Layman said...
I find the Democratic devotion to "choice" above all other considerations in the abortion debate to be such a flawed worldview that yes, I find it difficult to ignore it and yank the lever for a politician whose world view is so fundamentally flawed that they cannot bring themselves to recognize that the most helpless and innocent of human life is entitled to legal protection.
The Democratic party is not full of politicians who think abortion destroys a human life but just think it an unwise policy choice to criminalize the practice. It is full of devotees to "choice" who want to discuss anything but the value of the human life that is destroyed by the practice. Their zeal is reflected in their intolerance. There are far more pro-choice Republicans than there are pro-life Democrats. God bless Governor Casey but he was the last of a breed.
Their lack of care for unborn human life is reflected in other policy positions. If Democrats had their way, the state would be paying for most if not all abortions and all insurers would be forced to cover it. They would have signed international treaties protecting abortion and providing the funding of abortion as part of international law.
And one reason abortion rights are going to be harder to overturn in the Judiciary is because of Clinton appointees like Ginsburg and Breyer There would be no restrictions on abortions if not for even marginal Republic nominees like O'Connor and Kennedy. No waiting periods, no counseling, no state promotion of alternatives.
Now just to be clear. Is this the only reason I vote Republican? Nope. I'm anti-Roe v. Wade because its horrible constitutional decision making. If I was an abortion lover afraid of children being "punished" with babies I would still think Roe was symptomatic of an out of control Judiciary that has forsaken its proper role in a constitutional democracy. I also like marriage as defined without activist courts and judges more open to the prominent role religion has played in public affairs.
I am not a single issue voter. But I haven't been placed in the position of having to choose between that issue and others. One thing I am confident of, however, is I would not be dismissive of people who do find themselves in such a quandary. Whether you mean to or not, you do not come across as someone who cares about the unborn human lives destroyed by abortions. You do come across someone embarrassed, and defensive, that so many of those who share your faith are so adamant on this issue.
In some ways you remind me of Christians who -- perhaps quite sincerely -- were morally opposed to slavery, but thought that it impractical to criminalize it. Better to encourage humane treatment of slaves, so the thinking went, who would could not take care of themselves if given freedom. Were one issue abolitionist voters to be derided?
Christians have opposed abortion and infanticide since the beginning of their religion. They did so despite a culture that insisted that opposition to these practices was itself bizarre and inhuman. I'm comfortable to stand in that tradition and to place great importance on it.
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/10/one-issue.html#c3883949646958564483
Here's an article Layman wrote about early Christian opposition to infanticide. And here's one I wrote about early Jewish and Christian opposition to abortion.
ReplyDeleteLayman mentioned marriage as another issue he's concerned about. For those not familiar with Obama's record on the subject:
"Michelle Obama, wife of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, on Thursday told the Democratic National Committee’s Gay and Lesbian Caucus that her husband wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and reverse the rule on homosexuals in the military. In her speech, she also compared homosexual advocacy groups with the civil rights movement, referring to events 'from Selma to Stonewall' as a progression of justice. Cybercast News Service reports that Michelle Obama began her speech by praising the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down anti-sodomy laws. Because of the decision, she said, 'same-sex couples would never again be persecuted through the use of criminal law.'...Michelle Obama said her husband supports 'a world where federal laws don't discriminate against same-sex relationships' and he advocates equal treatment for 'any relationship recognized under state law.' 'That is why he has said the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide for themselves how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples -- whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union or a civil marriage,' Obama said to the DNC’s Gay and Lesbian Caucus. A position paper on the Barack Obama campaign’s website says the candidate wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman and also states that a homosexual marriage in one state does not have to be recognized in another state. The repeal of the federal law could mean that the more than 40 states that have statutory or constitutional bans on same-sex marriage would be required to recognize a homosexual marriage license from another state as a legally binding contract. The Obama campaign’s position paper also states Obama’s desire to enact legislation that would ensure the '1,100-plus federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally recognized union.' Lynn Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young University, told Cybercast News Service it is likely this statement references the federal definition provision that, if so modified, would extend Social Security and other government benefits to same-sex couples. This, Wardle said, could effectively nationalize same-sex marriages....Sen. Obama’s opponent, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. He joined Obama in opposing a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, saying he believed states should decide on the matter. McCain supported a 2006 state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution in his home state of Arizona, but the amendment failed in the November election." (Catholic News Agency)