Given the actual issues facing our nation, to even be reminded that presidential elections in this country have come down to this philosophical tail-chase makes me want to move to Canada, or some other place where folks outscore us on those achievement tests on which we keep falling so far behind.
NO AMERICAN PRESIDENT has ever had an abortion and given the candidates we have now, that will be true for at least another 4 years so his stance on the issue is moot. Irrelevant. Not likely to come up in the next Iraq summit. Not likely to come up in the next bailout hearing. Not likely to come up in the next energy policy development session. Not likely to come up in the next "what will replace our auto industry" discussion. Not likely to come up in the N. Korea... well you get the point.
Look people, I think we can all agree that to even be faced with the choice of whether or not to have an abortion means you're in a horrible situation. For it to be the favorable choice, it's probably even worse. No one WANTS to have an abortion. No one sets out to be in that position. But there ARE circumstances under which... no, forget that. Let's not even talk about it. It's not the point. The point is, it's NOT presidential selection material by at least 10 or 1000 more pressing, day to day national issues. This is indisputable for many, many reasons, but I'll list just a few.
1) It doesn't matter. Given Bush's track record in his first term, I have to assume that a large number of folks voted for him the second time purely on the abortion issue. He's probably the most outspoken anti-abortion candidate we've had in a long time and yet what has he accomplished for those folks in return for that vote? Nada. Zip. No change whatsoever. So what did that pro-life vote get us? (here you should list: the war, the economic crisis, the failed response to one national disaster after another, the largest deficit in our history, the largest sale of that debt to foreign nations ever)
2) Economic policy has a far greater impact on the number of abortions than a president's personal views. Check back through CBO and Catholic Charities stats... the numbers of abortions go down when social program spending goes up. (note: this includes jobs programs as well as flat out welfare, so we're not just talking handouts and note that on this issue in particular, jobs programs have a far more dramatic effect than trickle down theories, but that's only based on the stats - I'm no economist) I'll venture a guess that our current economic situation will end up having an adverse effect on Bush's ability to curtail abortions. (it almost sounds ridiculous to say that, doesn't it? "Bush's ability to curtail abortion..." You're right, it's not part of the job description. It's not up to him. That's another reason why it's a stupid factor to consider anywhere near the top of the list.)
3) A true sign of leadership is one's ability to put one's personal views aside and consider the needs of all first. Now I obviously feel that this means stopping the abortion discussion before it starts and tackling the national issues that are the most pressing. You don't have to agree with me on that, but you have to admit, the inverse of what I'm saying here is that leadership = selfishness. I know it's a fallacy to try to prove a point by disproving it's inverse, but given the number of folks who believe Palin is a legitimate candidate to be president, I figured I'd offer an easy to follow, Limbaugh-esque argument. Besides, W has proven what happens when you get the inverse, so I don't really have to rely on the fallacy.
4) see the last two sentences in #2
5) Often, the selection based on this particular non-criterion is deeply religious based. That's fine for an individual, but don't try to impose that irrational motivation on the rest of us. Believe or not, there are folks in the world (religious and otherwise, pro-life and otherwise) who like to apply a little bit of rationality to their important decisions. I'm not saying faith should never play a part in an individual's decision, but faith, by definition is irrational, so don't try to invoke it as part of a rational argument when attempting to convince others. If you want religion to play a greater role in your government, move to southwest Asia. They're big on that kind of thing. We have a constitution designed to make rationality the basis of our laws. It's reasonable to discuss the issue in legal terms, compare it to murder, etc. but don't just tell me it's wrong, especially when it will save the life of an underage rape victim sentenced to death by an ectopic pregnancy she had no say in creating.
That's enough of that. I wanted to shed light on some of the other crazy-assed things I've heard from McPalin backers:
"Clinton sold us out to China" (not sure what the basis of this one is, but I know our debt became real easy for China to buy AFTER Bush spent the last of Clinton's surplus and began spending us into the place where we are now. We're cheaper and easier to buy today than we've ever been and it's true... China's doing the buying, but Clinton ain't at the helm.)
"I like her (Palin) she seems real." (I agree... a real girl next door... a real Miss Alaska... a real totally unqualified to lead the country neighbor. I'd probably like her too, but not as the leader of the free world. Doesn't anyone remember where the old "I'd rather have a beer with that one" standard got us?)
"Obama's an Arab/Muslim" I hope Colin Powell put both of the reasons why this is idiotic to rest: 1. He's not. 2. So what if he were? Saying all Muslims/Arabs are terrorists is as crazy as saying all Christians are David Koresh or Jim Jones or Rev. Wright Carter was a Baptist. Kennedy was Catholic. If this argument holds any weight, it's an argument in favor of electing an atheist. After all, if A religion can be wrong, then ALL religions can be wrong. Ironically, atheism is probably the only "spiritual" denomination that CAN'T get elected in this dumbass country.
"McCain's the true Christian" Not only is the idea of a religious litmus test strictly prohibited by our constitution, but this idea isn't supported by his actions. Obama is a Christian as the result of a lifetime of searching for his own spirituality, which included having observed a number of varying faiths. He asked a lot of questions and continues to search for answers. That's faith. That's a spiritual journey. That's believing in something. McCain, on the other hand, is a "Christian" by virtue of something he wrote down on a congressional bio a number of years ago. This is no secret... the church-going only seems to come out when cameras are around prior to an election. McCain all but admits to this... the news hounds have the evidence making the admission unnecessary, but those liberal bastards are keeping all this to themselves! This is actually one of the reasons I liked the pre-party-mind-melded McCain.
So anyway, yeah, consider the unborn in your vote, but only if you're Christian... that's what the signs say. I guess everyone else is free to consider where we want to be as a nation in four years.
Luth,
Out.
5 comments:
OK, I debated whether or not to respond. You lose, I'm responding. Or is it I lose?
First, it is true Bush has done nothing to overturn Roe/Wade, but he has appointed conservative justices who could someday rule on the issue.
Second, you say, "It's reasonable to discuss the issue in legal terms, compare it to murder, etc. but don't just tell me it's wrong, especially when it will save the life of an underage rape victim sentenced to death by an ectopic pregnancy she had no say in creating." Come on, you, I and everybody else knows the abortion debate isn't about underaged rape victims. Sure, there are some of those, but statistics I've read indicate abortion is used primarily as birth control. Your statement above is pure emotion, not rational.
I'd like to quote from this article about Obama's positions as a way to illustrate his rationality or lack of it. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml
"He (Obama) has promised that "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, ...a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons."
"...he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need."
"Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies."
"...as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws."
"Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it."
OK, it is true we have severe problems in our country, the war, the economy and even our standing in the world. But, you speak of rationality, and I question if the above anecdotal evidence is the sign of the type of rationality we want.
Obama claims to have opposed these measures because he is trying to protect the right of abortion. Yet, many pro-abortionists rationalize their position for utilitarian reasons, to avoid pregnancy or dispose of Down's children. They say if there was better birth control, we could reduce the need for abortion. But, Obama seems to oppose reducing the need for abortion, he wants to make it increasingly easier to obtain. Is that the sign of rationality or just pure emotion?
Supposedly, character is critical in this election. The next president must have the character to tackle the hard tasks ahead and turn this nation around.
Does Obama really have that character, or is he merely a character leading us down a path to destruction?
I agree with you, abortion in itself seems to be a minor concern right now, but maybe one's position in regard to protecting the most vulnerable of life is a testament to how he/she will govern in more pressing matters thus protecting you and me. That to me is an indication of rationality.
While I may have invoked a little emotion in the making of it, the point is: it is irrational to debate a candidate's stance on abortion.
Since your response makes only the slightest challenge to this point it requires little more response, but I'll address your last paragraph.
A woman's life, while suffering an ectopic pregnancy, planned or not, is every bit as "vulnerable" as the fetus you claim is "the most vulnerable" of life.
A grandmother praying in a mosque in Baghdad moments before being blown to a fine mist by smart bombs is pretty vulnerable.
A prisoner on death row, the "dead man walking," is every bit as vulnerable as an unborn child whose mother is entering a clinic.
Ok, go ahead and invoke the "but the prisoner was convicted and the unborn child is innocent" argument. Nope, can't have it. The old Christian argument can't work both ways. If we are born of sin, and life begins at conception, then the unborn is every bit as guilty as any of us... let he among us who is without sin cast the first stone - the converse, of course, is let all the sinners enjoy their curse equally. The prisoner gets no more protection than the fetus.
Now, I personally think that argument is crap, but it is at least a somewhat logical interpretation of Christian teachings.
You know I'm no fan of abortion, but it's not an issue that factors in the top 100 on the president's to-do list.
One could even make the argument that Bush overstepped his powers by so blatantly applying his conservative litmus test to his supreme court appointees. A true leader would seek fair appointees, not overtly biased appointees, especially ones overtly biased on the hot button issue that hasn't been argued in the court since the 70's. Talk about irrational.
Funny you should mention character. I sat down tonight to talk a little about the war hero candidate's character. I'd better get to that. It's already past my bedtime.
OK Ray,
Now that I've glanced at the article you quoted all I can say is, C'MON! Couldn't you maybe find something Hannity or O'Reilly said to back up this Robert George guy?! His two article titles listed on the fair and balanced sounding "Public Discourse" web site are "Obama's Abortion Extremism" and Obama Infanticide." Are you suggesting this guy is providing a fair, objective report?
I sure wish I'd checked that prior to bothering with my first response, but since I didn't, and I'm still up, let's do this:
On the Pregnant Women Support Act - the current bill is modeled after the Democrat's for Life bill, but it is NOT the wording of the original bill. (and why would that endorsement mean anything anyway?) Among all the wonderful services this bill provides women, the House version specifically does NOT cover contraception. How rational is that? I'd vote against it as is as well. But my opinion doesn't matter much. I'm sure Obama's take on it is slightly different than Mr. George's.
On infanticide and the Illinois bill - he's been over this on every news channel and during the debates: the law repeated existing Illinois law and was unnecessary and while it technically did not ban abortion, it included language describing any fetus as previable, which could, in effect, lead down the slippery slope of calling a fetus conceived a split-second ago a previable fetus, thus banning abortions in Illinois.
If the law only repeated a law already on the books, why propose it in the first place and why be surprised when folks oppose it? If that law promises expensive, unending court arguments to sort out its language, why not oppose soundly? It wasn't about baby-killing, it was about redefining abortion and needlessly changing a law that was already on the books with the clear intention for laying the groundwork of banning abortion later on. I'd venture a guess that Obama's theory behind that vote might have gone something like this: If you are so confident that Americans are ready to ban all abortions, then sponsor a plain language bill to that effect. Don't couch it in BS. Sounds pretty rational to me.
All of this can be summed up as follows: There are a lot of gray area issues on which folks have strong emotions. Abortion is one of those issues on which most of us agree to about 98% of the details, but that doesn't mean the feds or the staties or even a vote of the people should decide for an individual that such issues should be illegal... think alcohol, tobacco, divorce, do we want the masses deciding for us that these should be illegal? How about sexual positions or practices? Where would it end.
The argument is largely one of definition. Religion tends to define a group of cells, far less complex than a fly, which is also God's creation and which we kill en masse daily, as a life. Individuals, including some religious individuals, don't define it that way. We can argue the definition all we want, but if we can't agree on that, then let's err on the side of conservatism and leave government out of it.
I'm actually a little sickened by the notion of using abortion as birth control, but a) that's not up to me to decide for everyone else and b) is it really all that different than contraception outside of a religion-based context? (for the sake of this argument, let's limit it RU486 taken within 48 hours of conception)
Isn't an egg a form of life? Aren't amino acids life?
And for that matter, all animals are pre-wired to procreate. It's instinct. (I borrowed that from the anti-gay folks!) Humans are animals. How is denying this instinct for preservation of the species any more or less a violation of the natural order than contraception... or even RU486?
If a woman is a known high risk baby-carrier, should a law confine her to quarters... bed rest even? every time she has sex to ensure she doesn't cause harm to what may or may not be a fetus?
If we ban all abortion, would exercise induced miscarriages be prosecutable? How about drug abuse induced? Malnutrition induced? What if poverty led to the malnutrition? Can we just outlaw poverty first? Wouldn't that be easier.....
OK, your turn... I've obviously lost my grip.
You say you're not a fan of abortion but neither is it an important issue.
I fundamentally disagree with that. Because it is such a hot topic, that alone assigns a certain degree of importance.
In your next to last paragraph above you raise good questions and ones that have been debated many times. I have to admit, it is sometimes difficult to settle on exactly what is right or wrong with this issue. Yeah, fundamentally I think all abortions are wrong, but what about some of the exceptions you've listed? How do those fit in?
But, also how we handle abortion can affect how we handle other critical concerns, such as euthanasia. That topic is on the ballot this year in Washington. But, it does have fallout with how we look at torture or the death penalty.
We do need to be concerned with who is at the helm, what is their position, what is their philosophy, how will they govern relative to these interweaving issues.
The Jonas Brothers are a SMOKIN' hot topic, but I'll bet all my stocks that they won't be in a few more years.
Banking and finance regulation is a hot topic, but I guarantee you that McCain (and others like him) will be back on the deregulation train as soon as it suits one of his buddies or contributors (see Keating 5)
The last significant policy change regarding euthanasia or abortion was Roe v Wade... 35 years ago. It may be an issue dear to your heart but it is NOT a significant public policy issue today.
It is a red herring trotted out by the Right during election campaigns to divert attention from their policy vacuum. But don't just trust me on that (like anyone would) check Bush 43, Bush 41 and Reagan's track record on abortion policy change. It is not now nor has it ever been anything more than campaign talk.
The Right's treatment of abortion is nothing more than a couple months of moose hunting, flag waving, winking and vernacular in order to get back into the control booth so they can funnel the bottom 95%'s money back up to the top 5% where it belongs for four more years.
I can't believe so many people buy it over and over again.
Post a Comment