"Where have you been, my blue-eyed son..?"
Bob Dylan, A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall, 1963
Over at Credo Taylor Marshall does the good service of informing us that the Enlightened One has offered his first tithe to the all-knowing Demiurge in his recent reversal of the "Mexico City" policy that "banned the use of Federal funds to overseas organizations that perform abortions."
To Barry’s credit he never hid the fact that he was pro-abortion and I got the feeling that he was rather proud of his position regarding the slaughter of the innocents. How far the pro-abortion folks, ably led by our profound and gifted leader, expand the American abattoir remains to be seen but I’m thinking for children now or soon to be residing in the womb "it’s a hard rain’s a gonna-fall."
Which leads to the question of the day: Given the erudition displayed by numerous commentators, I’d like to ask those who are both Democrats and Christians (i.e. those who actually worship the Jewish carpenter) how it is that you cast your ballot for Obama and the Democrats given their pro-abortion policy?
January 28th, 2009 | 8:10 am
Wait for it, Mr. Cheeks. They’re going to mount their high horses and crack that pro-lifers are hypocritical for caring more about a clump of cells in the womb than they do about soldiers slaughtered in Iraq or murderers awaiting their fate on death row. It’s their old stand-by.
January 28th, 2009 | 10:00 am
I get the impression this was posted more to taunt than to ask an actual question, but sure, I’ll bite. I’m Christian and pro-choice (not, as you offer, “pro-abortion”). I believe that each of us has a direct, personal relationship with God; that relationship is what should inform the decision to carry a child to term, not a legal obligation that ignores the reality individual women’s situations. My argument is sketchy, I know (maybe I pray and pray and decide it’s “okay” to rob a bank), but I’m willing to err on that side when it comes to something as personal as child-bearing. I really don’t want any governments involved at any stage of the process.
January 28th, 2009 | 11:07 am
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are a ‘pro-life’ party, insomuch as politics is innately immoral, using men as machines without respect or even genuine recognition of the divine spark within.
The Republicans support the murder of criminals. They have gladly facilitated the horrid abuse of prisoners, God’s creatures no different than themselves. Democrats, meanwhile, support offing unborn babies and destroying embryos in their mad science.
I’m supposed to see one of those are more ‘Godly’ than the other? Hah.
January 28th, 2009 | 11:40 am
I’ll bite as well; I voted for Obama in spite of his policies/statements on abortion (which I consider an absolute evil and would like to see banned absolutely — including in cases of rape and incest), based on the judgments (a) that the Republican party has been rather ineffective in getting abortion banned and that it was unlikely to do so under McCain, (b) that the evidence for whether the strategy of attempting to ban abortions legally or that of concentrating efforts on reducing the number of abortions performed is better (better = more effective at saving the lives of unborn children) is mixed at best, and (c) the assumption, based on the previous two, that it is acceptable to vote for someone (Obama) who endorses a moral evil if (1) it is not clear that the alternative politician (McCain) would be considerably better on that issue and (2) the first politician (Obama) is generally preferred on other issues.
I am willing to grant that any of these judgments might be inaccurate, but I think that, if they are accurate, they answer the question posed.
January 28th, 2009 | 11:43 am
I am rather skeptical of moving the culture of life forward based on largely theological arguments. I think that the pro-life side needs to formulate and articulate arguments against the false idea that bearing children is simply a “personal” matter.
January 28th, 2009 | 2:11 pm
I voted for him–with both frustrations and doubts, as well as hopes and enthusiasm–for the reasons I laid out at length here. To very briefly summarize a long post in two points: 1) my understanding of the message of Christ in regards to the defense of life–based on my study of scripture, the words of my church leaders, and my understanding of the Christian tradition I am part of–does not lead me to feel that all forms of abortion (including the legal toleration of it and/or the indirect economic enabling of it) are moral crimes sufficient to trump all the egalitarian and social democratic goods which I have reason to believe an Obama presidency will make more likely; 2) as Philip and Rob both point out, the idea that the only viable alternative to the election of Obama–i.e., McCain–might have involved any kind of truly significant progress towards the elimination of abortion as a matter of constitutional law and federal policy is simply laughable.
January 28th, 2009 | 2:38 pm
“I’d like to ask those who are both Democrats and Christians (i.e. those who actually worship the Jewish carpenter) how it is that you cast your ballot for Obama and the Democrats given their pro-abortion policy?”
Robert, how are you posting things on the internet if you have sold all your possessions and given them to the poor? You haven’t? How is it you can call yourself a Christian if you are so clearly defying Christ’s own words?
January 28th, 2009 | 3:40 pm
Wow!! This is scary! Unfortunately it’s also probably fairly typical of the reasoning and amount of knowledge that went into the election of Obama.
Here’s a simple analogy: Sometimes a fire is so intense that firefighters are unable to put it out and the best they can do is to try and keep it under control.
Imagine abortion is a raging fire.
John McCain pulled up with a small truck and told you it was full of water, but you didn’t think he had enough to put the fire out, so you sent him away.
Barack Obama pulled up with a bigger truck, and since it was bigger and so much more impressive, you just assumed he had water and told him to start spraying.
Can you smell the gasoline?
January 28th, 2009 | 3:48 pm
I have, once or twice, had the thought, that if we could arrange on a line, with God at one end point and devil at the other, and then also affix on that line, and in their appropriate position, the most saintly human to ever walk the earth, and the most diabolical; it would be, given the scale of the graph, all but impossible to distinguish between the saint and the sinner.
January 28th, 2009 | 4:37 pm
Maybe because the funding will support the many other healthcare services provided by those organizations?
January 28th, 2009 | 4:45 pm
I’m a Catholic Democrat who voted for Reagan in 1980 purely because of the pro-life issue (I detested every other aspect of his program). He rewarded me by putting Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court.
Since then, I don’t just vote for Republicans who say “I’m against abortion”- I take a look at what’s actually going to happen.
My take is that medical practice has changed so that repealing Roe would be very ineffective (how are you going to control a black market or grey market in abortion-causing drugs? The NY Times has documented low income women using herbal abortificients which are apparently quite effective, but also somewhat dangerous. Is that what we want?)
Therefore, relative to the 1970s I think incentives to reduce the incidence of abortion have become relatively most important, and overturning Roe less important as a strategy.
My take is that many Republican demands (opposition to subsidies for contraceptives for low income women, opposition to child care subsidies for low income women) will in practice tend to increase the abortion rate. Do the Republicans seriously expect low income women to practice celibacy their entire reproductive lives? (Some leading Republicans who seem to expect this have erred against chastity themselves.) Do they think that without access to affordable contraceptives a low income family can support all the children they produce?
January 28th, 2009 | 4:46 pm
I am not a “democrat christian” but I am a christian and did vote for Obama. I am not sure if the post is a taunt or a one sided augument. I would offer that it is not at all clear to me that when one alternative is a likely abortion-enabler and the other is a war monger that the likely abortion enabler is the preferred choice for a christian. Being presumpuous, your post sounds like you may be one of the christians who take the republican bait hook, line, and sinker. I suppose unneeded wars (thousands of innocent people killed, including children), human rights violations (i.e., torture), and violations of the creation enabled through policy are meaningless to the decision between the available alternatives??
January 28th, 2009 | 4:49 pm
Ms. Evans, please I’m ‘Bob!’ So far the conversation has been remarkably civil, introspective, and insightful with just a few injections of moral relativism.
Walter K, I always appreciate a dude that signs his name and tells his truth. And, thank you for pointing out my hypocracy, and I mean that. If hypocracy were my only fault I’d be quite pleased with myself, alas I’m flawed in a number of other areas, and I am a sinner. But by reminding me of my hypocracy you’ve induced in me a strong dose of humility, and humility, my friend is most useful in engaging the noetic and pneumatic experience…I think Freddie said that and he’s right!
Well, Margaret I’ll continue to follow the thread and see how it goes!
January 28th, 2009 | 4:59 pm
I’d have to see some numbers, but I doubt that when this policy was in place under Clinton that very many US taxpayer dollars were spent actually funding abortions. I think the real effect of the policy, under Bush, was to punish/reward organizations that do/don’t include abortion in their activities.
On the other hand, under Bush, my tax dollars were used to directly torture people with the express authorization of the president and his cabinet. They were also used to wage a war that fails to meet the just war criteria.
Actively torturing people and waging unjust war is more directly evil than failing to act to prevent abortions. So voting for Obama was the lesser of the two evils.
January 29th, 2009 | 4:25 am
“will in practice tend to increase the abortion rate.” Anne E
TR: In theory maybe, but in reality it doesn’t seem to as such. Abortion went down under Bush Jr and I believe it started its decline in the last year or so of Bush Sr. Still I’d agree an argument can be made that Democrats do as well or better at reducing the rate.
Also I’d concede there actually is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. On an SF site I go to one guy was insistent Sarah Palin was a bad person for not aborting Trig. Then there’s a story my Mom told me about a woman who employed her in the mid-1970s. This boss practically told my Mom to abort or there could be consequences for her job. (Of course my Mom didn’t abort, and I think the woman was bluffing about punishing her, but the threat was there) Examples like that are “pro-abortion” rather than Pro-Choice.
Not that I’m okay with the Pro-Choice position or okay with people voting for Obama, but I do think it’s usually different.
January 29th, 2009 | 4:26 am
“Actively torturing people and waging unjust war is more directly evil than failing to act to prevent abortions. So voting for Obama was the lesser of the two evils.” MS
TR: You are aware that Obama was not running against George W. Bush, correct? I didn’t vote for Bush in 2004 largely because of the torture issue.
January 29th, 2009 | 4:34 am
> Can you smell the gasoline?
No, but I can smell the kool-aid on your breath.
Keep on, keep on. It’s folks like you that make the pro-choicers look mainstream. Every sperm or zygote is sacred.
January 29th, 2009 | 12:44 pm
rob, through my teens, twenties, and some of my thirties I was a Pro-Life Democrat. My basic reasoning was as follows. 1) I held the Democrats were basically right on their social-justice and anti-warmongering positions, and obviously, those issues were ones of fairly key importance to the overall health of the nation and community whenever I voted. 2) Because, rob, like you I saw that there seemed few instances in which Republican politicians could change the abortion policy, I felt it would thus be wrong to vote for Republicans more or less solely on the basis of the abortion issue, despite its huge, Holocaust-approaching, moral significance. I had to vote for those goods which my vote could actually effect. Part of this reasoning hinged on the idea that until the population could be brought around to oppose abortion by a firm majority, there was little pro-life politicians could do but give speeches.
Several things changed for me, but only one matters to you rob. First, I gradually saw that there was quite a lot of kool-aid in the Democratic positions for social justice and against warmongering. Second, I increasingly saw that pro-life Democrats were becoming extinct–the party was in fact more devoted to the Choice principle, to sexual libertarianism, than I had thought, and that this actually outweighed its trumpeted devotion to fighting for poor-friendly and middle-class friendly economics.
Those alone, I think, would have swayed me over to voting Republican. But
here’s my third realization, Rob, the one which if correct, must make you regret your Obama vote. As I began to study constitutional law in grad school, it quickly became obvious that the pro-choice position had done and was continuing to do grave damage to our costitutional fabric. The right-of-privacy cooked up in the Griswold case and serving as the bedrock foundation of Roe v. Wade, ABSOLUTELY DEPENDS on a “living constitutionalism” juriprudence that undermines the proper functioning of the judiciary and, in the long run, the Constitution itself. Currently, the right of privacy has been expanded in a way so that the jurisprudential mandating of gay marriage hovers over our politics as a real possibility. And far worse than such a mandate will come unless our nation returns its judiciary to the practice of orginalism. Taken as a principle, the right to privacy destroys any workable political fabric, that is, takes us into BEING FORCED by our courts to find out if libertarian thinkers such as Nozick are correct about society being able to function purely as a contract between atomized individuals. Taken in a less principled way, the right to privacy suggests that almost ANYTHING is constitutionally possible given a) political leadership + b) living constitutionalism.
Now this may all seem very intellectual, but it WILL have deadly concrete consequences down the road. I do not say that the undermining of the U.S. Constitution, which the Democratic Party is now unqualifiedly (albeit often-unknowingly) committed to through its committment to Roe, is a more serious moral evil than the 45 million or so babies that have been slain. However, since the long-term existence of the U.S.A. could actually be at stake if we can no longer rely on a solid Constitution to bind us, it really does become an issue that could have grave, millions-slaying, consequences.
When you voted for Obama, rob, you voted for as many Supreme Court justices Obama can get in his one-or-two terms, and as many lower-court justices leaning his way as he can get(thus reducing the future pool of originalist candidates for the SC). No, we don’t know if McCain would have either a) had the opportunity to add a fifth, potentially Roe-reversing, orginalist-ic justice to the SC, or b) that he really would have. And b) stands in my mind as one of those real weaknesses McCain had. But rob, do face it, there was nonetheless A FAIRLY DECENT CHANCE he would have had both the opportunity and the willingness. And you voted against that chance.
Now rob, if the moral considerations of our voting, with respect to this issue, should be all about the # of abortions performed, do ponder Anne E’s comment. Nothing short of a pro-life Constitutional amendment and the sea-change of common opinion will keep millions of abortions from being performed in the U.S., EVEN IF Roe were overturned. You can use that fact as an even better excuse to keep voting Democratic.
But you might want to consider that if the pro-choicers have the political power to commandeer the development of the U.S. Constitution, which they now admittedly have by only one vote but which will probably get expanded under Obama, we pro-lifers are not going to be able to win the public-opinion battle. Too much of the squishy center really has their moral opinion about abortion swayed by the mandates handed down by the SC; that, coupled with a still pro-choice dominated media and academia, means we will lose the public opinion battles.
And, the Constitution will be ruined.
Study up.
January 29th, 2009 | 2:21 pm
Mr. (Dr.?) Scott: I assume that I’m the “Rob” herein mentioned. A few points:
1. Nowhere in my blog do I indicate I voted for or support Pres. Obama. In fact, I’m a paleocon and I’ve left the GOP (Democrat Lite) and voted third party being weary of ‘the lesser of two evils.’
2. I quite agree with your rather persuasive appraisal of the effects of Roe V. Wade albiet aware that the Constitution would only suceed as long as the American people maintained a certain moral order. Sadly, we have long succumbed to the demands of the libido dominandi.
Thank you for your comments.
January 29th, 2009 | 3:28 pm
Thomas R, I had no confidence McCain would end the USA torture program. He had a chance to vote for a bill that would have outlawed waterboarding, but he voted against it because he said it also outlawed what he saw as legitimate and necessary interrogation techniques.
So to McCain, it’s is more important to preserve every possible legitimate means of gathering intelligence than it is to make sure we aren’t torturing people. I think that is still more directly evil than giving financial aid to organizations that provide abortions. We can’t say for sure that a single abortion was prevented by the Mexico City policy.
I also thought McCain would be more likely to get us into another unjust war.
January 29th, 2009 | 4:11 pm
R. Cheeks — I think I’m the rob that Scott is responding to — I left a comment (#4?) earlier in the thread.
Scott — I appreciate the thoughtful response, and am thinking about what you have said.
I’m skeptical of the claim that the Supreme Court really has so much influence over moral opinions of the masses (as well of the importance that you accord to the strict interpretation of the Constitution) — I’d tend to agree with Cheeks (I think this is what he’s saying in #19) that the erosion of moral order typically precedes the embodiment of that erosion in law. But, again, I’ll think about what you’ve said.
January 29th, 2009 | 4:17 pm
Robert Cheeks…I was responding to “rob,” comment # 4. I know that you didn’t vote Obama. Now as for your self-indulgent third-party waywardness, well, another time….
Great question to pose on a blog. I sort of wish someone had pushed me more on this issue back in my pro-life-Dem days, and that’s why I’m pushing at “rob” here in particular, who seems thoughtful.
Very sorry, BTW, to learn about the imminent demise of Culture 11. Now what is to become of this “post-Paulos?” (thanks James, it’s still your baby) Postmodern Conservative blog?
January 29th, 2009 | 6:35 pm
Carl Scott: Oops!
re: my divorce from the GOP it strikes that that’s a good theme for a blog!
BTW I’ve gotta new gig at a site called Voegelin View and I hope you might be interested enough to take a look. It’s just starting up, with the usual pain and suffering, not to mention writer’s block, and will probably be a little more inclined toward the philosophy of history, political theory, ect. from a Voegelinian perspective. My column’s tentatively titled: From the Heartland and I’m looking forward to it.
February 1st, 2009 | 2:44 pm
I happen to be a pro-life and pro-traditional values Democrat. We need to have Christians and pro-lifers working wthin both parties. Most people today connect being an evangelical Christian with the Republican Party. That isn’t helping the cause of Christ or to create a more moral and just society.
Years of Christians voting Republican hasn’t brought about a ban on abortion or improvement in the moral climate. The free market economic policies of the past 28 years have sent millions of Americans to the unemployment lines. We have working families without health insurance. Many of the so-called “pro-life” Republicans don’t even support funding for pre-natal care for the poor. A better safety net might well reduce the demand for abortion and some pro-life Democrats in Congress are trying to do just that with the Preganant Women Support Act.
Christians are losing young people in part because they see the hypocrisy of talking about a “culture of life” as we turn Jesus into a cheerleader for a needless war in Iraq. I am not suggesting for a moment that Christians should change their stance on abortion or same sex marriage but we do need to have a broader and more balanced agenda that includes God’s concern for the poor and oppressed in this world.
If Christians and pro-lifers are going to have an impact on the political process, we need to look beyond the Republican Party for another reason. The largely rural white social conservative voter base is shrinking. Your growth constituencies for support of traditional values are the African American and Hispanic communities. For example, in Florida and California (both states voting for Obama) African American and Hispanic Democrats made the difference in votes to ban gay marriage. Neither African Americans or Hispanics feel comfortable with the Republican Party. Of course, there are African American and Hispanic Republicans but they will never be more than a small percentage in the forseeable future in most areas. If the pro-life movement were smart (instead of just being puppets of the GOP), they would make a real effort to mobilize socially traditionalist African American and Hispanic voters into changing the Democratic Party.
February 3rd, 2009 | 3:36 pm
Well. I applaud the Christians who voted for Obama for being honest about their act and the reasons for doing so.
I remain perplexed at the reasons put forth and especially the accusations that Christians who voted for McCain were “drinking Koolaid” or “being puppets of the GOP,” which indicate, at least to me, a lack of personal (i. e. non-internet) engagement with intelligent people who disagree.
I’ve read a number of commentators suggest that because Roe v. Wade would not be overturned during a McCain administration (which I find unconvincing since we have 4/5 votes we need and the liberal judges are older) or since we cannot prevent all abortions even if we do outlaw it, therefore it is reasonable to support a president who is actually removing legal abortion restrictions and funding abortions using hundreds of millions in taxpayer money.
First, with respect to Roe v. Wade, we were almost there until the Obama election took away the chance that we would get a 5th conservative jurist.
Second, although abortion has not yet been appropriately restricted (see First,), there were numerous abortion restrictions, including restrictions on public funding of abortion, that were preventing large numbers of abortions. There was progress being made here and lives being saved.
In other words, with respect to this single issue, it was a choice to continue stemming the tide of abortions, or letting the floodgates open.
I’ll pick on RD just because he/she was the last to comment before me and there’s much to dispute there:
RD: A better safety net might well reduce the demand for abortion and some pro-life Democrats in Congress are trying to do just that with the Preganant Women Support Act.
So why did you support Obama since he does not support the signature legislature of the Democrats for Life, explicitly rejects key provisions of the act, and does not support federally funding crisis pregnancy centers as he does abortion?
How is a failed welfare state a better alternative to free markets? How exactly have we had free markets in the U. S.? How is reducing infanticide not “improving the moral climate”?
Christians are “losing” young people because Christians have lost the educational system, not because of a war that started less than a decade ago. The public school system and universities are completely left-wing in their ideology, and students get sent to school to learn an unbalanced perspective for their formative years. It’s pretty simple.
God’s concern for the poor and oppressed is a concern for the unborn. Yours is a false dichotomy being charity for the poor and justice to the unborn. I’ll take both, thank you.
Lastly, why would any Republican take advice on winning elections from a Democrat “for Life” votes for a radically pro-abortion, not pro-choice (or else he would federally fund those who would choose life), politician?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact