Sunday, January 15, 2006


'Religious Tolerance'

This is a way cool site, added to my Blogroll.

Religious Tolerance.

In the spirit of the vigorous but usully respectful debate for which the Erudite Redneck Roadhouse is known, here's the article I found while looking for various Christian perspectives and positions on abortion.

Abortion: Current beliefs by various religious and secular groups.

Here's another one: Abortion, Ancient Christian Beliefs.

Alito is going to be on SCOTUS. Roe vs. Wade is doomed. The topic will burn on the airwaves, in blogland, in the newspapers, at the water cooler and in the soul of the body politick like nothing has since slavery.

When Roe vs. Wade goes down, anti-abortion people will chase abortion into every state in the Union in an effort to stamp it out utterly.

This will be THE topic, barring a nuclear blast on this continent, for the rest of the lives of everyone reading this today.

Wherever you stand, it's time to bone up on why you're standing there and who, exactly, is standing with you.

It's NOT Christian versus non-Christian, despite what the religious groups making the most noise nowadays want everyone to believe.


Polls and state legislative compositions suggest (to me) abortion rights are secure in much of Blue America, absent Federal interference, although there may be tweaks in the areas like parental or spousal notification. As with Katrina, the burden of the change will fall on the poor and less organized.

One advantage to this debate is that both sides are equally passioante and committed - unless (like me) you're wishing a plague on both their houses, you don't have "passionate intensity" of the worst and "lacking all conviction" on the better.

The firestorm is important: most Americans fall between the "on demand, at any point" and "only if the mother's life is in danger" extremes. Time to let the political process take its course.

And maybe we'll see in 20 years if Freakonomics was right about the inverse realtionship betwen the abortion and crime rates.
Both Roe vs Wade and Oral Contraception had a serious impact on demographics in the U.S. when they were implemented. To drop Roe as law of the land will have the referse effect. Basically the Red States which will most probably pass anti-abortion statutes will gain in population of children. That will create a demand for more schools, health care, etc.pushing the States farther towards the poverty level. Crime rates will go up as young people grow into their teen years.
More police and more jails will be needed.
As the population grows older at one end and much younger at the other end in these states, it will create even more economic pressure on the 20 to 60 year old workers to provide for both.
And it is probable that a 50 year old today may live to be well over a hundred or more as genetic medicine makes advances. Indeed so will the children havwe a lower death rate as many childhood diseases are even further eradicated. Under these pressure Red State lawmakers begin to recind their anti- abortion laws.

Then comes the unexpected, fetal warehousing. Medicine finds a way of aborting the fetus at any level of development and then arresting its further developement until we want to start it up again. This changes family planning and timing of having children. This eleminates the biological clock problem for women.
This changes the whole concept of adoption, and many other cultural activities. What do you do with the "unwanted" fetuses? Just keep them till they are wanted.
Thus spake drlobojo.
Does anyone remember Gerri Santoro? (Scroll down.)

That's what we have to look forward to. That and more kids born in poverty, more young women's education and career prospects compromised, more abandoned babies, and probably more domestic abuse.

But hey, more white babies for adoption.
B, the saddest and most maddening thing about that link isn't the sickening photo. It's all those words. I read them. I doubt many others, if they are "on God's side," will take the trouble.

Damn ignorance! Damn the purposefully ignorant, especially.
As a wise editor told a would-be (and now successful) writer, neither of whom was me: "Less breastbeating. More analysis." I don't think duelling photo campaigns do much for the issue.
It is estimated that 43% of all women in America of child bearing age and older have had at least one abortion. That is a hell of a chunk of voters. There is no way back from Roe. The pendalum may swing that way for a while but it won't swing far enough. Any political party that tries to go back too far will cease to exist. Ever heard of the Wigs?
It's pretty well known I am against the Prenatal Holocaust........But I'm not an absolutist.

Minors, and rape/incest victims along with women who's physical health is at risk should be allowed to have an abortion.........I know many of my Conservative brothers don't like my take, but it is what it is.

In other words, I want a return to the original Feminist mantra on abortions: "Safe, Legal and Rare".........Rare means the situations I listed above.

45,000,000 abortions in 30 years is anything but rare........It is birth control for those who choose not to control themselves otherwise.
All that aside, I think those worried about Alito flipping Roe v. Wade are wrong.

Abortion will ultimately be decided by the people, not the courts.......Even though the courts took the matter from the people with Roe.

A Constitutional Amendment is the only thing that will put an end to abortion on demand.......An amendment which allows for the stipulations listed above.
This strikes me as being another one where people will vote one way and act another. Red-state women in particular.
Hell, if the poll numbers I've seen (which are often known to be untrue, remember) are true, most Republican women have no serious desire to see Roe V. Wade overturned, despite the hyper-emotional bleatings of their menfolk (see above comment).
It might just be-again-that the women are living in the real world, and the men are just trying to make political hay, in the cruelest and most short sighted of ways.
Pity it's always been so profitable for people to exploit religious bigotry toward the removal of the rights of women. First it was property rights, now this.
45 million? In 30 years? Then wouldn't the number of people not born as a result be closer to 150 million or more, considering childbirth rates among the poor and disaffected?

OK. So, in the 30 years after Roe is overturned, what do we do with an extra 150 million people? (Adjust however you see fit to account for states where abortion remains legal; if any, who thinks Congress, especially of Repubs gain in '06, won't try to ban it nationwide?). Probably not that many. Drlobojo touched on it, with the impact on social services.

I think the greatest and most tragic irony of all for conservatives will be this:

If they get what they ask for, they will get lots of other things they haven't thought about -- and the result will be great increases in the welfare state, the burden on government and society in general. They better start signing up to adopt babies now.

That's another similarity to slavery (comparison made for the complete upheaval abolition caused):

The slaves are freed? OK. Do they go back to Africa or stay here? But the ones here now were born here, not in Africa, by and large. Does that matter? Does the North want them? Not really. So what to do with them? Do they get taught to read? Who does that? Who pays for it? What about the lost equity when this property interest is erased by the law? What about unpaid mortgages on slaves? Do the notes still have to be paid? Does the lender have any recourse? And on and on.

The point being: Abolish legal, safe abortion and lots of other problems arise, and I don't think the people making the most noise about this have given much thought to it.

TStock: The pic was shocking, but as part of a serious essay it wasn't over the top.
Actually, my understanding of the current court, even assuming Alito's confirmation, is that there still aren't enough votes to overturn Roe, based upon the votes on Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. You still have Souter, Kennedy, and Stevens having voted to uphold Roe, and Ginsburg and Breyer on that side as well. So I don't think the battle lines have quite been drawn yet.
Holy weiners dipped in batter! Corndog! What a sight for sore eyes. Nice to see ya, dude.
ER: I'm sorry; I believe my point stands. Dr. Bitch's instructions on the article were "Scroll down," presumably to the picture. Even those people who might advocate the text are more interested in waving the pictures. This applies to the pro-life side as well.

Late thought: the wrestling match over the division of the fruits of the American economy as the hump of the 70 million baby boomers move into retirement (social security and Medicare, but also pensions and accumulated real estate equity, exacerbated by the boomers' low rate of savings) will cause greater social cleavage than abortion, along clear generational and class lines, and federalism cannot soften this as it could the possible end of Roe vs. Wade. Even before Clinton's team said it, it was the economy, and social security benefits were the third rail of American politics. When we move away from preparing for this by actually exacerbating the problem (by adding, for example, a non-means-tested presciption drug benefit), we guarantee the change wil be wrenching.

Although all those extra babies might tweak the demographics some, albeit a decade or more late.
I picked that site on purpose--there are others with the picture available.

I don't think the Roberts court will overturn Roe v. Wade directly. I do think, however, that they'll allow so many regulations and limitations that it'll amount to the same thing in much, if not most, of the country. Hell, already there are states where there is only one place to get an abortion. Or only a couple of days a week when they're available. Already women who find out, late in the pregnancy, that their fetus is dead or that they have a major health emergency, also find out that there is no one in their state who can perform a late-term abortion. A lot of those women end up travelling to Wichita, if they can afford it. Others have to go through the trauma and danger of induced labor only to deliver a dead or non-viable fetus.

It's sickening. And that's why the "abortion is a holocaust, but it's okay if you're raped or your health is threatened" argument is such a problem. I'm FINE with people who want it to be "safe, legal and rare." The problem is, none of us can know what someone else's situation is. *Every* woman who has an abortion sees that choice as exceptional, as necessary under her circumstances. If they're too common, that's because the circumstances that lead women to have them (poverty, lack of information about birth control, birth control failures) are too common. Work on those.
I hate to see the talk of murdering the unborn somehow relate to the economy, but the results of this murder does relate.

There has been talk about the crime and poverty rates being higher if this murder had not been taking place unhindered like it has for the last 30 years.

Well, how about the reason we have an unfunded liability of the needs of our older generation? Don't you think that if more people had been given the opportunity to have been born the last 30 years that there would be more people working to take care of the older generations? Don't say that there wouldn't be work, there would be work because the for the last 30 years people have been working longer and they wouldn't have had to work so long if there had been someone to take their place. The gov. wouldn't have had to move the retirement age up to make up for lack of funding.

Wouldn't it have been great to retire at 62 instead of 70 and enjoy 8 more years of grandchildren and traveling while being in better health? See there is a price to pay when we disregard the value of life.

Besides if it does fall back on states rights, then the red states will be more populated than the blue in a few years and this divide will not be so close.....maybe thats why the blue states are fighting this after all, they see their immoral influence on our country coming to an end.
Howdy, Kris.

The point of this post, orginally, was to point out that even among Christians, abortion is not as simple as a question of whether or not the law allows "murder."

I know you believe it is, and I am not arguing the point. You should so everything in your power to stop it.

Myself, I think if I really, honestly believed down deep that 45 million -- or however many -- babies had been "murdered" in this country, why, I'd either be a longtime protestor or I'd be living in another country by now.

To anyone who really, honestly down deep believes it IS murder, I say: Shame on 'em for NOT protesting, daily.

If it were widely regarded as such, Roe vs. Wade wouldn't exist and this long debate never would have started.

I do encourage you to check out the links in my original post -- and I encourage everyone to do so who hasn't -- to see what various Christian groups have to say about, to see how spiritually-philosophical-medical the question is, and to see how Christian attitudes toward abortion have fluctuated over the centuries.
Howdy back brother okie,

Buy come on ER, I really do think it is murder, but to listen to your logic of protesting everyday is actually weaker than what true logic should demand. Which is killing the doctors who are murdering babies.
Which you know yourself as a Christian we are not called to do.
I have read those articles and my belief all along has always been; its murder and it should never be performed for the simple fact of ending a babies life, even if its incest or rape that cause the conception.

I know that seems or is radical to some or most, but if we believe God is the creator of all life then how do end any human life before that life has had a chance to make a choice itself to live or die. Life is a gift, even the life conceived by the devastating results of rape or incest. In the few times this has or will occur our God has let this life begin, we have no right to extinguish it.

Although like one of the commentators above said. I believe 99 point something percent have abortions because it is more convenient than to give up self-centeredness for the sake of a life.
And I do believe the men involved are just as responsible and even more than the women who have this to deal with.

Anyway we NEED RAIN! and lots of it.
Well, I would agree that murder is not the answer to murder, despite the eye-for-an-eye stuff some people try to drag out.

And I agree on one point: Anyone who is against abortion needs to be against abortion in all instances, period, or their argument falls apart.

Rain! Are there any Comanches or Kiows left who do rain dances??? George "Woogie" Watchataker, a Comanche medicine man, did one in Wichita Falls, Texas, in the early '70s -- and it rained!
"I believe 99 point something percent have abortions because it is more convenient...."

Now ain't that a male conumdrum. Men walk away from their unwanted children. Woman can't. Men say well it isn't mine. A woman can't. How many senerios can be constructed that would make a woman desperate enough to have an abortion. Single-minimum wage job-too many other children-nobody to stand by her or help her-not her husbands-can't keep her job if she has it-daddy will kill her if he finds out-her whole family will disown her- on and on and on.
A Convenient Act....?
Sounds like just a casual trip to 7-11.
Emmylou Harris has a song on her album Red Dirt Girl entitled My Baby Needs A Shepherd...a hart wrenching ballad about that forfited child..listen to it and see if you can think that it was a "convience".
Abortion has gotten so easy these days it's disgusting. I've been in abortion clinics and most of those women are not "poor and underpriviledged." Most of the ones I saw were just women who couldn't be bothered with their "woops." Pregnant by their boyfriends mostly. Abortion ends a life. That's it. Period. However, that said. I doubt Roe vs Wade is in any danger. The Pro-Choice people will get scared that their "birth control" method will go away and they'll scream. Hey, if anyone is worried about a population explosion (if abortion goes away)--let's just make Euthanasia for old/sick peole legal. That should counteract the extra babies being born. (sarcasm, okay?) Go, Kris!
Which one does not belong in this list?

1. Abortion
2. War
3. Colateral damage
4. Capital Punishment
5. Homicide
6. Friendly Fire
7. Suicide
8. Euthanasia
9. Infanticide
Each ends lives. That's it. Period.
Are we branching out? I thought this particular entry was about pro-life/pro-choice and Roe vs Wade not how-many-ways-people-can-kill-each-other? Every human being on this planet is here for a reason--even if they haven't been born yet. My father was a baby when the "Babbs Switch Fire" (look it up on the internet all you non-okies)happened. The only reason his family did not die in the fire (it was Christmas and they were all going) was because he was sick. His family survived to have families of their own. When unborn babies are killed, we will never know their potential. Each one of you out there in cyberland has contributed something. Maybe you prevented some kid from being bullied in high school. Maybe some kind word or action on your part lifted someone at just the right time. So how would the world have been changed if you had never been born? Every baby born or unborn has amazing potential and they should be allowed to live. Think of it this way: What problems has abortion solved? Has it solved the teen pregnancy problem? Not hardly. Has it solved any problems for the "poor and underpriviledged? Nope. The women who panic cause they got pregnant by their boyfriends? Nope. They'll do it again. Anyway, Isn't it nice that we all have a place to go when we feel passionate about something? Thanks E.R.
You're always welcome here Amber. :-)

And, while comment threads here go all over the map, here's what this one started out to be about:

"The point of this post, orginally, was to point out that even among Christians, abortion is not as simple as a question of whether or not the law allows 'murder.' "
Said Amberclear:
"Are we branching out? I thought this particular entry was about pro-life/pro-choice and Roe vs Wade not how-many-ways-people-can-kill-each-other?"

Not really branching out just making a point.
If pro-life ment pro-life, then a pro-lifer would be against all of the things on the list in that they all indeed do take a life after conception. A few pro-lifers, mostly Seventh Day Adventist would agree with that. But the vast majority of pro-lifers would consider that there would be a vast array of difference between some of the listed items. Yet all take human life.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?