Bush [Justin]
Yep, Bush. I haven’t mailed my ballot yet, but I’m 99% sure Bush will have my bubble. Here’s why.
If Kerry gets elected, he has the chance to fix a lot of the things Bush has screwed up. If Bush gets re-elected, whoever replaces him in 2008 will have the chance to fix a lot of the things he has screwed up. Either way, we only have 4 more years of Bush’s bad policies.
And Bush has done a lot of good. It’s nowhere near what Kerry is promising, but so far, Kerry’s words are just that - promises. If this were all there is to it, Kerry would probably have my vote, since I like the sound of him.
But the appointing of Supreme Court justices, and the potential to overturn Roe V. Wade, is too huge to pass up. This is an issue ten times bigger than slavery, and it has sat without serious challenge for over thirty years. If it is overturned, people will start to see unborn children as the human beings they are, rather than obscuring that fact behind the rhetoric of personal prerogative and control over one’s own body. And we will look back on the decades of legal abortion in America as a sad, incomprehensible age - much as we look back on the age of slavery now.
But there is also the matter of not being, as Sojourers puts it, “single-issue voters.” In principle, I agree. After this election, I will probably not be a single-issue voter. But I am taking this opportunity to be a, well, opportunistic voter. I think the right to life is more important than jobs, the environment, foreign policy, health insurance, the economy, and all that other stuff I listed combined.
Update (2004-10-29 9:50 PM): I change my perspective here after some further reading.
Justin, I’m as pro-life as you are, and wish we lived in a world with no abortion. The reasons I am afraid that “eliminating” it with legal means will actually create more injustice are many, but here’s the one that keeps me from voting Bush:
In almost every instance where Republicans have attempted to restrict abortion or some form of abortion, they have not included a clause to permit such a procedure if the life of the mother is in danger. This was the case during the last attempt to eliminate partial birth abortion. There are few instances where this procedure is necessary to save a mothers life, but they do exist. Preeclampsia is the most common instance, killing several hundred women per year in the US. If Roe were overturned and a Republican congress were to enact a bill making all abortion illegal, with no exceptions (as has been their track record), they will absolutely be sentencing many of the ~350,000 women per year who suffer from severe preeclampsia to death. My hope is that my wife, or yours, is not among them. But some will be.
This is the problem with trying to legislate something as complex as a medical procedure that involves two human lives. You can’t possible predict all the variables that go in to such a decision in a manner that writes a just law. I agree that >90% of abortions are simply out of selfish convenience. But just as Bush has difficulty seeing shades of gray in foreign matters, he seems to have difficulty seeing subtlety in this issue as well. If I had guarantees that Bush would do this in a fair and balanced manner, I’d be all for it. But once the courts, the congress, and the white house are under conservative control, where is the check to balance their conservatism?
By the way, this isn’t armchair ethics for me. This very situation has happened to two women I know well. In one instance it happened just as I was considering becoming Catholic. I was surprised to find that the RCC–the most anti-abortion force on the planet–has considered this matter in all its subtlety and has theological allowances for the health of the mother. It is shocking to me to realize that the Republican party is more reactionary on this topic than the Vatican.
Here’s another aspect of this debate that makes me vote pro-choice although I am personally vehemently pro-life: Trisomy 13 and anencephaly are two genetic defects that occur relatively frequently (1:1000 pregnancies). Both result in severe neurologic defects, with anencephaly being the worst. Diagnosable by ultrasound in the second or third trimester, anencephalitic babies have no forebrain and often no brain stem. What neural tissues they do have are often formed outside the skull. 50% are stillborn, and the other 50% die either from trauma during delivery or within a few hours of birth.
If all abortion is outlawed, we are effectively telling the 1:1000 women with this diagnosis that they must carry their babies to term and deliver them, despite the fact that to do so is uniformly fatal for the baby. I strongly believe that the unborn child is human and has rights, but that stance is to some degree based on religious faith that not all people share. Would you want to be the doctor that gave such a diagnosis, but then informed the mother that she had no choice but to deliver the child? I would not, because I believe that to endure such an event without severe psychological trauma one needs the help of God and a community of believers.
This happened to a close friend of ours at a former church. She chose to deliver the baby, and felt that she received grace and comfort from God in the process. But this was a decision based on faith, not on any rational basis. I believe in the humanity of the fetus strongly, but not so strongly as to make very, very difficult decisions for others based on my beliefs which they might not share. Because I might be mistaken.
I will say this: if you are for complete elimination of abortion, you should create or join a ministry designed to comfort and assist those women and children who will be affected by such a law. To outlaw something and then ignore those who suffer as a result is inhumane and unjust. My fear is that the church and our government will conclude “mission accomplished” once R v W is overturned, and then just walk away.
V’doc, I think I would agree that it is wise to make exceptions for such circumstances. Hopefully the people will be able to make our leaders realize this. But as you said, these circumstances probably account for less than 10% of the total abortions in America. I think overturning RVW is crucial to stopping the more than 90% of senseless abortions that happen all the time. It’s up to people like you, me, and everyone reading this to not let the the church simply “walk away”. This is a just fear.
God have mercy.
Justin, well thought out and, not surprisingly, very close to my own conclusions. No matter who wins this elections, part of me will rejoice and part of me will mourn. May God not bless the USA, but simply show us mercy for what we have become.
Justin -
I echo your though process, and had my absentee ballot ever arrived, I would have been voting for Bush - with a mixture of fear & hope. Fear about what he may do next in the war on terror, and hope about what he might be able to accomplish on abortion. As it stands right now, the state of Arizona has disenfranchised me, so I’m going with a principled decision not to vote.
Virusdoc -
You raise some excellent points and I commend you for your thoughtful posts on what is always a heated topic. The abortion issue has gotten so wrapped up in knee-jerk politics that it is almost impossible to think about it apart from all of that. The reason the Republicans oppose the health-exception is because they fear it would be abused, and it likely would, thus negating any actual ban of abortion or a specific procedure. So it would effectively put us back to square one. If some means could be devised - a doctor review panel or another mechanism - to ensure the health issue is real, then I think it is something I personally could get behind (though not without some trepidation), but one again, the knee-jerk politics of it would probably keep most conservative voters from accepting it. While you fear what the unchecked Republicans would do, I also fear what unchecked Democrats would do in this and other areas - embryonic stem cell research specifically, and any similar offshoots.
Justin -
While I disagree with the results, I am glad you’ve though long and hard about this and made your choice based on pondering the actual values of the candidates and thinking long and hard about how they match up with your own. This is the basis a democracy and absolutely essential to the long term health of our country.
And who knows, maybe RVW will get overturned, and combined with compulsory reporting of pregnancy tests results to the government and the outlawing of home pregnancy test kits (and if you think that can’t happen then you need to start doing some reading on how the FDA has already had its drug approval process corrupted by politics and religion over the last four years); someone will finally design an effective birth control device for women (or men), involving bio-mechanical nano-devices that either chemically or biologically destroy the viability of the egg (or the male equivalent) before its fertilized.
Derek: you paint a stark but not-too-far-off-base picture of what would be necessary for the enforcement of anti-abortion laws. The greatest harm that would result would be that (some) women would now see a critical area of their biology–reproduction–as an area where they cannot have full disclosure with physicians. The impact of this change in patient-doctor repoire would almost certainly mean decreased prenatal care and a resulting increase in preventable birth defects. At a time when women most need medical intervention, those who are uncertain about whether they want to be pregnant will shun the entire medical system.
What most people don’t realize is that pregnancy during the first trimester can be easily terminated using high dose oral contraceptives. Taking a one-month packet of birth control pills in one dose will do it. So if we outlaw abortion, we will need to outlaw oral contraceptives as well. Which would, of course, result in more unplanned pregnancies.
None of these observations negates the fact that abortion is tragic and murderous. And perhaps stopping some fraction of that tragedy is worth whatever costs we might incur as a society.
Doc-
I think you’re assuming that people would continue to see abortion the same way if it were outlawed, and that the government would need to pass hedge laws to make abortion not only illegal, but impossible. I think the government’s role would focus on stopping doctors perform abortions.
Were there a lot of illegal abortions before Roe V Wade? Maybe so, but it was a different world then. Contraceptives were not as widely available, and there was a much greater social stigma on out-of-wedlock births than there is now (though it still remains). Planned Parenthood has tons of non-abortion programs going on, and I would love to see their work continue without abortion being an option.
Will there be problems for some people if abortion is outlawed? Certainly. But they are small compared to the children that would be saved. Any argument that suggests otherwise seems to me to be missing the point. I can tell from your earlier comment that you’re presenting both sides of this rather than making an argument for legal abortion, though, which is valuable to this discussion since everyone who has chimed in seems to be pro-life.
Finally, the Supreme Court is almost certain to make provision for doctors to make life-and-death decisions when necessary, as doctors have always been able to do. Supreme Court justices, as I’ve said, are much more moderate than the extreme right-wing Republicans who may be supporting their appointment.
“ten time worse than slavery” ? (I’ve erased my first ten responses to this statement, I’ll do my best to be civil, but if this is read as a flame, so be it).
Your chosen metaphor (simile, example?) demonstrates a primary problem with the anti-abortion movement, it places a single issue ahead of all of life. The movement values the life of the unborn above all other expressions of life. Recent data on the rise of abortions under the Bush administration (see sojomail 10-13-04, several news stories of the past month) show the need for domestic economic policies and health care that can support the health of those who are born - I am pro-life, that’s why I’ll vote Kerry.
As to the ten times worse than slavery, I’m sure you are aware of the biblical framework used by theologically and politically conservative Christians of the last millenium placing God’s blessing on the capture and use of human beings as slaves. I’m sure you are also aware of the contemporary global slave trade that is estimated to contain as many as 200 million, primarily women and children. (www.iabolish.com or google - modern slavery)
It is a racist statement, I’m sure you are aware that racism is a charge often made against the entire pro-life movement and would not want to participate in perpetuating explicit or implicit racism.
Being passionate about abortion is too often a copout allowing rich Christians to fight a “holy battle for purity” without confronting the biblical mandate to live in solidarity with the poor and the oppressed, I hope your example was merely a slip and not an indication of falsely believing that abortion is the primary concern of God or of scripture - if it were maybe it would be spoken of with the same frequency as justice for the widow and the orphan, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, setting the prisoners free - the biblical vision of Jubilee expressing the love and justice of God made manifest for and with those without power. (a concept that is beyond the comprehension of our president or his particularly utilitarian expression of faith)
Wow. Powerful words, Tim. After reading the first dialogue regarding election issues, I was fairly surprised with some of the rhetoric in this post. Echoing some of Tim’s sentiments, I would say the millions of children in sexual slavery around the world would have preferred to have never been born, but this isn’t an issue discussed by mainstream Christianity.
I’m personally irritated by an American Christianity whose only vision of justice stands within its borders, and whose only activism rises and falls with abortion and homosexuality. When I am in other countries, I’m not ashamed to be an American. I’m not ashamed to be a Christian. But I am ashamed to be an *American* Christian.
Blessed with all the resources in the world, we’ve done next to nothing. Following the vein of 18th Century “British Israel” heresy, we’ve taken up the banner and proclaimed ourselves God’s Chosen People and sung our own praises and draped Jesus with the American flag. And our president validates this horrifically ethnocentric view in nearly every speech.
Tim-
I am in no way saying that slavery was at all a justifiable institution, or anything other than a horrible blight on human history. It is utterly despicable to oppress other human beings for your own gain.
But killing children is worse than oppressing people, and I’ll stand by my previous statement. I hardly see how that is racist, unless you believe that a child is not a human until after birth. Hmmm…didn’t people use a similar argument to justify slavery - that slaves were, for whatever reason, sub-human?
You’ve stimulated me to investigate more on this topic. This CNN article on abortion makes some interesting observations. One is that, worldwide, 20 million of the 46 million abortions that occur each year are illegal. This is much higher than I expected, so it calls into question my earlier assumption that abortion would drop to almost zero if it were outlawed.
A major finding that this article reports is that the availability of contraception greatly reduces abortion rates. I suspect that this is the case whether abortion is legal or not - if people can prevent a pregnancy, they will be less likely to seek abortion. I think this gives some direction in what we should be doing to pursue the vision you described of caring for the poor and oppressed.
I cannot but help think that placing this “single issue ahead of all of life” is a sensible thing to do when life is the issue in the first place. You don’t need health insurance, after-school tutoring, or a decent job if you’re terminated at nine weeks. At the same time, though, I have never said that we should fight for abortion to the exclusion of all other justice concerns. I only said it is the most important, which is quite different.
Adam-
So let’s start raising awareness and doing something about child sexual slavery as well. Please don’t read me as saying we should spend all our time being wacko crusaders who only care about one issue. All I am saying is that abortion is the first human rights issue, not the only one.
Let’s continue the abortion discussion here, as I have come across new ideas that significantly change this debate.
where? the link appears to be broken.
Oh, sorry. Fixed.
Trust the ship to the captain who begins and ends his days on his knees, fears and loves the Lord, knows he is imperfect and is a humble man who trust the Lord to fill in all of His lackings and who believes and lives that God IS in control in the end.
The horrors of this world are grievous to him and not something he, George, takes without the same sorrow we feel.
Respectful to God’s plans, it is more than clear that He would entrust the burden of the Presidency to a humble man who is no smooth talker over a glitzy guy who reminds us all too well of his party predicessor.
Ordinary George is my geek for Pres. any day…besides, he went to my high school and I know a lot of ordinary stuff about him from way back that is consistent in the end as a validated brother in Christ.
Gad…how can you possibly WORRY…pray, but don’t worry.<><
m2– a bunch of random thoughts…
“Authenticity” of faith in our sight is only a matter of saying the right words. Believing the image any politician chooses to portray is never wise. I don’t trust any of them because their primary goal in life is to make just enough people like them to keep their job.
Do you believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely? I believe it takes more than just a good, humble man to resist the temptations of power. It doesn’t matter who’s sitting in that office or how wonderful a Christian man you think he is or isn’t.
You wrote: “Respectful to God?s plans, it is more than clear that He would entrust the burden of the Presidency to a humble man who is no smooth talker…” Aren’t we past divine right of kings? Isn’t this a nation that *elects* the president? And what happened with the “party predecessor”? Did God just deem those years unimportant?
And if our president is humble, why is it that when asked in two debates was he unable to think of any mistakes he has made besides personnel appointments?
Finally, if you know a lot of personal stuff about him, that’s great. I don’t. I do know he doesn’t teach Sunday school every week like Jimmy Carter did.