Slippery Slopes Among Us
I'm still recovering from last night's New Year's Eve events while watching football and emptying out my fridge to a) make up for the fact that I didn't eat much yesterday and b) work off the micro-hangover that 1/10th of a beer has due to the effect of a)
So go figure that I hit a few blog hits this afternoon that get the hampster wheel upstairs churning. Apparently this much red meat gets me over the hunger headache, at least ....
The Left Coaster: The Slippery Slope of Abortion - It's actually quite impressive that one can devote so many words to a point while getting so much of a point wrong. Our author in this case is Marie, by whom we get some of the following gems:
The central failure of the post is that there exists a binary choice of either allowing abortion on demand or living with the consequences of a plethora of unwanted children who grow up to be basketcases like those of Communist-controlled Czechoslovakia as Marie points out.
Yet, it never ceases to amaze me that one cannot consider a supply-side solution here (the irony that would exist if Dems were the ones to make this point would be off the charts, I maintain). Creating a culture of life means focusing on the sources of unwanted pregnancy rather than just accepting things as they are and dealing with it at the free clinic. The difficult choice here is that this means putting more measurable consequences on choosing an abortion. Find the right balance there and suddenly, those "concsious acts" that lead to more and more unwanted pregnancies decrease.
Will Dems Abandon Choice? - Meanwhile Texas' own Stephen Bates imposes a litmus test that the DNC chair must be pro-choice. Somewhat missing in the context of the comments on the post are that Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader is pro-life. But I'm told that the term "culture of life" is an insult to old school liberals. So I'm a little wiser for my troubles.
Reading stuff like this, I can't help but ask myself "What was Bob Strauss' view on abortion when he was party chair?" I mean ... do I care? Well, I don't ... but others do. Go figure.
Regarding some of the other points engaged in, I think it's foolish to suggest that we ignore the vast numbers of voters in either party who are cross-pressured on issues enumerated in party platforms to merely sit in the back of the proverbial room while the noisiest of the noisemakers make their ideological hay and simply cast our vote and shut up. Screw that. I'm not the extremist here:
Some 68 percent of Republicans agreed with the statement that abortion "destroys a human life and is manslaughter" while 43 percent of Democrats in the U.S. also agreed.--- Zogby
... and if others cannot see the difference between right wing ideologues and pro-life Dems, then I'm not the one with the problem. Simple as that. I mean, how red and how blue does one think that map gets if we effectively run off nearly half of the remaining Democratic party?
Comments
RE: Creating a culture of life - how about you start on this task by making sure that all children receive adequate nutrition, clean water, are properly clothed, housed and educated. While you're at it, find a way to prevent innocent children from getting in the way of US bombs. When you have completed this component of creating a culture of life then maybe we can talk about what's in the tummies of women.
...plethora of unwanted children who grow up to be basketcases like those of Communist-controlled Czechoslovakia... Nothing in my piece claimed that there was a "plethora of unwanted children" nor was any claim made that they grow up to be "basketcases." They were just less happy, well adjusted, productive and successful. It's not an easy birthright to know one was "unwanted" and it is something many in this country seek therapy for. And therapy can help.
Posted by: Marie | January 1, 2005 05:27 PM
Rest assured that I am a diehard Democrat for few more reasons than my desire to see "children receive adequate nutrition, clean water, are properly clothed, housed and educated." When you accept that one can hold that view while also being pro-life on the issue of abortion, we'll discuss the need to occassionally fight for expansion of liberties abroad as well as how to start reducing the number of abortions that even many pro-choice types say they're really against.
Posted by: Greg Wythe | January 1, 2005 05:53 PM
Marie --
I did not read what you wrote that Greg is referencing. I will see if I can't make time to read it. Obviously, it must be of interest, since it generated this exchange. I certainly agree with your first sentence. The late Hubert Humphrey once said that the success of a political party can be measured by what it does for those in the dawn of life, those in the twilight of life and those in the shadows of life. I am paraphrasing here. I think that this is true, although I think that we can discuss how to fulfill this moral imperative. I also think that the Happy Warrior, a childhood hero of mine, should have added something about defending the nation's security interests, furthering the cause of democracy, and seeking to foster human rights. In this regard, FDR's Four Freedoms are superior to Humphrey's elequent philosophical edict.
Abortion is a morally murky area, or so it would seem to me, even though I have been pro-Choice my entire adult life. Perhaps we can all agree on that. I believe that the Democratic Party should have room for both the pro-Choice and anti-Abortion philosophies. As I implied above, I agree with you 100% that neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party can claim to be pro-Life if it ignores unwanted children once they are born or ignores children in poverty. Conservative Republicans fail that test. Liberal, centrist and Conservative Democrats cannot afford to fail it.
Regarding your statement touching upon national security, this is most assuredly another morally murky area. That is doubtless why Just War theorists have been arguing for centuries as to what constitutes a Just War and what is entailed in the moral conduct of war. Perhaps we can all agree on this. Surely, you are not taking a pacifist line. Yes, I agree that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic blunder and was immoral because there was no just or rational "causus belli." Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and company ceratinly did not think through the military or geopolitical ramifications, engage in adequate planning, consult our most knowledgeable flag rank officers, apply traditional U.S. doctrine, or devise a realistic exit strategy. However, should we not have reacted with military force after 9/11 in going after Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda? In WWII, should we have allowed Hitler and Tojo to overrun the world? What about Stalin and Mao in the Cold War? They were mass murderers, were they not? Did they not need to be contained? What about the Civil War? Was that not a just war? War, as Sherman said, is Hell. People, including children and other innocents, die. What that tells us is that when we go to war we must have a sound moral justification and must obey the laws of warfare. Even so, we will never make war anti-septic.
Posted by: Scoop Jackson Demcrat | January 2, 2005 09:11 PM