I encourage everyone to read the previous post if you haven't, but this is too much to pass up.
A lot of you watched the debates. The news media will most likely cover the inconsequential or overly simplistic side of things: how the candidates looked, how they carried themselves, how the "debate" (I use that term very very loosely) was more vitriolic than the previous ones, abortion, supreme court appointments, and the like.
What you won't hear is this: Obama said what may be the smartest thing any politician has ever said in public. I paraphrase: "Neither side wants abortions. We need to address the things that increase abortion rates- education, access to health care, economic equality, and sex education." I thought McCain had the "Straight Talk Express" but Barack just straight-talked McCain back into the Cold War where he came from.
To be fair, the candidates were supposed to be addressing the issue of how they would choose supreme court justices and whether Roe v. Wade would influence that decision. But you can't mention Roe v. Wade without someone haring off into esoteric arguments about "morality" and "a woman's right to choose". (Also- did anyone else notice that both candidates said they wouldn't use litmus tests and then proceeded to outline what could easily be construed as litmus tests?)
McCain spent his time on the abortion issue arguing about morality, whether Roe v. Wade was judged correctly, and how Obama voted against fetuses (even though Obama just spent the previous minute explaining the situation). But he NEVER NEVER NEVER came to central issue: neither side wants abortions.
The Republican solution (McCain's position and the party position) is to legislate them into non-existence (and by non-existence I mean into back alleys and foreign countries). The Democratic solution (officially implemented into the platform this year and pasted on Obama's website) is to reduce abortions by increasing and improving those things that directly lead to lower abortion rates and lower teen pregnancy- sex education (NOT JUST ABSTINENCE!!!!), higher levels of education (pregnancy rates and abortions are proportional to educational attainment), access to quality health care (for mother and baby), better adoption services, and better employment opportunities (higher incomes are proportional to lower abortion rates).
Obama was also right when he said these are areas that both sides can agree on. Whether you define life at conception or birth or somewhere in-between, addressing these issues will lower the overall rate and make everyone happier. You'll NEVER have zero abortions. The goal is to reduce the total number in a meaningful, lasting way. Which do you think will be more affective IN THE LONG RUN (not just by closing down legal facilities in the short term)?
Obama hit it square on the head. He faced the problem head on. He proposed a solution that addresses the ROOT causes of abortion, not just one that slaps a patch on the RESULTS. Everyone can agree that fewer abortions are a win for everyone. Legislation only drives it underground. Addressing the root causes will decrease the rate AND improve the education of the populace. That's a win-win. Now we just need to implement it. We've tried abstinence. We've tried it for the last 50 years. It's time to go beyond that and start putting the rest of the structure in place.
That's all I have to say about the debate. It was disgusting with the personal attacks, the lies and truth bending by both sides, the palpable anger, and, worst of all, the claim by McCain that Obama's policies are in any way associated with a "race war" and that schools are somehow equitable. I've been in school for twenty years. Racial equality is FAR from true in public schools or universities. Racism is alive and well. We have made huge strides, but we have much more distance to go. A potential leader of this country ignoring that and claiming that education is equitable is inexcusable.
Finally, someone explain this to me: The Republican platform mandates no abortions, even in cases of incest, rape, or other nefarious deeds. The platform also says no assisted suicide. However, this is the platform and party that advocates the death penalty, is typically hawkish and pro-war (which results in HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS), and arbitrarily demands more rights to the infant's life than the mother. The platform says abortions should be illegal EVEN IF THE MOTHER'S LIFE IS AT STAKE. Someone, in a logical manner, needs to explain these vast discrepancies in "sacredness of life" and "ethic of life". Why do we protect live babies so they can be dead soldiers? Why do we kill prisoners but not allow those in chronic pain to choose to end that pain? Where is the consistency? Why is an infant's life more valuable than a mother's? Obviously, there is no true answer to these questions and they all depend on how you want to define life and its sacredness. But if you're going to be the party with an "ethic of life" you HAVE to be consistent. You can't kill convicts out of revenge or justice or anger and then turn around and say old people have to live even if every moment is in agony. Both are issues of life and death. To be the party of life, then EVERY life must count. And that means working to reduce poverty. The surest indicator of life expectancy isn't genes or lifestyle or vices- it's income. So the party of life also needs to be the party of poverty reduction. For a very well thought out, informative, well documented exploration of this idea, read Jim Wallis's book God's Politics.
Cheerio!
15 comments:
The Republican Platform does not call for a ban on all abortions. It just says that there should be a human life amendment, and leaves it up to Congress to write the exact language. Google or wiki "human life amendment" and you'll see that there are many different versions, and that the most popular is just to send the question to the states. So your premise is just wrong.
First in response to Anonymous:
I wiki'd human life amendment as you suggested. This is what I got:
"Although all of these amendments are intended to overturn Roe v. Wade, most of them go further, by forbidding both the federal government and the states from making abortion legal.
...
The only version of the Human Life Amendment to reach a formal floor vote was the Hatch-Eagleton Amendment, which failed by a vote of 49-50 on June 28, 1983.
...
The Hatch-Eagleton Amendment:
'A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution.' "
Which one is the most popular and how do you know this? Im sorry if im basing my perceptions of the republican platform on what I hear in conservative media (Fox news, talk radio and online blogs) but for a very long time it has been 'ban all abortions' by the very far religious right and 'let the states decide (to ban all abortions, unless we are totally sure we can win in the supreme court)' from the not-that-far-but-still-kind-of-a-majority-of-the-right.
I myself am very state rights and so I hope you are right and that we can propose something that everybody can agree on and let each state decide.
Second about why the right is the party of Pro-Life and yet is also the party Pro-Death Penalty/ War:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/321/5896/1667
and if you dont have time to read it here is the summary article:
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/918/2
Essentially the more afraid and fearful a person you are the more likely you will be vote yes to anything eliminating perceived threats i.e. killing criminals.
PS. I posted a long quote of some of what you said about Obama an his abortion comments on my LJ account as friends only. You wouldnt be able to see it but if you want I can make it public or even take it down entirely. Let me know.
Oh man, what an ugly debate, son!!!
McCain came out gland-first and tried to pimp-slap Obama, but as Time points out, Obama is 'preternaturally composed'. And when Obama stared McCain in the eye and addressed the threats against his life coming daily from McCain rallies, he was ON FIRE. All John could do was backpedal, talk about 'fringe' people, and say his constituents are the greatest on Earth.
I am working on a little piece about education, since it's kind of the only thing I am close to qualified to write about, but my thought on the debate was this:
McCain blew it because he spoke to his base. October is NOT the time for this-- by now his base should be all lined up so he can work on the independent voters. But McCain's polls have slipped so badly in recent weeks that rather than fight for new votes, he fought for votes he was probably already going to get. (Besides, isn't the VP's job to fire up the base?)
What that says to me is that the McCain campaign is afraid-- he is behind in the polls and running out of money and his base is still not secure 18 days before the election. Bringing them all back is probably not enough to win, and he left Barack to court the independents unopposed.
I can't see that working out well for the Republicans, but in McCain's defense-- when life savings and jobs are disappearing, the incumbent president's party has a hole in their boat from the get-go.
P.S. still waiting for someone to explain to me why the Obama-Ayers connection matters but the McCain-Byrd connection (not to mention Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms!) doesn't. Foxnews is not the place to get a rational answer to a rational question, I suppose, so maybe someone here could help me out.
P.P.S.
Brandon, I struggle with the inverse of your argument-- how can I, as a liberal-minded person, abhor the death penalty yet support abortion on demand? It's something I have put a lot of thought into and haven't quite come out with an answer that I have an intellectual rationale for. Will let you know what I come up with.
"Abortions for all!"
"Boo!"
Abortions for none!"
"Boo!"
"Hmm...very well...abortions for some, little American flags for others!"
"Yayyyyy!!!"
Replies for all:
Anonymous- I wasn't referring to "human life amendment". I was referring to the official Republican party platform. This year the RNC again refused to write into the platform protections for mothers in the case of rape and incest, due primarily to the RNC for Life coalition. You can find the information at www.rnclife.org. It says, in print, that no exceptions to this stance are acceptable. In addition, the Republican platform accepted at the RNC this year stresses making abortion illegal (you can find this at http://www.gop.com/2008Platform). I was referring to the source, which is the official platform, not random webpages by third party groups. I'm looking at the official language and documents as we speak. Until that language is changed, my premise is intact and valid.
You are correct in saying that most of the answers to the question are usually punted back to states to decide. And that may be the way to go. But it doesn't make the platform any less explicit because that language of states rights IS NOT written into the national platform. It may be written in state platforms, but the publicly available national platform does not contain it. If you can find it in the national platform, I would be happy to rescind my statement.
Also, you didn't respond to how the "pro-life" party supports so many pro-death activities. Abortion is only one aspect of pro-life. I want people to acknowledge the fact that a "human life amendment" MUST address these different issues. Life does not begin and end at birth. There are many other issues and to bill yourself as pro-life but advocate pro-death positions on other issues without sound reasoning is disingenuous, illogical, and a selective meaning of the word life. Even if my premise is faulty on the abortion issues, it doesn't change the inconsistencies in dealing with other life issues.
Kat - use whatever you want. I'm all about spreading the word when politicians say smart things.
Adam - that's an excellent point. The inverse is equally true and should be weighed as carefully. People are not always one thing. The death penalty may be warranted, just as abortion is warranted in some cases. Flat out bans on things are usually pointless and stupid. If the Republican party or Democratic party wants to be defined by its platform, then that platform needs to be either 1) very consistent or 2) have sound reasoning for the discrepancies. Defining abortion as a life issue but not the death penalty as a life issue needs some explanation since both involve individuals making decisions about OTHER individuals without their consent or input. Ultimately, I don't think consistency is absolutely required. But in the absence of logical reasoning or specific reasons for the disparities, consistency should be expected.
Anonymous must not be a Republican because their comments were not true (Stop, no Republicans do not tell the truth comments). Traditional Republican values do not include legislating abortions out of existence but rather having Roe V Wade "overturned". I put "overturned" in quotes because the traditional Republican platform believes that the constitutional protections that were used to establish Roe V Wade are not actually used the way they were intended. This is the strict constitutionalist aspect that the party used to hold dear.
I for one am against abortions and find myself in the opposite situation as Adam. I fully support the Death Penalty (with a caveat or two) but abhor Abortions (with one or two caveats as well). I know I am not a true traditional republican (as I do not own a gun)… after all, I am a realistic Conservative. I am surprised they have not asked for my party membership card and lapel pin back since I am not a member of the NRA. Scalia for President.
(I had to throw something out there that would get people riled up over)
Oh, 1 more thing. Brandon, when you said "Defining abortion as a life issue but not the death penalty as a life issue needs some explanation since both involve individuals making decisions about OTHER individuals without their consent or input", the explanation is: Instead of having a pretty good idea, people have a belief in something. Dogma tells us this.
Beliefs allow us to hold firm in a position and then, with it being very logical in our heads, have an opposite opinion on a slightly different matter with it making perfect sense. This is one of the Human conditions that I like to call... Stupidity.
(In this response, I am suggesting that faith is different than a belief.)
Geoff, you're awesome.
To the best of my knowledge and research, the RNC platform signed by the Republican leadership calls for making all abortions illegal. The platform talks about fetus right to life, possibly right to life amendments, and overturning the one federal law that legalizes abortion. The Republican leadership was asked before the convention by the moderate wing of the party to include language safeguarding abortion in cases of rape, incest, and mother's safety. They declined. Therefore, their platform is tantamount and equal to making all abortion illegal (via overturning Roe v. Wade). That's not to say that's the view of all Republicans, but that's the leadership of the party and that's how the party defines itself until candidates willingly make specific, public statements otherwise.
No one has yet shown any evidence that my premise or understanding of the RNC platform is wrong. Unless there is verifiable evidence in the platform itself that only certain types of abortion would be illegal, then my contention that the platform makes all abortion illegal under any circumstances holds. Whether you agree with abortion or not and no matter where you fall on the spectrum of choice, that premise currently remains undeniable.
I'm pro-abortion in cases of unwilling pregnancy (rape, incest). I also know, based on studies conducted since the 1950s, that there is a strong link between education, income, and abortion rates. There is little to no link between morality arguments and abortion rates. I'm all for reducing the abortion rate, but not by moral censure or blank check illegality because they don't work. The research shows the most effective means will be education, sex education, access to health care, good adoption services, and increasing incomes. Without legal abortion, they will still occur but under far more questionable medical circumstances. Do we put the mother at risk and sacrifice two lives (depending on how you define infant life)? The abortion RATE was NOT lower before Roe v. Wade (common misconception). Therefore, overturning it would only make it illegal rather than reducing the rate.
The media and politicians have stripped the issue of its complexities, but reducing the abortion rate or making it illegal IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME as reviewing the legal interpretation used in the original decision. Even if it was overturned, states could implement their own laws making it legal. Which would result in massive problems such as: what if you left a state where it was illegal to get an abortion to a state where it was legal and then returned to your home state. Could you be tried for murder? Would you be banished forever from anti-abortion states? This seems a case where maybe some consistency is, perhaps, warranted.
Finally, there is no such thing as a traditional Republican or Democrat. It's a misnomer and hides the fact that the parties have changed tremendously during the 200+ years of U.S. history, even switching places at some points. It's just as false as saying "traditional family" or "traditional Thanksgiving dinner". The concept of family and Thanksgiving dinner has changed radically and does not resemble today what it was even 30 years ago. Tradition implies something more or less unchanged for long stretches of time. Aboriginal rites or tribal scarring that has been occurring for thousands of years is a good example. Something that changes over the course of a few decades is hard to define or justify as traditional.
That's a very cogent explanation about what I called 'life issues'. There are differences in circumstances to consider as well as in application. But to call yourself the pro-life party has some implications that need to be dealt with if you're advocating things that are not pro-life. I'm not saying that you shouldn't use that moniker, just that you should be ready to explain why one situation is different than another.
I don't expect everything to always be consistent and I certainly have my own inconsistencies. I am pro-euthanasia but anti-death penalty. Actually, I'm not opposed to the death penalty in principle, but since it can't be applied evenly it shouldn't be used. So even I don't have a solid base on 'life issues'.
Kudos for the 'faith is different than a belief' suggestion. The words are defined nearly identically, but I think there is a world of difference between them and that they are too often confused. Neither is necessarily bad or good and both have their place, but they are not the same thing, at least to me. Faith, to me, implies that you have confidence and trust that something is true, an unwavering conviction about something even if you can't prove it (such as the existence of God, the basic goodness of humanity, etc). A belief is more transitory and can be informed. For example, people believed that there was a god responsible for thunder. We know thunder is the audible energy released during expansion of air due to lightning. So that belief had to be dropped when a more logical explanation arose. To me, no one can dissuade you of something you have faith in because, rationally, there is no proof it does or does not exist. A belief can, unless held zealously, be changed based on new information or experiences.
Attack: WALL OF TEXT
>>Crit Strike<<
>>+12 metaphor damage<<
>>3X coherency bonus<<
Result: WALL OF TEXT wins!
Brandon,
You are correct in that the Republican Platform calls for making all abortions illegal. My comment was not addressing the actual platform today but how the goals of the platform would be accomplished.
I also believe that there is a huge difference between faith and a belief. My example would have been: (paraphrasing) The young Israelite David believed that good must prevail over evil. His faith proved that his five little stones could save him from the giant Goliath (see I Sam. 17:4–51).
I think I can explain the apparent conflict in the republican stance of "pro-life" (mainly a slogan vs. reality), and I am only theorizing.
The basic concept seems to be protection of the innocent. An unborn baby is not able to defend itself, the military's purported main purpose is defending the 'innocent' homeland, and the death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent to keep other criminals from killing innocent people in the future.
As far as assisted suicide...you got me...maybe it goes back to the Catholic dogma that says suicide is the one unforgiveable deadly sin?
Since I am a registered republican, I think I should state my own beliefs - I think they are closer to the 'mainstream' republicans than the party's 'representatives':
I do believe in the death penalty (but think it is only effective if actually USED), and I do believe in having a strong military.
However, I believe in assisted suicide and, except for certain things like partial birth abortion, believe in a woman's right to choose.
I do struggle with the abortion issue...it is by no means a simple black and white topic. I think that, especially politically, most people are driven by their emotions rather than intellect.
Hey, and since I am on my soapbox, why don't people see that preventing gay marriage is the same thing as forcing 'people of color' to use separate drinking fountains? Seperate but equal is NOT equal!
THANK YOU JACK!
I had a very long argument with a young man who insisted your parallel between homosexuality and race cannot be made since "being gay is a choice" and not innate. While we and all the brilliant scienticians could debate that for months, I posit a different comparison:
I don't think people with tattoos should be allowed to have children or adopt. Why? 1) Tattoos are not natural, and we can't have children growing up thinking that it's okay to be unnatural.
2) People with tattoos have no respect for their own body, and there is no evidence they would have respect for a child's. No studies have been done to conclusively prove this, and until then we can't take the chance with America's Future
3) The connection between tattoos and gang violence and drug use: What percentage of the US population has tattoos? What percentage of the US PRISON population has tattoos? People with tattoos are more likely to be bad people than those with enough common sense to not ink themselves up, and we are a nation that cares enough about children to not risk putting them with potentially violent, drug abusing criminals who will teach them all the wrong things to do in life!!!
Silly argument, I know, but the point is: it does not matter if being gay is innate or a lifestyle choice-- telling one American they can have certain rights and another American that they cannot is WRONG, whether it is because they are black, have tattoos, like members of their own sex, are short, or Mormon, or bald.
In 14 comments we have gotten WAY off topic, but isn't that what debate/discussion is for???
Still thinking about the abortion/capital punishment thing...
Jack- I like your explanation and I think it's very much true. Like Geoff hinted at, it's all about context. Capital punishment is a deterrent, as is a strong military. Abortion is not really a deterrent and so falls under a different sort of 'life issue'.
I am not registered with either party (not required here), but I fall under the following:
I'm pro-choice, but DO NOT think abortion should be a method of birth control. It's a last resort and takes a heavy toll on its recipient mentally, emotionally, and psychologically. I think Roe v. Wade was the best compromise ever reached in American history. It placed severe strictures on when it was legal but allowed it to happen rather than pushing it into the shadow world of back-alleys.
I'm pro strong military, but not pro-enforcement. By that, I mean I want a military that will 1) defend the country if attacked, 2) defend our allies if they are attacked, and 3) provide aid and support to other countries in event of disasters. They should not: be the world police, be used for political or territorial gain, or be exempt from the rule of law and civility. "Preemptive" military attacks are ludicrous. It's tantamount to arresting someone for a crime they might commit at some future point. That's not how our justice system works, that's not what it's based on, and that's not how we should treat others.
I am against the death penalty because of it's ineptness. Innocent people are put to death every year and there is demonstrable and troubling racial, gender, and wealth biases in its application. In principle, I think it's great. If you kill 5 people, then you get killed and we don't have to worry about you. However, there are many people that did horrible things but became great advocates for non-violence and education. So there are trade-offs to consider as well as application issues.
I'm pro-assisted suicide. Doctor doesn't even have to do it. Just leave the drugs and I can take care of the rest. My life, my choice. Period. Saying it's a sin is only true if you believe that. If you don't, it makes no difference. Making it illegal because of a religious definition is forcing a religious belief on a population that, as far as I can tell, at least professes to allow freedom of worship.
>>Wall of text activates power: Lengthy Verbosity!<<
>>+12 damage<<
>>Off topic penalty -14 damage<<
>>+2 research bonus<<
>>Result: debate continues<<
You guys are awesome. Keep the comments coming!
Post a Comment