Thursday, 16 October 2008
-
time for a new conversation on abortion
"In last evening's presidential debate, the first steps were taken toward a new national conversation about abortion. For too many years, the old one hadn't changed very much. It came up every four years during elections and seldom in between. The Republicans repeated that they think abortion should just be completely illegal; and the Democrats repeated their only mantra of a "woman's right to choose." And the number of abortions remained mostly unchanged."Pro-life" battled "pro-choice" when neither party was really either one. Those positions were more like postures, and they didn't lead to solutions. What if "pro-life" really meant policies that would protect the precious gift of life wherever it is threatened and aim at dramatically reducing the number of abortions in America? And what if "pro-choice" meant extending the range of real choices available to women -- not only to terminate a pregnancy, but also to make the decision to have a child with the necessary economic support, health care, and adoption services?
"Last evening, both Barack Obama and John McCain took steps toward finding some possible common ground.
"Both said that they would not use Roe v. Wade as a litmus test for appointing Supreme Court Justices in the future.
"And both suggested some cultural commitments and policy directions that could be most effective in dramatically reducing abortion. Last night's debate got that conversation started.
"Barack Obama said:
I think that abortion is a very difficult issue, and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on ... . This is an issue that -- look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to -- to reconcile the two views. But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby." Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation. We should try to reduce these circumstances.
"Then John McCain said:
We have to change the culture of America. Those of us who are proudly pro-life understand that. And it's got to be courage and compassion that we show to a young woman who's facing this terribly difficult decision. ... But that does not mean that we will cease to protect the rights of the unborn. Of course, we have to come together. Of course, we have to work together, and, of course, it's vital that we do so and help these young women who are facing such a difficult decision, with a compassion, that we'll help them with the adoptive services, with the courage to bring that child into this world and we'll help take care of it.
"There are indeed profound moral issues involved in the decisions to have or not to have an abortion, and most Americans believe that. Most also believe the abortion rate in America is far too high but are hesitant to completely deny the difficult choice to have one.
"Abortion reduction is the clear common ground that could unite the pro-choice and pro-life polarities and bring us together to find some real solutions and finally see some results. John McCain and Barack Obama last evening opened up the possibility of finding some new common ground in reducing abortions, reflecting the 2008 Democratic and Republican platforms. There is also now some movement in the Congress with pro-life and pro-choice members looking for common ground solutions for reducing the number of abortions that are proven to work. New and compelling studies make the clear connection between abortion and poverty, with fully three-fourths of the women who have abortions saying that they just couldn't afford to have the child. It will be a great day when both poverty reduction and abortion reduction become non-partisan issues and bipartisan causes.
"Life is precious. John McCain believes that, Barack Obama believes that, Sarah Palin believes that, and so does Joe Biden. In fact, I'm not sure I have ever met a person who believes otherwise.
"Freedom is fundamental. John McCain believes that, Barack Obama believes that, Sarah Palin believes that, and so does Joe Biden. Again, I'm not sure I have ever met a person who believes otherwise.
"Americans are for life. Americans are for choice. The challenge for our political leaders, our religious leaders, and every American is to hold freedom and life together even when they seem to collide. We should do all we can to make sure we have as much of both as possible. And we can start by having a better conversation about abortion in this election and beyond. Thankfully, the first steps toward that conversation were taken last evening."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above is an article by Jim Wallis of Sojourners. Author of God's Politics.
+ Respond to this article on the God's Politics Blog
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to ronirvine's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in ronirvine's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (5)
Christians have wasted too much time arguing about abortion with no positive outcomes. It is time to make a difference. It is time to stopthe word games, the tit for tat, and start reducing the number ofabortions; working together; not through argument, but through dialogue and action.
Lets get off our high horses and start working together to protect life.
And let us not forget that pro-life means advocating for life in every situation; whether standing against war, or against genocide, or against starvation, or against torture. Funny how silent Christians can be on some issues, noisy on others, and yet so often accomplish nothing.
It is not about ME or MY beliefs, it is about life and working together to end the insanity.
One more thought:
Pro-Choice means what? One thing is for sure, it does not mean "pro-abortion". It means pro-choice, pro-freedom, standing up for the rights of others. How can we fight for freedom in other countries and then fight against each other over pro-choice. Pro-choice means giving people options and opportunities. There is no choice if there are no options! If a person is boxed into a corner (which is what poverty does to people) they have no options and therefore no choice. The most dehumanizing thing about poverty is that people have almost no options for health benefits, for jobs, for college, for homes, for transportation. The same is true for all groups of people that have disadvantages, barriers, disabilities, or are otherwise underpriviledged. Pro-choice means making sure people have options so they can have choices to make.
Christians must become pro-life and pro-choice if we are going to fulfill the Great Commandment.
As Jim Wallis says, "Americans are for life. Americans are for choice. The challenge for our political leaders, our religious leaders, and every American is to hold freedom and life together even when they seem to collide. We should do all we can to make sure we have as much of both as possible."
Again: "I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation. We should try to reduce these circumstances." (Obama)
It is time we approach these things with the eyes of love and a heart for justice.
Thanks for sharing this.
Ron, what a great post - thanks for sharing this! One thing I'm still trying to figure out is how Obama talks about abortion reduction yet agreed to pass The Freedom of Choice Act. My main concern with Freedom of Choice is that it removes the laws in place that states have established (in MI for 24-hour waiting periods, parental consent for those 16 or under, mandatory ultrasounds which show if the pregnancy is even viable in the first place and the stage of development which may be different than the woman believes, etc). To me, removing these laws would be hurting the right to truly choose.
More than once, when I worked with people experiencing crisis pregnancy, women thought they were only a month or so pregnant when in fact they were 3-4 months into a pregnancy. They had a different decision due to simply this information alone.
I like Obama's stand on most issues but this one has been hard for me to sort out. Any thoughts?
@jeaniebutterfly - Mark Twain said, "To every complex problem, there is a simple solution . . . that doesn't work."
That's pretty much sums up where I'm left on this issue.
You'll have to help me out with where these things are in the act:
"My main concern with Freedom of Choice is
that it removes the laws in place that states have established (in MI
for 24-hour waiting periods, parental consent for those 16 or under,
mandatory ultrasounds which show if the pregnancy is even viable in the
first place and the stage of development which may be different than
the woman believes, etc). To me, removing these laws would be hurting
the right to truly choose." I didn't see them. I may have over looked them, though. The wording seems to support these things. http://www.nrlc.org/foca/FOCA2007S1173.html
I have no answers. Mostly questions. Here are a few thoughts, questions, and questionable thoughts . . .
I believe being pro-life means much more than being anti-abortion, it means defending life and the quality of life on all levels of human and natural existence. I too believe that being pro-choice, being a people created by God with free will, freedom to choose; which inherently has built into it learning life's deepest lessons from the mistakes we make. This is the essence of life and choice. At the heart of quality of life and having choice is having options so that one is not trapped with no options. My read of the Freedom of Choice Act seems to really highlight this; making sure women have options, both safe and legal, from which to choose. Personally, I believe that freedom must be limited by laws to protect life, though. Obviously, murder laws are necessary. Laws regarding war are necessary (although they have been disregarded through preemptive strike in Iraq--a highly pro-life issue). I believe choice should not include abortion for convenience sake. Here, choice goes too far. But where has the Pro-Life movement written similar legislation that will not only be pro-life but also pro-choice in that it would guarantee that all women have safe and legal options when it comes to the health of the woman? And who would judge that? How could that be judged by anyone besides the woman? I plead ignorance at this point. All I am left with is questions. I just know that the following issues that are addressed in the Freedom of Choice Act that must be addressed somewhere, somehow in order for us to live in a free society that presupposes freewill:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Freedom
of Choice Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:(1) The United States was founded
on core principles, such as liberty, personal
privacy, and equality, which ensure that
individuals are free to make their most intimate
decisions without governmental interference and
discrimination.
(2) One of the most private and
difficult decisions an individual makes is
whether to begin, prevent, continue, or
terminate a pregnancy. Those reproductive health
decisions are best made by women, in
consultation with their loved ones and health
care providers.
(3) In 1965, in Griswold v.
Connecticut (381 U.S. 479), and in 1973, in Roe
v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Doe v. Bolton (410
U.S. 179), the Supreme Court recognized that the
right to privacy protected by the Constitution
encompasses the right of every woman to weigh
the personal, moral, and religious
considerations involved in deciding whether to
begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a
pregnancy.
(5) These decisions have
protected the health and lives of women in the
United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision
in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year
were forced to resort to illegal abortions,
despite the risk of unsanitary conditions,
incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage,
disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is
estimated that thousands of women died annually
in the United States as a result of illegal
abortions.
(6) In countries in which
abortion remains illegal, the risk of maternal
mortality is high. According to the World Health
Organization, of the approximately 600,000
pregnancy-related deaths occurring annually
around the world, 80,000 are associated with
unsafe abortions.
(11) While abortion should remain
safe and legal, women should also have more
meaningful access to family planning services
that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby
reducing the need for abortion.