading. I’ve still got a bunch of links to go through, and I’ll always welcome more.
Truth be told, I think most progressives and Democrats who are ambivalent about abortion are stuck in a vise. On one side, there’s the, for lack of a better term “Falwell” version of pro-life, which doesn’t do you much good if you care about somebody after they’re born. On the other hand, the Democrats often telegraph this message that they’re not so much pro-choice as pro-abortion, and (and I think this is more important), your position on abortion trumps all other potentially Democratic issues. Or another way, you can be pro-labor, pro-social-justice, opposed to the death penalty, and because you’re trying to be consistent, you must be a Republican
Anyhoo, before I dive too deep into that particular tangent, I’ve scoured sites looking for people who are ambivalent about abortion, generally advocating social justice and a consistent life ethic, and those are the blogs I put down initially as worth considering.
Brandon said,
February 26, 2005 at 7:58 am
Thanks, Mike, for stopping by! I rather assumed that this was PROBABLY your intent. And frankly, you are right about me. I just wanted to take the opportunity to toss my two cents into the ring–again–about my pro-lifeness.
Joan said,
February 27, 2005 at 11:09 am
Brandon, I would say that if you believe that abortion is killing, that makes you pro-life, regardless of whether you think criminalization is an effective approach to the problem.
You might be interested in an essay I wrote on the subject. It’s on the Pro-Lifers for Peace and Justice website. Why liberals are the ones who can end abortion
Kent said,
February 27, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Post and run? Maybe some people have a life and don’t spend every second of their time playing with blogs…such as yourself. I’m pretty sure that my e-mail works because I somehow recieved your message. Must be a miracle…? And outlawing partial birth abortion is a huge step. The President would never start outlawing everything that he thinks is wrong as soon as he’s elected. If he did, he’d serve the shortest term as presidency ever. He’s smart by taking it a little at a time. And I know why women have abortions. I’ve convinced over a dozen girls not to have an abortion, because they were having it for those very reasons. And you know what…I don’t think it’s the girls fault in any circumstance. So when I argue about abortions, I’m directing mainly toward men. The guys are just so stupid. We’ve got the ammunition, if you don’t want a girl to have a baby, then cover it up!! We leave abortion so open to everybody, that they would rather have one than pay $2 for a condom. And you know you could even get them for free at some places. I know a girl who has had at least 4 abortions through high school, and you wanna know why? Because her idiot boyfriend (if you can even call him that) would hit her up and get her pregnant, and then threaten to take her life and the babies if she didn’t have an abortion. She wanted to have kids, but he didn’t. I’m just sorry that she stayed with him. But like I said, he would rather her have an abortion than wear a condom. But seriously…how would outlawing abortions not make a difference?!?! There would be no more abortion clinics to have them in!! I just don’t get it. Is everybody just gonna start beating the baby to death like that girl and her boyfriend did? I don’t think so. But I betcha that if we did outlaw abortions, then “Trojan” and other condom product owners would make a killing….because more people would be using them!! Who’d a thought? And I never assumed that you were so much for abortions, but still, if we belive that pro-choice is the best way to go, then shouldn’t everybody have a choice. Why can’t we wait till the baby is born and to the point of understanding, and then ask him if he wants to die? That’s pro-choice right there.
Brandon said,
February 27, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Thanks for returning, Kent.
That certianly is an opinion you have there.
Resident Atheist said,
February 28, 2005 at 1:59 am
Absolutely charming, this one.
Hint: they’re called “women”…
Does someone else want to tackle the problem of back-alley abortions, or shall I? (Mainsheet, are you still lurking?)
Brandon said,
February 28, 2005 at 7:41 am
I was going to point that out RA, but honestly, I didn’t think I could do it and be nice all at the same time.
Joan said,
March 1, 2005 at 7:50 am
The back-alley abortion question is part of the reason why liberals need to be involved in the pro-life movement. We’ve got to change the surrounding environment, where women are shamed if they conceive under the wrong circumstances, where health insurance plans won’t cover for contraception, where a lot of people don’t have any health coverage at all, where larger institutions are so incompatible with life that women have to give up their careers or drop out of college if they have a baby. Fixing that stuff will both decrease unplanned pregnancies and decrease the number of women who would feel compelled to get an abortion by any means necessary.
mainsheet42 said,
March 8, 2005 at 8:06 pm
I’m around occasionally, RA. But work has me up to my backside in alligators while I’m trying to drain a swamp.
I think Clinton had the abortion thing right. It should be safe, legal, and rare. How do you do that? Let’s note that under eight years of Clinton the abortion rate went down steadily. Would anyone care to guess what’s happened under four plus years of Dubya?
You make abortion rare by removing the economic barriers that make a pregnancy a disaster-in-waiting for women. Someone explain to me how a health insurance ‘plan’ that pays for viagra but not for female contraception is moral? Or why a college student who finds herself pregnant is at best entitled to minimal child-support payments from the father, usually based on his (minimal) resources. Meanwhile,she is stuck with all the logistic and financial difficulties involved in being a student and a parent?
As long as those factors remain in place, some women are going to find themselves in the unexpected pregnancy corner and decide that the best decision for them is to abort the pregnancy. Now we may disagree with her conclusion, but in a strict moral sense it is her decision, neither yours nor mine.
In an ideal world, abortions would limited to those very few tragic cases where the mother’s life is placed at risk by the pregnancy. But then, in an ideal world Dubya never gets inside the Beltway.
Specifically to Kent. Just when do you think condoms were invented? Abortion was ‘legalized’ in 1974, but the abortion incidence didn’t explode in 1975. Prior to 1974 abortions were available in a few places in the US (interestingly, Kansas had one of the more liberal laws). If you were pregnant and needed an abortion, you either went to one of the places where it was legal or you visited a back-alley abortionist. The thing that has done the most for condom sales IMO, is the advent of clearly incurable STDs like AIDS, HPV and genital Herpes.
I suppose the thing that aggravates me most about Falwell and Robertsonesque pro-life stances is that they are pro-fetal life. Once that fetus becomes an independent life, they’re among the worst of social Darwinists.
Brandon, if you happen to read this I feel an essay coming on about Creationist and Social Darwinists …
Audrey.