the following opinions are based on the limited learnings of a political moderate (i am neither republican nor fully democrat--though registered as such. also, i sometimes listen to country western music. you might say i am a little bit country, a little bit rock'n'roll. discuss.)
here goes:
i hear a lot of people are pretty worried because obama didn't vote for a ban on late-term abortions. i can see how that would be really upsetting, if that's all you've heard. while i fiercely support letting people be captains of their own destiny, i am not strictly "pro-choice" on the subject of abortion in the US. i'll explain why later. and so i listened to the fervor around me and looked carefully at this man, barack obama, and asked myself: is this seemingly reasonable person with two kids indeed a sadist and a butcher (not my words)?
looking into the matter further i was a little surprised by his position on abortion. i find him comfortably moderate--and i am duly appreciative of his counsel to other democrats: that they should consider abortion not only a physical and legal decision, but a moral one as well.
as for his not voting against the abortion bill, as always there is more to the issue than you can glean through rumor and speculation (otherwise known as "the facts" that many of us use to form our opinions--though probably none of you do that).
here is what i respect about obama's record and position on abortion: he would keep the vote in the jurisdiction of the states. why do i like that? because above all other hot election topics, this is the one i care about most dearly: there must be a limit on how much the federal government can and should legislate people's morality for them (taking choice away just doesn't jive with my LDS theology). not to mention that changing the constitution is a very serious matter.
in the case of abortion, there are the rights of the unborn to consider--their choices. in my state, given the opportunity, i would vote to save the lives of late-term babies--yes, even when they are born to mothers who don't want them (a pretty grim reality, isn't it? do you see why we need social welfare progams and s.e.x. e.d.u.c.a.t.i.o.n?). as obama says, "those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral." unlike gay marriage, abortion has an impact on the physical rights of others. i just can't get around that.
more of obama's position: "On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that."
here's a good old lesson i learned in high school, and again in college... with every vote on every bill, it's not enough to see whether a candidate voted "Yes" or "No" because bills are so often packaged with both good and unacceptable, counterproductive provisions. i, like obama, want to keep the debate in the states, where the process can account for the votes of more of the people, not just the few representatives we may or may not have voted to send to congress.
oh, how i hate to reveal my own ignorance, as i may have done here unwittingly. i invite all of you who might have one up on me in the knowledge department to learn me something. if you want a crack at changing my mind, here's your chance.
p.s. sarah palin holds an even more conservative stance on abortion than the LDS church. she opposes it even in cases of rape and incest. her words, which are muy difficult for me to understand: "I'd oppose even if my own daughter were raped."
p.p.s. some facts: since 2003, partial-birth abortion has been illegal, except to save the life of the mother (no provision exists when the mother's health is at stake). before the statute was passed, partial-birth abortion (late-term abortion occurs during the 2nd trimester) accounted for less than 0.17% of abortions. i have read the definition of p-b abortion and it's pretty horrible. i'm glad the senate agrees.
i know what you're all thinking...WILL NOVEMBER NEVER COME??
19 comments:
personally, i enjoy your political blog posts. nothing like a healthy discussion to keep us on our toes. i just want to say "ditto" to your comment "taking choice away just doesn't jive with my LDS theology". yep, "ditto".
even though you don't really consider me part of the family (see below picture) i still think you are my smartest sister and i hope you keep sharing your political view.
you are so smart. s-m-r-t.
(only funny if you watch the simpsons...j,b?)
Hilarious, Lauren. And did you read on the other post that Jacks thinks you're fat?
And Krista, well played. This is good stuff. Much more effective and thoughtful than my obtuse and mean-spirited chicanery.
I'm more pro-choice than you are I think (I guess I just love women more), but I agree that it should be as local a legislative decision as possible. (Preferably localized to the individual.)
SC, great post. I agree with the not legislating women's choices on abortion. I think it's a sad and terrible choice but women need to be allowed to make it. Letting individual states legislate makes sense.
Of course, said women should also have better access to prenatal care and birth control as well as other options but that's a different topic.
Sorry -that last RD comment was MissKitti. I keep forgetting to change the id
RD and MissKitti, I would love to hear more. I am just so impressionable, you have no idea. I have been waiting for a pro-choice argument to hit the spot but haven't yet...if anyone could give me all the fact i need, you two could.
It just comes down, for me, to two factors.
1) No-one knows when life begins.
2) A woman should have as much control over her body as a man does.
(Number 2 I got directly from Mom when we were talking about Clinton in her office at MHCC.)
Many wrongly assume that most pro-choice advocates want all-abortions-all-the-time (just as many wrongly assume that pro-life proponents are rabidly misogynist).
I want to do everything possible to reduce the number of abortions without arbitrarily restricting individual choice. I think our society would see fewer abortions (and less violence of any kind) if we could really adopt a "culture of life."
This would require changes in nearly every aspect of our still very nationalistic, systematically racist and sexist, consumer-driven society. It would require a reevaluation of both liberal and conservative politics, and would manifest itself not only in a drop in abortions but in more ethical foreign and domestic policymaking.
Also, sis, I'm not sure if I was the brother who you cite as claiming that Roe v. Wade came about under Clinton's watch.
Just so we're all clear, Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court in 1973, under Richard Nixon. (Tricky Dick and Slick Willy have similar nicknames, but not quite that similar!)
I just mentioned that the number of abortions declined during President Clinton's tenure — not that he was in any way involved in the already decades old SC decision.
my bad - i'll take that out.
has anyone noticed how my posts change subtly over time? revise, revise, revise.
I have heard what I consider a smart opinion from a man I respect. If I understand him correctly, he would take a more pro-life stance if our society was more active in providing for the care of mother and baby. If women in marginalized positions (where most abortions occur) where to be confident that they would be able to provide a reasonably decent life for their child, they would be less inclined towards abortion.
gee, bri, thanks for the compliment and the respect.
:-) psyche. I don't know who you're referring to.
But that's pretty much exactly how I feel, too. Whoever told you that is smart and should be respected.
Well said, everyone.
Richard, I'm pretty sure it was Fred who told Brian that.....well if he didn't, he WOULD have if he didn't work where he works and constantly fear for his job. (I exaggerate about the fear, but you know, it's sort of true.) But he IS really smart and should be respected. And those are his very views on abortion. :>
Good post, Sherry. Good point about the yes/no votes without accompanying explanations, too.
With you Halversons (and spouses)all posting so articulately, all I have to do is say Yay, yay or nay, nay.
excellent posts from your fam. in my experience working with pregnant and parenting teens, there is a lot of mis-education and lack of education in many areas of our society. many of those who don't have the information they need regarding important issues (i.e. birth control) end up getting abortions and sometimes multiple abortions over time. A lot of the girls I worked with suffered a lot abuse too and many issues stem from this, in addition to family patterns. I could go on, and on, but i won't because this is your blog, not mine.
maybe i should start a blog....
anyway, keep on sharing those opinions. i love it! discussion is good and helps us learn from others. always a good thing!
yes, jessica, you SHOULD start a blog. or at least start talking to me a lot more about all you know from your experiences in the social work arena. you're so sharp and you seem to have found a really brilliant way to get along will ALL kinds of people. i'd like for that to rub off on me.
we seem to have followed this thread to a general discussion of abortion, but i'd still like to hear some perspectives on partial-birth or late-term abortion, which was the impetus for this post.
SC, I don't know very much about partial-birth or late-term abortions. The idea is horrifying to me but like I said -I don't know nearly enough.
I wonder if it also comes down to access to birth control, family planning alternatives and the spread of correct information. I imagine health care availability is another factor.
would it be fair to say, based on what i'm hearing, that most people (on both sides of the debate) agree that we want to reduce unnecessary abortion and provide the most good for the most people?
last night bim and i were discussing a concept that was new to me: the "essentially contested" idea. if i understand correctly, this would be idea that all people agree has no one "right" answer--or, at least, none that can be proven by squabbling, imperfect mortals.
there may be a favored outcome (i.e. protect babies and women) that opposing parties agree on, but they disagree on the best method for reaching that outcome. it seems like fiscal policies might often land in this gray area. which tax pan would REALLY have the best far-reaching effects? or, which abortion stance would protect the most people?
i have to admit, the pro-choice arguments that have been made here in the comments sound good to me. if i am still holding out, it is because i haven't resolved a way to be consistent with my general desire to protect the physical rights of all. i still have questions that are uncomfortably ideological, rather than practical.
namely:
(1) if i truly hold that all people (the many and the few; the vocal and the voiceless; the mother and the child) have rights that should be legally protected, then can i legally allow a mother to make the decision alone? but of course, how can i deny her that decision? i don't factor in the whole "life begins at..." argument because we just don't know.
see how i am still struggling?
(2) do more women choose to abort disabled children (down's syndrome, etc) because it's legal--women who aren't inclined to break the law and probably wouldn't subject themselves to dangerous abortion procedures? if so, is it really better for a child NOT to live than to live a life of disability?
i can't help feeling like it shouldn't be ME making this decision for anyone.
wouldn't that make me pro-choice? but BLAST, who if not me will protect the rights i think the baby is entitled to?
my own baby is crying in her crib, so i need to cut this off (if not short).
help.
Krista-
I am struggling with the same questions. Namely, if we can't prove when a baby is entitled to rights should we be able to deny it those rights?
I liked your comment about the "essentially Contested" idea.
Post a Comment