DISQUS

I love Twilight so much, but everywere actors smoke? Robert too? Is he stupid??? So new moon´s great...

I should clarify where I meant to use the term dichotomic. I did not mean it in the context of racism; I agree with you that it is wrong no matter what timeframe or age. Hence ‘moral clarity’ in the case of racism is certainly something I fully agree with. Agreed Sanger was a racist. However I think you can take almost any historical figure and pull out dark sides to them. I am not making excuses for her, rather I choose not to see the world from a black and white perspective. (Obviously some figures like Hitler and Stain would be the exception to that...) By definition my own parents were racist as they were a product of the 1950’s and were uncomfortable with black/white integration. While I hate that aspect of them, It would be hard for me to label them fully racist and reject all that I am from them. True they were not ‘eugenicitians’ (is that a word?), however I am willing to bet that they, along with many others of their generation, had very dark thoughts about race. I more meant dichotomy in the sense of your society and how it seems to be cleaved into ‘right’ and ‘left’. I unfortunately get inundated with US news and the level of animosity between the two sides is incredible. To me it seems that nobody says ‘well I don’t agree with his policies, but he did make a good point in this area;. It seems to be burn and slash from one side to the other. Headlines and commentary seem to be ridiculously twisted to present the ‘opposite side’ is as bad a light as possible. For example your last president, George Bush, got assailed by the ‘left’ as bumbling evil idiot, however as a leader I think the US (and any other country) could do much worse. Your new president is now drawing the fire of ‘right’ (not as bad, but my guess is just give it time…). I guess your post just reminded me of that dichotomy. To twist a headline regarding Ms. Clinton receiving an award from a institution (with a past both good and bad) that was most likely recognizing her efforts to advance the rights and position of woman into “Clinton accepts racist award” just seems to me to be a ‘reaching’ attempt to discredit her rather unfairly. You have to admit that at face value the title seems to suggest that she is accepting an award because she is so effective at being a racist. I think that even you can agree that is most likely not the case. PS. To your point that you “haven't heard of any conservatives in federal office or those who are in the public eye receiving awards in honor of eugenic racists”: To be fair, that is a *very* narrow spectrum… eugenics is not the most common thing around. I too have never heard of many people getting awards in honour of eugenic racists either (who really has?), however I have heard of many ‘conservatives’ getting awards from universities and individuals who very actively discriminate homosexuality for example. Do I judge them? No. My point is that no politicians ‘wear clean sheets’ and I think you can dig up and make up headlines about anybody and anything if you are so sadly motivated. If politicians or people stopped receiving awards from *any* institution that was not crystal clean, then I believe that no awards would be given…ever.

Completely agree! Poinsettia from Marine to 14th is a well traveled street that is extremely difficult to navigate through during drop off / pick up times at Pacific School. Even when school is in session and there is minimal traffic, you are forced to weave through most of Poinsettia to avoid oncoming cars. Yes, the street is pretty, close to school, walk to downtown, but your children can NOT ride bikes on that street or play out front safely.

In the interest of us knowing whether you are touting market club software for commission or not, why don't you tell your readers if you are an affiliate who would receive commission or not?

Oh come on, you must be a 9 at least!

Love You. x

What a WONDERFUL picture. You must have had an amazing photogragher eh!

Posted by: Gordon | September 12, 2008 11:58 AM

'"Choice" is indeed a term that pro-abortion people selected to disguise the nature of their enterprise.'

Is that sort of like when people call themselves "pro-life", when what they really are is "pro-fetal-life"?

Let me repeat myself from previous threads. Nobody is pro-abortion as a general policy (except for in China), although they may be in favor of a woman's right to make her own decision on the matter.

I vowed I would not get involved in this thread because it is same-old same-old. But the whole terminology thing infuriates me. Words mean things.

With that, I am done with this thread. If anybody wants to know what I think, please refer to the recent threads on this topic.

Jane

I share your pessimism about our ability to change public views of abortion, but I am not sure our desire to do so requires that we embark on a monumental new set of entitlements.

Posted by: Gordon | August 16, 2008 10:37 AM

Right, in this country we value rugged individualism and going it alone above all. Concepts like "community" and "public good" are viewed with suspicion. The market is always right, even though there may be some collateral damage along the way.

Is it any wonder that women are desperate?

And now I think I have said everything I have to say on this topic.

Jane

Note that abortion was already legal in certain states before 1972, but this provides further support for the idea that opinions can follow laws. Prohibition was a much different matter, since most don't see consumption of alcohol as having any moral component and drinking alcohol is not inherently wrong.

Posted by: jesse | August 16, 2008 11:50 AM
______________________________
Can we prove that opinion followed law, rather than law following public opinion?

Some people see alcohol as having a moral component and drinking alcohol as inherently wrong. I was raised in such a church. Some people, myself among them, see abortion as sad and preventing a potential human life, but not as murder, and sometimes the least bad of some awful choices.

Earlier this week, on another thread, someone made the point that it is impossible to enforce a law forbidding something, unless everyone agrees that the behavior is wrong. Whereupon somebody else immediately responded that "everyone" agrees on abortion. No, they don't. Good people can disagree on this.

Jane

Treemeister, thank you for the explanation. I get the sense that the centers you know about are staffed by caring people doing what they can with limited means. It would be interesting to know what happens later to that woman and her child.

Jane

Posted by: jesse | August 16, 2008 9:38 AM

"There is no evidence that state legislators somehow don't have enough time to spend on "hot-button topics." "

That may be the only statement you have made that I agree with. New York State legislators would love spending (wasting?) their time on a hot-button issue with no resolution, thereby distracting them from solving real problems in this state. Think of the political points they could gain in their home communities, without even spending pork money to do it. I'd call that a win-win for the states.

Jane

"Don't laws affect the public's views about abortion?

Posted by: jesse | August 16, 2008 9:38 AM"

No.

It didn't work with prohibition, and it wouldn't work with abortion.

Unless and until women can see another way out of what seems to be a desperate situation, abortion won't be reduced. In my opinion, that requires a society willing to spend actual money on family support. That would include long-term medical care and affordable child care, and might include job training and reasonable public transportation from city to suburb, or from poor suburb to rich suburb. And that's the easy part.

It also requires a society that values human beings more than consumer goods. Where the Market is seen as the ultimate solution to everything, that will definitely require changing hearts and minds.

Passing laws is just going for the quick fix. Like most quick fixes, that won't work the way you want it to.

Jane

Posted by: jesse | August 15, 2008 6:54 PM

"if we're concerned with reducing abortion, why are Democrats generally so oppositional towards crisis pregnancy and abortion alternative centers? Why doesn't Jim spend any time praising the work these centers do to help reduce abortion (and they do a lot)?"

I'm willing to be educated as to what these centers actually do. (I'm pro-choice because I think that in difficult situations women should be trusted to make the best decision for her and her family.)

Everything I have read about these centers has been from the pro-choice side: that these centers pretend to provide abortions (if you look in the phone book you can't tell what they really do), then prey on already vulnerable women with guilt and questionable health information. I have not researched nor do I have any idea what they really do after they talk her into giving birth.

Then what? Is their job done? Do they have any practical assistance for finding a job and making sure there is transportation to get there? child care while she is at work? making sure both mother and child get adequate medical care throughout their lives? help her figure out what to do about her interrupted college education? help her deal with the parents who will cut off all support if she has the baby? help her support the children she already has, who may or may not be properly cared for?

I have read more than one comment in the last week that these centers prevent a lot of abortions. But no one has written how they do it, or what they do after the woman changes her mind. I have done my best not to be sarcastic as I write this; I really want to know.

Jane

"Face it -- Barack H Obama is simply THE most PRO-Abortion candidate EVER to run for President!"

Yawn. I have seen that identical comment on politically right wing sites for months. It's really time to issue a new talking point, don't you think? I'll give you credit, though, for making some of the words in all caps.

Jane

Kevin: Thank you for your analysis of the hypothetical pregnant 12-year-old. I am pleased to see that you described this scenario in shades of gray rather than black and white. In this instance, I wouldn't subject a young girl to carrying a child for nine months. That alone causes permanent changes to a woman's body. I don't think a 12-year-old should carry a pregnancy to term for the same reason I don't think a 12-year-old should play football. Their bodies are not ready for it.

And now I have to get ready for work and will not likely be able to post any more today. But I will be reading!

Jane

Kevin S:
There is nothing the government can do about babies born to greedy, SUV-obsessed parents anyway.

Me:
Agreed. The government can stay out of their way and let them get an abortion if they want to. This imaginary couple is a caricature; I notice you didn't respond to any of the "hard" scenarios that I mentioned.

Jane

Kevin:
That said, would you consider infanticide a reasonable option in any of the instance you cite above? If not, then I think you are missing a crucial component of the debate.

Me:
See my previous post. In my mind, there is no relationship between abortion and infanticide. I can't make the leap. That is your critical component, not mine.

Jane

Bradley:
My question is, why? Why would a pro-choice advocate want abortion to be rare?

Me:
I'll bite. I answered this on a previous thread just before it scrolled off the page, so I doubt anyone saw it.

I think abortion should be rare because a fetus is a potential human life and should be respected for that reason. But in a problem pregnancy, however that is defined, the situation of the actual already-born live people outweigh the possibilities of a potential human being.

I simply cannot see a fetus as the moral equivalent of a toddler. So equating abortion with "infanticide", "murder", and all manner of criminal activity does not do anything for me. I understand that there are people who sincerely believe abortion is the equivalent of murder, and that a fetus is the equivalent of my 25-year-old son. But I don't get it.

I know somebody is going to demand that I explain when a fetus becomes a person. Unlike some on this thread, I will freely admit that (gasp) I don't have all the answers. I don't know. The Roe v Wade trimester approach made sense to me.

Jane

I can read this forum at work but evidently cannot post. How frustrating is that?

Anyway, to respond to some of the points brought up today, without finding every post to copy / paste. (sorry)

Someone offered a trade-off: "pro-choice" people agree to a ban on abortion if "pro-life" people agree to financial support for the newborn.

Why only the newborn? Does the financial burden ease as the child grows older? (Hint: no.)

That solution might possibly work for women whose problem is primarily financial, but does not address other scenarios. To repeat myself and add to the list:
= the couple who is struggling to support the children they already have;
= the child under the age of 13 (no matter how she got pregnant it was NOT a good situation and it was not consent, and why would we force a child to give birth?)
= the empty nest couple now caring for elderly parents (let's assume the children who left the nest had to move out of the area to find a job)
= the couple who needs a new suv, a boat, and a vacation home (do we really want these people to raise a child?)
= the couple whose long-anticipated child has been determined to have a serious condition which means the baby will not live longer than a day if it is carried to term
= the teen-ager whose parents will kick her out of the house
= the woman in an abusive relationship.

I don't think providing financial support for the newborn will make any difference to these women. Nor would that compromise be acceptable to the small-government anti-abortionist who apparently thinks women should just suck it up.

I have never heard anyone imply that abortion was a gift from God. But sometimes it is the best of a lot of really bad alternatives.

Sister Marie has said this much more succinctly and much more nicely than I have. The issue is more complex than some people think it is.

Jane

Posted by: Eric | August 12, 2008 8:29 PM

"Do you or do you not think our society should try to look after low-income mothers by helping them with the costs of providing for their newborn babies? I would think medical care, diapers and baby food would be helpful."

Yes, I believe that society should try to look after low-income mothers, and I think there is a limit to what churches can do. Medical care would be very helpful, but it should not be limited to pre-natal care. It should be available to the post-born infant and also to the mother, and to the child throughout his or her life. Diapers and baby food are helpful. What about decent housing? Decent schools? Transportation to a job? Day care? What about clothing for the school-aged child? Job prospects for that child? Parents so overwhelmed with the effort to survive, that they pay no attention to the child? Financial and emotional obligations do not end with infancy. Support for the child implies support for the entire family.

"Also, Rev. Tune didn't say a law wouldn't change anything. He said passing legislation "will not do anything to affect a person's relationship with God." That is true, but a ban certainly would discourage many women from choosing abortion."

He also mentioned dangerous illegal abortions, abandoned children, and foster care. I have seen the best of Christian foster parenting close up, and my heart breaks for what those children have gone through and never recover from.

Jane

Posted by: kevin s. | August 12, 2008 6:09 PM

"I don't have a problem with the term anti-abortion either, but this is pure semantics. I can think of all sorts of choices that the "pro-choice" side would ban by legislation."

The term "pro-choice" was a silly response to the anti-abortionists claim to be "pro-life". I guess everybody thinks it's better PR to be pro something than anti.

"Who are you quoting here?"

It was obviously not a direct quote. But it pretty well sums up the way I felt reading some of the posts here. Even if I didn't think it was my Christian duty to pay taxes which improve quality of life for all, I think it is my duty as a citizen of an enlightened 21st century society.

Jane

"Do you really believe this is a fair representation of the pro-life view?

Jeff"

It was not intended to be a representation of a genuine pro-life view. It is what I see among anti-abortionists. I have seen it in this thread, numerous times, in almost those words. Not pretty, is it?

In my mind, somebody who is "pro-life" is also concerned about life after birth.

Jane

Posted by: Lord Voldemort | August 12, 2008 10:38 AM

"Rev. Tune's entire brief against the pro-life movement can be summed up: "Why don't these people care about what I care about?" The same question can just as easily be asked of others though: "Why aren't you more concerned about abortion?" "

Well, perhaps it was less confusing before the anti-abortionists decided to frame the debate by calling themselves pro-life, without really being pro ALL life. If you only care about abortion, then call yourself "anti-abortion" or "pro-fetal-life" or "pro-birth". Don't call yourself pro-life and make statements like "After they're born, too bad, expecting me to do anything about them is THEFT. And it's UNBIBLICAL. And show me where Jesus said the government should take MY MONEY."

If you really care about a fetus, then providing medical care and some diapers and baby food aren't going to cut it. And for all the reasons Rev. Tune has already stated, passing a law isn't going to change anything.

Jane

Posted by: Marian from VCC | August 4, 2008 9:11 PM

"Ever since Sojos came to our home church, Vineyard Columbus, for the first time ever in 20 years, we have witnessed tremendous division..... Anyway, there’s been a seething, under the surface rumble ever since. Conservatives and “the religious right” have been marginalized and have been silenced from having a clear voice on the conference itself....For over 2 decades, we have all served side by side – conservative and liberals – without ever caring about political leanings or being even concerned with being politically correct."

Marian, is it possible that prior to Sojo coming to your church, the "religious left" among you felt silenced and marginalized? And that they felt a seething under the surface? And that the "religious right" was blissfully unaware that anyone could possibly disagree with them about anything? Perhaps the discomfort some are feeling now is the result of facing the reality that the right does NOT have a monopoly on Christianity and no longer controls the conversation.

Jane
Jane