Abortion

A catholic friend of mine who is struggling to choose a presidential candidate sent me this video.

This is my response:

A heart wrenching procedure? Yes. A political agenda? Goes without saying. Had good intentions? Probably, but...

Video uses false and misleading imagery. The nurse speaking says the baby she held was 22 weeks old (5.5 months). The baby shown left in a dark room is rather large for 22 weeks and has hair on its head. That's insulting and misleading to the viewers. (I won't even touch on the musical score.)

I also question their facts. Obama DID vote against prohibiting (voted for allowing) this procedure, but it is NOT true that every other senator voted to prohibit it. My research (from here AND here) shows that the vote mostly went down party lines. It is patently untrue that Clinton and Kennedy voted to prohibit this procedure.

Ok, so none of these things excuse the fact that Obama DID in fact vote to allow this procedure to continue to take place (source). If all who read this are one issue voters and that issue is abortion, then I have wasted my time. You should vote for McCain/Palin. Though, even McCain disagrees with unequivocally banning abortion (source) specifically in the case of a rape. Though when asked when he believes life begins he said "at conception" direct quote, in context (context). A tenuous position to hold while supporting even limited instances of abortion, but I digress.

Obama has stated sensibly that no one is pro abortion and that he would work to lower the number of abortions that take place in this country. Ask yourself realistically, not idealistically, what affects you think a McCain/Palin (emphasis on Palin here) Presidency would have on the number of unwanted pregnancies in America each year? Palin has been a staunch supporter of abstinence only education and in July of 2006 said that she opposes explicit sex-education programs. (source). What the "explicit" means in that statement, one can only guess. A cynic like me would suspect it is a political-modifier so that she can reinterpret what she meant when it is politically convenient.

In case it wasn't obvious I support Obama. He's not perfect. In a perfect world all those seeking higher office would be burned as an alternative and renewable energy source and nice, unassuming, smart, people would be plucked from their homes by un-corruptable robots and then forced to run the world whether they liked it or not. Wow, even my perfect world is imperfect. Where was I?

I'm supporting Obama because Obama gets it (mostly) right on the environment. He has the balls to oppose offshore drilling and strongly supports renewable energy investments. McCain opposed offshore drilling, but now that gas is such a strong topic he supports it. Palin is even more pro-drilling than McCain is. Also she has remarked that global warming might not be due to human activity.

Both tickets promise to clean up wall street, hard to judge them there, but I did watch back to back speeches (first obama, then palin, then mccain) on CSPAN last night and this is what I heard. I heard Obama talk about the issues. Yes, he mislead and attacked McCain by repeating the fact (out of context) that McCain thinks the fundamentals of the economy are strong, but he also talked a lot about what he would do to clean up wall street, improve education, and improve health care. It's true he didn't say a lot about how he would do it, but he focused his speech on the point that he would do it.

What did the Palin/McCain speeches focus on? The personal qualities that make their ticket likable, the personal qualities that make Obama unlikable, and they spent a lot of time simply working the crowd. They talked about how great small towns like Vienna, Ohio are. They empathized with small business owners (Palin claims her husband is one such). Palin gushed over her young son. They mislead when they said "Obama will raise your taxes." Sure he will, if you make more than $250 grand every year.

So ask yourself this, do you want a presidential ticket that knows how to stir up a room, one that emphasizes style over substance? Or do you want one that talks about the issues? Obama knows how to stir up a crowd. We Dems have been chewing our nails and asking why he hasn't given a speech recently like those he gave in the primary campaign. But we are asking this because we hear in the news that McCain/Palin's antics are turning voters to their side, not because we want a candidate who makes decisions based solely on how many votes the decisions will earn him/her.

When you can't fully trust either candidate, then ask yourself which one damn's himself most in your eyes with his own words. I submit that the most self-damning is McCain/Palin.

-Neal

---

Hi Neal,
thanks for the long reply. It's pretty amazing how you got all those links so quick. I definitely didn't expect an email debate but I think there is something that needs to be said.

I take your points about the video, but that wasn't really what I wanted people to notice. Yes, the baby at the end is the wrong age and the music is bad and maybe all major Democrats support this kind of issue, but for me the point is that Obama and lots of other people who support him see a HUGE legal difference in terms of the right to life between a baby of 22 weeks when born alive and capable of being saved, and a full-term baby.

I don't. I don't think any sane, morally upright person can. If you think about it that way, the substitution of a full grown baby for an immature one as in the video should make absolutely no difference at all.

I don't consider myself a one issue voter at all, let me be clear. I think Obama does have the right angle on lots of the other issues you mentioned. I would very much like to vote for him and I think there are a lot of good, respectable reasons for doing so. That being said, he did vote for what is basically legalized homicide and then lied about it publicly when asked (see for example, here). He even called those who rightly accused him of it liars in return, without absolutely no qualms or apologies to date. Nobody is publicizing this but I think they should (the whole lipstick on a pig scandal was just dumb).

It's true that I have never seen a major politician on either side of the debate who I think is completely morally respectable, which is something I guess I need to get used to. However I'm having a real hard time stomaching this issue. I think human life is serious enough not to dismiss as being not important enough given the other election issues. I thought Obama was sincere when he was talking about finding common ground on the ways to reduce abortions until I heard about this. That's the most radical pro-abortion voting that I've ever seen or heard of. Joe Biden, for his part, may say life begins at conception but is a moral wuss in the sense that he doesn't do anything about protecting it. In fact by his own admission he is a "strong" supporter of abortion (source). He's had a 100% NARAL rating (sort of a test for how much you vote pro-choice) for 3 of the last 4 years. I'm not saying the McCain campaign is totally superior, and I have gotten bad vibes about what their administration might be like, especially in terms of the war, but at least they don't support something this vile, at least as far as I know.

I didn't want the people I emailed to change their vote right off the bat either way. I just wanted a little more thought devoted to what I think is an under-valued issue. I am trying to vote in the most moral way that I can and since there is no candidate that I fully support, I'm trying to choose the guy who is the lesser of two evils. In light of this news, I don't think it's so obvious that Obama is the answer, or that he is really all about the change we need.

Anyway, just some food for thought. Hope all is well in NY,

Surekha

---

Surekha,
I know that you didn't make the video and you are swayed by its logic, not its manipulation, but I could not resist addressing the manipulative tactics and misinformation I saw. I do not wish to focus on those peripherals. Also, I did not mean to imply that you are a one-issue voter.

Personally I think you are right. I don't quite see how there is a "legal difference in terms of the right to life between a baby of 22 weeks when born alive and capable of being saved, and a full-term baby". And I really wouldn't care if abortion was banned. There's always adoption (though it's a mess of a system and receives shockingly little federal support).

I could defend Obama and other defenders of abortion and this procedure by saying they fear to give ground on even the most repugnant techniques because of the "slippery slope" argument that once ground is given they will have to keep giving it until none is left, but I don't care to and if one believes life begins at conception, it is a moot point.

I think we are starting from different places and therefore reaching different conclusions. My priorities are, in order: the environment, energy independence, the war, the economy, social issues. Though I see these all as inextricably intertwined.

I don't want to argue over which candidate will have the greatest impact on numbers of human lives saved, though I believe it can be done. For example: Ralph Nader has saved more human life than probably any candidate anywhere because of the integral role he played mandating seat belts in cars. Bush, for his part, started an unnecessary war that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis. In the long term I think we are all fucked if the environment isn't a priority (Al Gore?).

But really, my motive is to sway voters. Because I think these issues are important. I signed up to volunteer for Obama in New York.

I'm not uncaring when it comes to killed babies, but abortion, in my view, is an unimportant issue. Let me explain. One side ties it inextricably to issues of women's rights and progress and the other side focuses on the emotional impact of cute dead humans. I say, get over abortion. Ban it for all I care, but revamp the adoption system and fight poverty, really fight it, and support at risk teens, and teach them about safe sex. That will truly lower the abortion rate. Let's focus on what will help, let's focus on a cause, not a result. This is how I see abortion. The media hasn't focused on the story you cited, but many voters do focus on abortion and it certainly gets more ink than adoption because it's a "hot topic". It gets people fired up. It's gruesome. Adoption and sex education aren't "hot topics", but we should all know how the candidates stand on these issues. For they are, I believe, much more important in the long run.

-Neal

---

---

Hey Neal, thanks for your research and thoughts. Thought provoking.

I do agree with you, the picture used is probably a full term infant. Regardless of the picture used, it does NOT change Obama's position on the bill.

I work in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. They do look like infants with hair and all the features of a term infant. Many parents choose to fight long, hard battles for these kids. Why should two children, the same age, one be left to die and one be supported and helped to live every minute of the day for weeks and months?

I believe the link you gave us was for partial-birth abortion - I don't believe it's the same procedure. this link shows the bills (Under "I" for Infant; I can't figure out where to find the pertinent votes, help?).

How does Obama intend to decrease the amount of abortions? He doesn't say - it sure sounds like he's sincere, right? Perhaps an olive branch for pro-lifers? With his voting record, however, I'm skeptical.

Yes, Biden believes life begins at conception, but he does not believe in making law that is in line with his beliefs. While I think his belief is honorable, he says himself that it has no effect on his political decisions. Why should that belief entice me as a voter?

Speaking of, many who are called "one issue" voters prioritize issues differently than you would, that doesn't mean they t ignore other issues. These issues are all of equal significance to me: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and gay marriage. After those issues, I usually fall more in line with democratic thinking on social justice, the environment, and many other important issues. We all know, there is no perfect candidate. But I can't fight for social justice "for all" until the millions of babies who were terminated without there consent also qualify for these rights and benefits. I know that's a whole can of worms...

I also think a political answer is not always the way. For example, if no one wanted an abortion, then it wouldn't matter if it was legal or illegal. There are many grassroots organizations who give women safe houses to live in, free child care so they can go to school and/or work even after the child is born, and do all sorts of things that the government wouldn't do. If pro-choicers truly care about choice, then they should support other options for women - not just abortion.

Minor note regarding taxes. I know it's easy to take from the rich, but doesn't it strike you as odd that some people get taxed more than 40%?? and if you take state taxes (depending on what state you live in), could add up to about 64% under Obama. That just doesn't seem right. I guess I shouldn't care cause that's not my tax bracket, But I'd take extreme taxes with a pro-life platform any day.

Grace

PS Ted Kennedy was pro-life pre-1972. He gave some amazing speeches and written responses on the issues.

---

Grace
thank you for your thoughtful response. I thought I looked up the right procedure. Apparently not. Also, I did not look into Biden's stance in any detail.

When I use the term "one issue" voters, I use it to mean people who DO focus on one issue to the exclusion of all others. We all certainly have different priorities and in the end, this is what it comes down to. In my eyes, pro-life/choice is not a high priority issue. I would vote for a life or choice candidate without blinking an eye. It is the candidates stance on other issues that would get me fired up. I just hope that all voters approach their decision, regardless of priorities, with careful thought and due diligence.

I don't want to argue about fair/unfair and taxes. When I make more than $250 K I'll let you know if I think my taxes are unfair.
-Neal

---

---

I believe Education should be the top priority. Not just our school systems and all that is related, but education to understand the different cultures in our country and again not just ethnicity but also socio-economically.

I just attended a wonderful workshop by the author of Bridges Out of Poverty. It talks of many things but there is a large focus on the cultures of the poor, the middle class and the wealthy. It is very insightful. I highly recommend it.

We as middle class or wealthy Americans have to stop planning how the poor should function in our society. All groups need to come to the table to talk about the issues and strategize about what works best for different groups. We are not and never have been a cookie cutter society.

No one would argue that life is not precious but look at the bigger picture which to me are the lives wasted or adversely changed because of the Iraq war, the lives wasted or adversely changed in the gang infested neighborhoods, the lives wasted or adversely changed because of the affects of abuse, lack of good nutrition, pollution, the economy. I could go on. This is the United States and it is appalling that these conditions are allowed to exist in this country.

I rant so I will end and go run because it takes me to the zone where there are no problems....

Marian

---

---

NY Times Letters to the Editor. Re "Abortion Issue Again Dividing Catholic Votes"

---

---

Apologies to anyone who had trouble posting a response. Wall posts have a 400 character limit on my blog. (I raised it to 2000 characters. Hopefully that solves the problem.) The above were posted by me manually. If I have posted your comments in error or you wish for me to remove them, just let me know and I will do so.

Other tags this item is listed under include: issues, politics, smartamusement,