Micah's back!!
Very quickly, before the next post ... The socially conservative base are so excited about Sarah Palin NOT ONLY because of the pro-life issue. Palin offers a broad range of experience in executive offices as well as representing the best interests of her constituents and leading with conviction in her conservative values. The VP is an unlimited potential commodity to the president and to the country, as an advisor, as a diplomat, as an executive, as one "standing by." If the VP stance on issues is of limited importance, I don't know why we take a look at them at all. It certainly makes Joe Biden's foreign policy experience irrelevant in the face of Obama's inexperience.
As for inexperience, I just don't know how Obama supporters can question Palin's experience. That boggles my mind.
If McCain were throwing a bone, he would have gone with the obvious (Ridge, even Huckabee). Palin reflects (and restores, honestly) his maverick status because of her own.
Finally, Palin's daughter's teenage pregnancy reeeeeeeeeally doesn't make Palin a hypocrite at all. Micah, you and I both know that we've done things that our parents would not approve of, taught us not to do, and stand against. They still went about their jobs and lives and no one accused them of being hypocrites.
This young woman is proof of the value, unfortunately for her. She is 17, and the age of consent in Alaska is 16. (By law in her state, she has the right to an abortion without parental consent at the age of 16.) Clearly she chose to do something she was taught not to, and clearly she did not "choose" to get pregnant. But it is also clear that she had the right to terminate the pregnancy and is choosing not to.
I'm pretty sure that my parents would have liked to lock me - or themselves - up a couple of times after I got myself into trouble (speaking of which, I ran into Valerie Truitt the other day!), but I think they realized that, as a person, I make my own mind and own my own victories and failures. Is not this individual responsibility in morality not a fundamental value for the left?
People are just angry that she didn't get an abortion. That's the bottom line there.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Things are starting to heat up around here ... and I like it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Sure, we all have done things that went against what our parents have taught us, but neither of my parents have been up for the 2nd highest office in the country. If what happens in the candidates or president's personal lives is off limits, then why did clinton get impeach for lying about a blowjob? It was an issue between he and Hil.
If people were so upset about Jamie Lynn Spears getting pregnant then how is this different? JLS made it known that she was keeping her baby yet all the conservatives talked about her mother's parenting skills and how they were lacking and teen pregnancy is horrible and if they were taught abstinence it wouldn't have happened...yadda yadda yadda.
Whether Palin's daughter has an abortion or not is a personal decision. Her pregnancy doesn't effect me either way. The beauty about being pro-choice is that you can still be pro-life and pro-choice. It's called making a decision for yourself and not for anyone else. Abortion being murder comes down to when you believe a fetus becomes a person. For many, if not all of us, this comes from our morals and/or religion. AND the last time I read the constitution we have freedom of (and from) religion. This means that no one can push their religious beliefs and morals onto me. Pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion it simply means that everyone can decide for themselves.
I mean come on, do you really think a rape victim should be forced to keep the baby? Talking about not ever being able to move on from a bad situation, she would have a constant reminder of such a violent degrading crime. That would be like relatives of Charles Manson's victims living next door to him.
Is abortion used too often as a form of birth control--absolutely. Is an option that can completely taken off the table--no.
A true republican should actually be pro-choice as by definition, the republican party is supposed to be for smaller governmental control and overall deregulation.
Do I like Obama....not really, but he's the lesser of 2 evils in my eyes. He's different enough from the current administration that he'll get my vote. We can't spend $12million a day on a war and cut taxes. The numbers simply don't add up. It's like taking a paycut as your bills go up. Experience? He's worked on the state level for 7 years and has "worked" on the national level for 4 years. (I put work in quotations b/c quite honestly, none of them really work. They hang out, drink coffee, get arrested for something, then get re-elected). Obama is much for a diplomat then McCain and will be better as dealing with people.
And for those of you like like Bush and say that Obama has no foreign policy experience, where was Bush's before he took office?
Anything else up for discussion?
micah
I hear ya. There's more to Palin than her anti-abortion stance. The rational social conservative voter will look at the total package that Palin offers.
While Palin offers some executive experience, I believe there were many other potential VP candidates with equivalent conservative credentials but vastly greater experience. Mitt Romney comes to mind. On what basis did they pick Palin over someone like him?
I believe that the McCain camp picked Palin to harness the power of identity politics. Make no mistake...Obama's not off the hook with this tactic, by a long shot. But I believe McCain picked Palin (and not a more senior conservative leader like Romney)
because he desperately needs the votes of evangelicals. Palin has evangelical cred to spare. And that's ok...as long as evangelical voters remember that Palin's input on social policy will ALWAYS be overridden by McCain's. He's a self-proclaimed maverick and he's been in the political game since Palin was in grade school. Social policy for the nation will be guided according to McCain's mores, not according to Palin's, you can count on it. So while it's understandable that evangelical voters are excited by Palin, I hope they understand that they're still voting for McCain. They'd better be sure they can live with his stance on social issues. Palin may resonate with social conservatives, but I staunchly believe she's unlikely to receive sufficient power as VP to push any true social reform. The buck will stop with McCain.
This quote is from the last post, but still relevant:
"Does anyone really think that a woman would vote for another woman, simply because she is another woman?"
While I was a delegate in the Iowa process in the spring and early summer, I met quite a number of people who said exactly this--they were voting for Hillary because she was a woman who had a chance to win.
The wife of a state Rep came to our county convention and told us that we should vote for Hillary because "We need someone warm and motherly in the White House." There were plenty of interviews on NPR, after it was clear that Hillary was going to lose to Obama, wherein women around the country were heard to say that Obama 'stole' this election from Hillary, that it was "finally a woman's chance", and that Obama should have stood aside for a woman to get elected.
There are plenty of one-issue voters out there. For some, that one issue is gender--some will vote for a woman regardless of her policies. For others, that one issue is abortion--they will vote for a pro-life candidate regardless (literally regardless) of other policies. It's the economy for others. The war in Iraq, etc.
HOWEVER...I don't think Palin was meant to court Hillary voters. Hillary's people have had far too long to get used to Obama at this point. Palin and Biden are both just rallying points. McCain isn't liked by the 'religious right', and Obama wasn't enthusiastically supported by older Dems. Both were supported by those groups, but not enthusiastically.
By selecting Palin, and Biden, McCain and Obama are hoping to get others excited who were not formerly excited about their candidates.
I doubt seriously that Palin will do much to woo independents, however. Indepentents are usually those who aren't extreme enough to go for one party or the other, and Palin is far more extreme than McCain. If anything, Palin's selection only serves to fuel the fires of "Bush's Third Term" comments. She wants to drill for oil pretty much anywhere we can find it, she wants a total ban on abortion (even for a raped 12 year old who stands a good chance of dying if she carries to term)...I think McCain may have gotten himself into trouble. He believes in the standard 'big three' exceptions for abortion (rape, incest, danger to the mother), but his party's platform is likely to call for a total ban, as is his own VP candidate.
Maverick or not, McCain is very likely to have to give ground on that issue to keep people happy. And if he does give ground, there goes his 'maverick' status...which is already in question. No other senator has taken as much money from 'big oil' in the last six years, for instance. That's standard, not maverick.
Tom J
Ya'll can say what you will ... I'm just excited that I've got Tom reading and commenting here now! I welcome getting my tail kicked by that guy! That being said, bring. it. on.
Will post more soon.
Whew, heating up indeed!
Micah, what troubles me the most is your third paragraph.
You say: "Abortion being murder comes down to when you believe a fetus becomes a person. For many, if not all of us, this comes from our morals and/or religion. AND the last time I read the constitution we have freedom of (and from) religion. This means that no one can push their religious beliefs and morals onto me. Pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion it simply means that everyone can decide for themselves."
I've always found that argument to be logically inconsistent, unless one professes to be an anarchist. Indeed believing that abortion is murder comes from my morals. But don't most laws come from some sort of morals? I believe murder is wrong and should be outlawed. I believe stealing from others is wrong and should be outlawed. I believe rape is wrong and should be outlawed, and on down the line. The only way to truly hold this "don't push your values on me" sort of belief is to believe in no laws at all. So, no, I don't think one can be truly pro-life and pro-choice. One reason we have laws is to protect us. If I truly believe that the unborn are people then I truly believe that those people ought to be protected by the law.
As one who is a part of an extended family who cares for a child concieved out of wedlock, a lot of this discussion hits close to home with me. The act which led to my niece being concieved was not an act that my parents taught us was okay. I don't think offspring going against what they were taught makes their parents hypocritical at all and I don't think it disqualifies my dad from being a pastor and I don't think it affects my mom's qualifications to work in ministry. If they had reacted to this situation by saying "get an abortion so you don't embarass us and ruin our reputation" THAT would be hypocritical. Their response, (forgiveness, love, and lots of support) however, makes them some of the best people I know.
My sweet niece is one living example of how God can give us an amazing blessing in spite of an un-ideal situation. Where would we be without that laugh, that voice, that smile and the adorable conversations she has with her cousin? The lives of those who know her would be so much less full if she weren't here.
I'm sad for those who see abortion as a good solution, ever. I wonder if it sometimes comes from viewing children as a curse and not a blessing. Yes, kids are a lot of work and are very challenging but NEVER a burden and NEVER a curse. It's like slamming the door in God's face and saying, "No, I don't believe you can make something beautiful out of this situation. I don't believe you can see me through this. Instead I will kill what you have made."
By the way, I don't think that any pro-lifer believes that a rape victim should be forced to keep a child. Only to give that child a chance at life and perhaps to bless another family with that child. Couldn't aborting one's child cause them even more trauma? Couldn't giving birth to a new life and blessing another family be a healing thing for a woman instead of a punishment? I'm not saying it would be easy. It would take a tremendous amount of faith and courage but I know that people have done it.
LK
From what I've seen/read, McCain really doesn't have a stance on many social issues...well he does, but he thinks it should all be left up to the individual states as opposed to being regulate by the federal govt.
Regarding Hillary and Sarah Palin:
I think Sarah was chosen for her very conservative record, the fact that she's an washington outsider, and her proclivity for reform. I think the fact that she may appeal to some Hil-dog voters is just an added bonus.
Quite honestly, the best thing for the GOP would be for McCain to lose and for Palin to run for president in 4 years against Obama. If she keeps up her record of reform and kickin' ass and taking names, she would have a good chance to win depending on how Obama's 1st term goes.
Lkueck, while theft is fairly cut and dry. (you own something, it shows up in another person's possession) when a fetus becomes a person is a definite gray area. The thing can't live on it's own for the first what....20-something weeks? and that's only with some serious medical intervention. So make abortion illegal for any fetus older than 28 weeks (or whatever it is).
Pro choice and prolife simply means that you choose to be pro-life for yourself, but you respect everyone's right to make their own decision.
micah (the last anon post was mine as well)
LK said:
"I believe murder is wrong and should be outlawed. I believe stealing from others is wrong and should be outlawed. I believe rape is wrong and should be outlawed, and on down the line."
I believe coveting is wrong. I believe lying is usually wrong. I believe not respecting your parents is wrong. Not treating others like you want to be treated is wrong. Adultery is wrong.
But none of these things are illegal, nor should they be. Jaywalking is illegal, as is speeding, and neither of these things is usually immoral.
It's fine for laws to come from morality when there is a concensus. But where there is quite clearly *no* concensus, it's problematic. Take same-sex marriage. No one I have listened to or asked (and I have asked people) has been able to tell me exactly what sort of negative effect same-sex marriage will have on our country. Will it increase the *proportional* number of divorces? "Well, no, not necessarily." Will it make fewer hetero people get married? "Well, no, not necessarily." Why is it so bad, then? It's my belief that most people who are opposed to same-sex marriage hold that position out of fear. Homophobia, and often religion-induced homophobia. This is a matter of there not being a concensus.
Furthermore, there is such a thing as the tyrrany of the majority. There are times when it is illegitimate for the majority to exert such moral control over the minority.
There is no concensus whatsoever that a 3 week old fetus is a human being. It is a living thing, sure. But we kill living things all the time without batting an eye. Pigs, chickens, cows, fish, dogs, cats, monkeys. What you have in a fetus is a thing that, if it continues to receive necessary assistance from the mother, will likely become a human being. But is it a human being from conception, as McCain has recently claimed, and as I'm sure Palin believes?
If a fetus is a human being and has a soul at the moment of conception, then what happens when a single two day old fetus splits into two fetuses, monozygotic twins? Is there suddenly a second soul thrust into the mix? Why wasn't *that* soul implanted at conception, like the other one? Or was there, for a brief time, one human body with *two* souls? Both would be controversial claims. Isn't it a fully viable alternative to say that the soul simply has not yet entered the body?
What theological evidence is there to back up the claim that the fetus has a soul from conception? Furthermore, what theological evidence is there to support the claim that human beings even have immaterial souls at all? Christian beliefs are perfectly compatible with a materialist view of the person--that all we are are physical things, nothing immaterial. Our ressurections will be material ressurections, like Jesus'.
So...if it does happen to be true that a fetus doesn't have soul, then what makes us say that a fetus is a human being? Tender-hearted sympathies about babies aside, there seems to be no evidence that it is *yet* a person.
And even if it is, why does being 'pro-life' stop at the life of the fetus? If one is truly 'pro-life', shouldn't one also be pro the life of the mother? The life of the raped 12 year old who might not survive the pregnancy? What about *her* life? Why is she automatically less important than the fetus? Make no mistake, to claim that an abortion to save the mother's life is immoral is to claim that the mother's life is less important than the fetus.
How is that a pro-life stance?
How is it pro-life to want to save fetuses, and want to continue a war in which tens of thousands of people have already died?
Does pro-life stop at the birth of the baby? What about the quality of that baby's life? It's easy to say that the baby born to a raped mother can always be given away to all of the numerous parents who are dying to adopt...but if there are so many parents out there dying to adopt, so that it would be this easy, then there wouldn't be so many unadopted children around the country, right?
Who is to say that the abortion the raped 12 year old would go through would be *more* traumatic than that 12 year old growing up living with the knowledge that not only was she raped, but that the child of that rape is walking around out there somewhere? That wouldn't be traumatic? Is the conservative wing of ONE political party going to determine for her which will be more traumatic, and 'save her' from the alternative? Could it be that giving birth would be better for her? Sure. Could it be that it would be *worse*? Of course.
But with *no* ban on abortion, SHE (and her parents if she's young enough) has the right to decide what will be best for her. If there is a ban, she has no choice. She has to live with whatever the Conservative Religious Right Republicans have decided is best for her.
EVEN IF you believe the fetus is a living *person* with rights, what you have is now a *conflict* of rights--the rights of the fetus, and the rights of the mother. What makes it the case that the fetus' rights automatically trump the rights of the mother? Particularly in cases where both of their lives are in danger? And in cases where the mother has been involuntarily put into that situation?
This is not so very different from the laws in the middle east that we in America would like to see changed...laws stemming from religious teachings that strip people of freedoms that we here think they should have...laws that result in women being beaten and killed and humiliated and subjugated, for instance. The only difference between those laws and these laws is that the Religious Right in America of course believes that the Muslims in those countries are *wrong*, while they believe themselves to be *right*.
Show me some facts about fetuses, or about same-sex marriage, or at the very least show me concensus plus an actual harm that will be averted, and then there's reason to start lawmaking.
Tom J
This is really intersting, guys. A.E.S.'s blog is THE place to be!
I have a quick observation...I'll give a pre-emptive mea culpa because I'm going to saunter down the abortion tangent with you all, rather than keeping this a Palin-related post. But here I go:
lkueck said: "Couldn't aborting one's child cause them even more trauma? Couldn't giving birth to a new life and blessing another family be a healing thing for a woman instead of a punishment? "
tomj said: "Who is to say that the abortion the raped 12 year old would go through would be *more* traumatic than that 12 year old growing up living with the knowledge that not only was she raped, but that the child of that rape is walking around out there somewhere?"
What I have to say next is along the lines of a personal reflection. I'll show my hand early and state right up front that the thought of carrying ANY fetus to term scares the bejeebers out of me. I'm not being flippant, here. I'm in health care and know a fair bit about pregnancy, labor, and delivery. The more I know, the more brutal the process seems. I never want to go through something so violent. I know that "control" is an illusion, but I never want to relinquish what tiny scrap of control I do have over my body. Pregnancy is the ultimate surrender of control.
I try to imagine what an unwanted pregnancy would be like for a vulnerable, humiliated, victimized girl like the one in tomj's example. Could enduring the trauma of pregnancy and birth really foster healing for that 12 year old child?
Many mothers I know say that pregnancy and birth are beautiful, life-affirming processes. I believe wholeheartedly that's what they experienced. But could that be the case for a 12 year old rape victim? For someone like me, for whom the dark side of childbearing is paramount, I have serious doubts.
So regarding lkueck's quote above: I agree with you that some women have the spiritual and emotional fortitude to take on the burden of pregnancy so that some other family will benefit. But tomj, I agree with you that we can't demand such altruism from women who become pregnant through victimization. A 12 year old's shoulders are pretty slim for a burden like a pregnancy.
Well, after reading and re-reading the posts, I had to jump in the mix.
I’ll grant that there isn’t a consensus, even among Christians, about when the soul enters the body. However, the fact remains that from the moment of conception a new, genetically unique human being is in existence. So, maybe some think the soul enters in immediately and others think it takes weeks or months, or doesn’t happen until after birth. Given the lack of a consensus, doesn’t it make the most sense to err on the side of life? If you can’t prove that there is or isn’t a soul there, why risk killing, just in case there is? If one can’t say when the soul enters the body, why risk killing a person whom you think could have a soul? A person who, from the moment of conception, is destined to have a certain color eyes and hair, be a certain height, and have his or her mother’s or father’s nose and ears. Just because this person doesn’t look like the rest of us because he hasn’t been given the chance to grow up yet doesn’t make him any less a unique human being.
Both Tom and Micah have mentioned (in some form) that a child cannot live outside the mother’s womb until he has reached a certain age. Is being able to live without the help of others what makes someone a human being with a soul? Once a baby is born 40 weeks after conception, he still cannot live without help from the mother. I don’t think my two year old would be able to survive without help from someone else. We all know of elderly or handicapped people who cannot live without help from others. Are none of these people, well, people? Being able to survive on one’s own can’t be a necessary condition for personhood, can it? Why not have the broadest possible interpretation of what a human is, just in case it’s the right one?
I’m not a theologian, but what I do know is that the Christian Church has consistently taught that humans have both souls and bodies AND has, from its earliest days been against killing a child in the womb. It has never been for materialism in the sense that this world is all there is.
I certainly don’t think pro-life stops at the life of the child at the expense of the life of the mother. But the cases of the mother’s life actually being endangered by carrying the child to term are very rare. More often than not, a child is aborted for other reasons. In the case of the life of the mother being threatened by carrying a child, there certainly is a conflict of rights; however, when the mother wants to exercise her “right” to an abortion because of some other reason, I see no real conflict. The first right mentioned in our country’s founding documents is the right to LIFE, and this right comes from our Creator, not the state.
Who’s to know exactly how any woman would react to giving birth to a child conceived by rape as compared to having an abortion? What I do know is there are people out there who are alive because of just this situation. Should they not be alive? As Christians, don’t we know that God can take what is meant for evil and make it good? Isn’t that a major theme of our faith?
Also, who are we to judge the “quality of life” of another? What is the quality of life of a child born with encephalitis or MS? What was Christopher Reeve’s quality of life at the end? Life itself is a gift from God, and every life has its own special quality.
As for adoption, I wish it were easier. There are parents out there dying to adopt; that’s not the problem. The problem is in the system to try to adopt a child. I’ve seen it firsthand.
Finally, this is EXTREMELY different from laws in Muslim countries that subject women to horrible treatment. The focus with being pro-life is on protecting the life of every human being, not on abusing women. Remember that the people in this country never decided on making abortion legal. It was handed down by the courts. And to say that wanting a woman not to abort her baby is just the same as strict Muslim subjection of women is an insult to the history of Christianity, which has held from the beginning that a child should not be killed while in the womb. Every life is a precious gift from God—that is what we have always believed.
Post a Comment