You know why you're getting so badly tripped up at the moment? Because you broke your promise, to try to unite Republicans and Democrats, right and left, on a few meaningful issues we can all agree on. You sold us on your uniqueness with your 2004 speech about there being no red states, no blue states, only American states. You said in your book, "Audacity of Hope," that you think most people agree on most things. You mentioned in lots of your stump speeches this creature called "Obamicans." You derided dividers, you promised to eliminate many enemies by communicating with them.
Now you're trying to outscore the Republicans by promising "fierce" counterattacks. Now your base is shaking its collective head and wondering how the other half of the country can be so stupid as to be fooled by Sarah Palin. Now you're caught between the high road and the low road.
You need a timeout. You need to reread your own book, remember the ideas that gave you that audacity in the first place. You need a big speech, before it's too late, if it isn't already.
Maybe you were foolish in the first place to believe you could sufficiently unite the American electorate. Maybe we were foolish to listen to your audacity.
But I'm pretty sure you need to do something dramatic, something now and something unprecedented to turn this thing around.
How, and what? That's why we donate to you the big bucks.
You should send this via his Web site.
I disagree. Obama has been absolutely SLAMMED on a number of the political news programs for NOT attacking more aggressively, “because that’s how politics works in this country”. And all the news is screaming about is how much “damage” has been done to Obama’s campaing because he HASN’T attacked in return.
I don’t think there is a win for him in this situation. If Obama goes after the Republicans the way they go after everyone who doesn’t agree with them, he gets posts like this one.
Conversely, if he sticks with his message, and the issues, and ignores the attacks, and barbs, and misleading statements levelled against him, the large proportion of the public who are too apathetic or lazy to actually read enough sources to REALLY understand what’s true and what isn’t (here’s a way to do that – bookmark this site which is non-partisan and confirms the accuracy of claims made on BOTH SIDES: http://www.factcheck.org/) believe whatever the last sound-byte says and react accordingly – hence the recent poll results.
Obama has actually been pretty consistent about focusing on the issues and on what he will do for the American people as President. However, everyone is entitled to defend themselves against attack. And everyone has a limit.
Here’s a link to the new, supposedly “nasty” ad by Obama: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/still_ad/
Go watch and then please explain to me how this is an “attack” ad? Are the statements made in it false? Because if not, I don’t see anything wrong with this ad. I think these are legitimat statements to make about a candidate who has suddenly cast himself as the candidate of “change” Come on! Seriously?
Kristen, all points well taken. I’m not blaming Obama for all this unfair and mean-spirited and completely cynical criticism he’s getting from the right. (Yes, that’s right; Barack Obama meant to call Sarah Palin a pig. Yeah, that’s Obama all over ….)
I mean to say he’s not filling the void with the compelling efforts to communicate with the “right”–with good people like my father, who wouldn’t listen for a moment to Sean Hannity, and who really is worried about Obama’s inexperience but might very well be swayed by an impassioned appeal, or series of appeals, to common sense and mutual decency.
Obama knows how to make these appeals, and he’s good at it. But he has simply ceased to do it, perhaps listening too much to Dems who’d have him attack and to pundits who have declared that we’re having another “culture war.”
I agree that Obama’s in a tough situation at the moment. But he got himself here, and he’s got to do something besides waiting for Sarah Palin to implode to get himself out.
David – I am still confused. What exactly is Obama supposed to do? I have just finished reading the entire text of a variety of speeches he’s given posted on CNN’s website here:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html
…and from what I see, Obama has been remarkably consistent, specific and straight-forward about what he will do on a number of key issues if he’s elected. Isn’t that the point of a Presidential election? Aren’t those the very questions voters want answered in order to select the candidate they believe will run the country in a way they feel represents their interests?
From my perspective (and I freely admit that living on the other side of your border, my perspective is probably a little different) Obama isn’t “waiting for Sarah Palin to implode” (although that embarassing interview with Gibson was a good start if you ask me!)
Instead, he’s continuing to do exactly what he’s said he would since this started – telling ALL the American voters precisely what he’ll do about the war, healthcare, taxes, the economy, etc. if he’s elected, and I have to presume that your esteemed Dad has an interest in most, if not all of these issues. So how could Obama possibly make any better choice than to continue to detail his plans for the running of your country?
There are going to be lots of people who just don’t agree with the policies Obama advocates, and they aren’t likely to vote for him no matter WHAT he says or does, and that’s okay because THAT is how the electoral process works. I do think his current strategy COULD convince people who are undecided if he continues to be specific and consistent with his policies.
It seems that you believe there’s a magic bullet, but I’m not sure what it would be. Or have I misunderstood you?
Kristen, apparently we have reverted to our reptilian brain parts, and it’s all about appealing to the emotions and connecting on that reptilian level. Being straightforward, honest, open, etc., is too “intellectual” and doesn’t cut it. Sad, but true.
Dear DS: I don’t think anyone who watches the news would argue with your last comment, but it does kind of bring us full circle, because David’s original post was taking Obama to task for what (I believe) David saw as him behaving in such a manner as to appeal to the “reptilian brain parts.”
Personally, I am optimistic (dumb?) enough to believe that there are sufficient numbers of Americans who either agree with the positions Obama is presenting, or are simply just so tired of the “same old, same old” political system that they will give him a shot to put his money where his mouth is.
There certainly seem to be a larger number of young people participating in this election than the past two, and also more of other groups of voters who have felt disenfranchised by the current structure, and they could easily be the deciding votes because as we all know elections are often decided by a ridiculously small number of votes.
I’m also hopeful (naive?) enough to believe that continually and consistently repeating your position and your message to the audience you hope to convince is not only an effective approach (hell, it worked for George W. for eight years!) but, in Obama’s case, an honourable one.
I guess we’ll find out in November whether I’ve been optimistic and hopeful, or just dumb and naive.
Obama is indeed caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. On the one hand, there’s a desire to not have him stoop to the level of his adversaries, and the other you’ve got Arianna Huffinton in todays’ Huff Post calling for Obama to “release his righteous rage.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/enough-why-obama-should-r_b_125519.html
In the meantime up here in Canada we’ve just started our next federal election campaign, which will last all of a month. We have our own version of attack ads. Incumbent Prime Minister Stephen Harper just publicly apologized for his party’s decision to run an online campaign ad that depicted his adversary getting pooped on by a Puffin.
Pooped on by a puffin? Well at least they had alliteration on their side.
Kristen, I’m not disagreeing with you, and I’m really not taking Obama to task (partly because: if you take a man to task in the woods and he doesn’t hear you, did you take him to task?).
I’m fine with him attacking back, I’m fine with him repeating his message over and over again.
But I think he has a truly dramatic speech in him, a speech in which he pauses, and asks everyone to pause, to deliver a speech like he did on race, all those months ago.
In that speech, he reflects on the tenor of the campaign so far. He discusses criticism that he thinks is legitimate, including concerns about his own experience, questions rural folks have about his associations with former counterculture figures like Bill Ayers, and genuine worries that he’s some weird “community organizer” dude. A lot of people wonder: WHAT’S THAT, a COMMIE?
And then he owns up to a few mistakes he’s made during the campaign, a few things the campaign has done wrong, a few things he wishes he’d done differently, a few things he should have said and didn’t.
And then launches into what he thinks WE ALL KNOW is illegitimate. Stupid “pig lipstick” stuff, lapel pin shit (what non-patriot runs for president of the United States, for chrissakes!).
And then he speaks about what he believes we all have in common–a belief in basic decency, justice, manners, hard work and family–and declares his genuine belief (and I believe this IS his genuine belief) that his platform celebrates and advances those items better than does his opponent’s.
Thank you, and God bless America–and every single person in it.
I believe Obama could carry this off with sincerity; I believe he MUST pull off something like this. And actually–here’s where MY hope comes in–I think he just might.
Geez David! That was pretty heady, inspirational stuff – Any chance YOU’D like to run for President?
I think there’s a lot of truth in this.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080912_a_campaign_without_ideas/
Except the campaign without ideas has managed to distract the campaign with them.
Yes, Dian; and what Obama can’t do is indulge in the sense of righteousness he gets from reading articles like that Robinson piece. That’s what Kerry did–tried to let Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich defend his honor. Guess what, folks. Nobody whose mind might be moved reads Dowd, Rich and Robinson. You need to talk to people directly.
Is it not possible that Obama’s lead has disappeared because Palin successfully articulated the clear division between the missions of the two parties? McCain is not good at articulation–David, I know that would knock him out of your esteem even if nothing else did–but he LIVES the party platform. Obama lives his. This election is about Republicans vs. Democrats as much as it’s about McCain vs. Obama.
Obama, following his platform, has been consistent in describing the dozens of taxes he will raise (which has been proven to HURT rather than help the economy). He’s made it clear that he will be aggressive about taking even more money from some Americans and giving it to others, but not so aggressive about spreading liberty and justice throughout the world or within the U.S.
And, oh, yes, Obama and Biden, true to the party line, believe that every child’s right to live is controlled solely by its mother. Michelle Obama could have said, “Nope, don’t think so,” and those two sweet little girls would have gone down the disposal. Biden says he personally believes that human life begins at conception but doesn’t want to force his opinion on those who feel differently. Does that mean he’s ambivalent about how minorities and women are treated in this country? Or–wait a minute!–does it mean that he doesn’t think tax hikes and wealth distribution and an even more vast array of federal programs should be forced upon us, either? What a chickenshit. Say what you want about Sarah Palin, she’d never give such a chickenshit answer to a question.
The gay marriage stance of the Republican platform is, I believe, its Achilles heel. It’s mired in legal issues because a marriage in any state must be valid in any other state, and not all states are ready to accept gay marriages. The Repulicans, I believe, understand that gay marriage must eventually be made legal, but they’re refusing to FORCE states into acceptance.
Abortion is the Democrats’ Achilles heel, but they handle it in their peculiarly Democrat way by creating law from the bench and mandating that all states allow a child to be killed at any point before it would be born naturally. Democrats INSIST on forcing this narrow and unnatural point of view on the rest of the nation.
That, at heart, is the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
The abortion issue is not peripheral–it epitomizes the Democrat way, which comes down to their way or the highway. Maybe people are just figuring that out. Americans want to help poor people, but not at the cost of a general loss of liberty and justice for themselves. The Republicans say, “Let’s help the poor get richer by making the pie even bigger–beefing up the economy and creating jobs and wealth. Let’s do this instead of arbitrarily taking money from some people and giving it to other people and hiring thousands of bureaucrats to oversee the thing for generation upon generation.”
Maybe Obama’s sudden trouble is not because he’s been inconsistent, but because he’s been so very, very consistent and true to his party.
Jane, you think Democrats are heavy handed in forcing states to make abortion legal, Democrats think you’re heavy handed in wanting to take choice away.
Old loggerheads.
If I were Obama, I’d be reaching out and saying to Republicans, “I realize abortion is not an ancillary issue. I also realize we will not agree on it. But we do agree on this economic principle, this healthcare idea and this foreigh policy position. How many Republicans have you voted for on abortion who haven’t delivered an overturn of Roe v. Wade? I don’t think John McCain is going to deliver it either. Maybe for these four years you want to try another way.”
Jane – I’m going to start by saying I like you and respect your right to your opinion.
But, I don’t agree with a single thing you say in your comment (I doubt that will surprise you).
“He’s made it clear that he will be aggressive about taking even more money from some Americans and giving it to others”
Obama wants to take more money from RICH people and give it to people who can’t pay their mortgages, get healthcare for their children, or figure out how to drive their cars. And this situation is largely a result of policies and decisions made over the past 8 years by the current Republican administration. If you recall Clinton (for all his faults) left office with the US in an enormous surplus situation. It took Bush virtally no time to squander that and what do you have to show for it?
“Obama, following his platform, has been consistent in describing the dozens of taxes he will raise (which has been proven to HURT rather than help the economy).”
Proven by WHO Jane? I’d like to look at this proof, please let me know where I can look it up, becaus that isn’t the opinion that I’ve seen from financial people.
“The abortion issue is not peripheral–it epitomizes the Democrat way, which comes down to their way or the highway”
And the Republican’s approach to this issue ISN’T “their way or the highway”?? Come on Jane! If your party has their way, and manages to make abortion illegal, what will you do? Throw pregnant women who don’t want to take the pregnancy to term in jail and tie them to beds until they deliver? Yes, that is CERTAINLY “liberty and justice for all”.
Until all the people who are so against abortion all start signing up to be foster parents, or increasing funding for assistance for single mothers who’ve been left by the fathers of their children, or increases in funding for daycare so those mothers can work to support their children, you need to accept that this position is short-sighted, disingenous and hypocritical.
The pro-life people are REALLY only “pro-birth” because most of them don’t care what’s likely to happen to all these babies you want to FORCE women to have after they’re born.
And finally, “Maybe Obama’s sudden trouble is not because he’s been inconsistent, but because he’s been so very, very consistent and true to his party.”
What would you expect? That the Democratic nominee for President start spouting Republican policies? I realize I’m Canadian, but as I understand it, the Presidential elections in the USA are about citizens choosing between two parties which have been quite clearly offering two different approaches to governing your country for most of it’s history.
I think it’s interesting that the same party who eviscerated John Kerry for “flip-flopping” is now slamming Obama for consistently and specifically explaining his, and his party’s vision for the country.
The Republicans might try actually stating – and I mean specifically – what they plan to do to get the economy going, and to give the millions of Americans who don’t have health care access to it just for starters. I haven’t heard much in the way of specifics from the Republicans, but maybe they’ve been too busy arranging photo-ops for Sarah Palin.
And don’t even get me started on her! Do you REALLY want someone who doesn’t seem to even know specifice about her OWN party’s doctrines a heartbeat away from the big chair? Yikes!
Kristen: to take your last point first, what “Republican doctrine” (huh?) doesn’t Sarah Palin know? You’re not referring to Charlie Gibson’s transparent “gotcha” question about the so-called “Bush Doctrine,” are you? She couldn’t answer because he’s an idiot; there IS no such thing as one “Bush Doctrine.” If you don’t believe me, go here and read Krauthammer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html
We “want to take choice away,” David? Finish the sentence. We want to make it illegal to skill Scout, who was every bit as much Scout one minute before she was born as she was one minute after she was born. A minuscule percentage of all abortions concern the result of a rape, or a ddeathly sick baby, or truly threaten the life of the mother. Most of the millions of dead babies belonged to women who simply found them inconvenient. How can a party that brags about its compassion and inclusiveness live with supporting all this killing of the innocent? Yes, we should all do more adopting and fostering, but it does’t change the concept. And Kristen, “liberty and justice for all” includes the most helpless among us, too: people with mental and pnysical disabilities, old people, and little children.
For the efficacy of tax cuts, see what the Heritage Foundation has to say: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/EM801.cfm
Jane – It is shockingly disrespectful, and, frankly wrong of you to presume to know the thoughts, feelings and reasons behind the decisions of “most” of the women who have had abortions.
Many, many women agonize over a decision like this, and I see you haven’t responded to my comments about all the OTHER things facing the babies you are so concerned to have born, but then don’t apparently care all that much what happens next.
Are you prepared to support the policies that would ensure these children have the support and help they need AFTER they are born? Because if you aren’t then this is a hollow position.
And the Heritage Foundation is conservative partisan organization, so I’m sorry but I’m not about to take their opinions of what’s good for the majority of the American people as gospel. If you care point me to a non-partisan opinion that supports your contention I will be happy to look at it.
Kristen: Wow. You’re REALLY angry. Is it because I have my facts wrong or because you don’t like my facts?
I know why most abortions are performed because there are decades of research on the subject. Your turn now. Show me some research that says my information is wrong.
Show me research that says higher taxes and government redistribution of wealth make a country stronger. Just because the Heritage Foundation has conservative leanings doesn’t mean they lie. You should know better than to imply that. Let’s stick to facts–pick a research organization you like and show me where my facts are wrong.
Of COURSE I’m in favor of taking care of children whose parents don’t want them. We adopted a special needs child. We tithe to our church, which gives generously to community charities; we donate to caregiving organizations; and we wouldn’t even mind paying more taxes for this particular need. (Although if abortions weren’t so easy to get, women would try harder not to get pregnant.) Lots of people we know–of all faiths and incomes and political leanings–do the same. So is mine a “hollow proposition”?
I find it hard to believe that you’re really saying, in effect, “We should kill them so they don’t have a sad life”–but that’s what it sounds like. My life is sometimes hard but I don’t think it would be better if I were dead….
I believe you’ve written elsewhere that you’re an atheist (correct me if I’m wrong), so we don’t have a belief in the sanctity of life in common. But I also know that you have young nephews or nieces that you love. Do you REALLY believe that it would have been okay for their mother to kill them? Or that it would have been okay for Cristie to kill little Scout, whom you apparently met and found delightful? Because that’s what you’re saying when you insist that the biological mother has the right to complete control over whether her baby lives or dies. Choice, yes–but a choice to WHAT? People who are pro-abortion never finish the sentence because it’s too awful to say.
Jane – I’m angry because I respect you and it disturbs me to hear you presume to know the thoughts, feelings and situations of millions of women. You DON’T know what these women went through. I don’t know what “research” you are referring to, but there isn’t a “reason registry” of every abortion ever performed as far as I know.
I know some women who had abortions, and I can tell you that it WAS a painful and agonizing decision for all of them. Do I know the mind of EVERY woman who’s had an abortion – No, of course not. But I know you don’t either.
And you may be in favour of taking care of the children who aren’t wanted, but your gorvernment, Federal, State or local – isn’t! The fact is that there are millions of children in the foster system because their parents either couldn’t, or wouldn’t take care of them and nobody is all that concerned about it, if the issues being discussed in your current election are to be the metric. Where are the pro-life people then? I don’t see them marching to demand to adopt these children, or that these unwanted children be cared for with some dignity. If everyone who says they are pro-life signed up to be a foster parent, we could probably place every child currently in the system today in a home. How about the pro-life organization puts its money where its mouth is and gets its members to help the children in need who are already born?
Just by the way, I am not an atheist. In fact I do believe in God, just not in organized religions, because I have seen too many ugly hateful positions and actions come out of all three of the current major ones. (Please, I don’t want to debate you on religion! I know that religion does good things too, I just can’t accept the wicked things they ALL do and have done in God’s name by participating in their structures.) Bottom line is that I consider life as sacred as you do. But I’m looking at the whole life not just the birth.
And for the record, I would LOVE for there to be less abortions. I just happen to believe that the way to get there is different than you do. I believe we will have less abortions when:
– we stop making sex something “bad”,
– we allow younger people who ARE going to have sex to learn about sex education, and use birth control if they need to, rather than kidding ourselves that “choose abstinence” is going to work when hormones in most teens are raging at the speed of light,
-we create a society where all women can earn a decent living, and get the support they need to care for the children they have, and where Fathers are forced to take financial AND raising responsibility for the children they create too – not JUST the Moms.
Jane I understand that you and I won’t agree on this issue and that’s okay.
But your contention that “if abortion was illegal women would try harder not to get pregnant” is simply not true. And the time before it was legal and the number of illegal abortions bears that out.
My answer to your final question is this:
“Choice to live in a society where we all TRULY care about children and have them when they are WANTED and can be cared for – their entire lives and genuine well-being, and not just a “live birth then you’re on you’re own.””
Because the reality is today, that is how it works, and the millions of kids, who are neglected, or abused, or in foster care bears that out.
Kristen: The world you envision is beautiful. The life you want for all children is commendable. But the fact that these worlds don’t exist doesn’t justify killing more than 1.2 million U.S. babies every year for reasons that have nothing to do with rape, incest, the mother’s health, or the baby’s deformity.
(You’re being disingenuous when you ask if I know “the mind of every woman who’s had an abortion.” Of course I don’t. But I do read the research, and there’s decades worth of it, enough to tell us in great detail why most women have abortions. They may agonize over the decision, but in the end, 98 percent of them have used the abortion as if it were just another method of birth control.)
Liberal Democrats are ignoring the huge pink elephant in the middle of the room. And everything they say about abortion is at odds with what they say about other issues. Democrats are for “choice”? Only when it involves killing an unborn child. They are NOT for “choice” on any other issue.
* Democrats are historially NOT for “choice” when it comes to school vouchers allowing parents to decide where their kids go to school.
* Democrats are NOT for “choice” when it comes to smoking in public (which kills a lot fewer than 1.2 million people per year).
* Democrats are NOT for “choice” in the health care system of their dreams; it would be government-run, one-size-fits-all, for the simple reason that anything government-run HAS to be one-size-fits-all or it’s impossible to administrate.
In fact, come to think of it, Democrats are NOT even for “choice” when it comes to abortion. Not really. Liberal Democrats stand firm against any attempt to give the pregnant girl or woman information that might dissuade her from having an abortion, on the grounds that it might “influence” her. (But it’s okay for the abortion clinic to hand her their own influential pro-abortion literature.) This violates the principle of informed consent; liberals are afraid that if the woman is informed, she might not consent. “Choice”? Give me a break.
Here’s the thing, Kristen: the need for SOME sort of health care reform is one place where I think a vigorous bipartisan conversation would produce some good results–but I’d be a lot more likely to listen to Democrats if they didn’t talk out of the side of their mouth all the time. If they’re for choice, they should BE for choice–and they really aren’t. For them to claim to be the party of compassion and inclusion, the party of “choice,” and then engineer the killing of 1.2 million little girls and boys every year at any gestational point is a big fat lie that taints every good idea they might have. Democrats with a conscience know it.
We could go around about this forever with you listing your “facts” and me listing my “facts”. I won’t change your opinion and you won’t change mine.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
I don’t feel like fighthing the culture war here on my little communication blog.
Jane, you are not one of the conservatives that I’m urging Obama to try to communicate with.
Jane, I appreciate your rhetorical intensity here, but I will delete any further comments that refer to killing my daughter.
I am very pleased Jane answered as she did. She gives us great opportunity to see the vitriol, narrow-mindedness, bombast, and sheer selfishness that is today’s Republican party.
Those of you who were considering voting Republican in this year’s election, please read every word Jane wrote in this post. This is what you’re getting when you vote the McCain-Palin ticket.
Amy – if you knew Jane at all, you’d know that she is not vitriolic, narrow-minded, or bombastic, and she is the least selfish person I know. If you paint all people that hold conservative views with such a wide brush, you are probably missing out on some great friendships with people that could possibly give you a more complete world view.
We can all learn something when we participate in civil discourse with people that have differing opinions from our own.
As for today’s political parties, I can tell you with full confidence that today’s Democrat party bears little resemblance to the one my grandmother belonged to and that I admired.
Ah yes, NJ, and neither does today’s Republican party bear any resemblance to the party Barry Goldwater passionately represented.
For a party that is supposed to abhor big government, the current Republican officeholders have increased the size of government far more and far more rapidly than LBJ’s Great Society.
And the one lone dissenter against earmarks (Rep. Jeff Flake of Ariz.) was stripped of his committee chairmanship by his Republican peers as punishment because of his personal campaign againtst earmarks. When that occurred, none of his Arizona Republican brethren in either the House or the Senate supported or defended him. That included the Sr. Senator from his state – who now, as Presidential candidate McCain, has become a vocal oppenent of earmarks and special interests. Talk about flip-flopping.
When it comes to politics and political parties, I feel like Alice Through the Looking Glass.
David, when we talk about abortion, when we talk about “choice,” what are we talking about but our children? Yeah, it’s sick, isn’t it? It made me horribly sick to write it. Why doesn’t it make you sick enough to see the truth?
Amy: I’m “vitriolic, narrow-minded, and bombastic” for finishing the sentence “pro-choicers” start but never finish?
Kristen: You never listed any facts.
Everyone: What have I said that is not true? If you disagree, show me where my logic is wrong. If you’re truly “pro-choice,” why would finishing the sentence–that it should be a woman’s choice TO KILL HER CHILD–upset you? I honestly don’t get it.
Good point Colleen! I completely agree that the GOP has lost its way on the limited government front. I have that Alice feeling too. I’d sure like to feel better about the choices we’ve been given but it is what it is.
On the pro-choice/pro-life argument, some of you might find Camille Paglia’s latest column at Salon.com interesting.
Jane Greer, i’m not sure who the hell you think you are, but putting mother’s and children’s names on an internet blog when trying to argue against reproductive rights is petty and offensive.
come spend a day with me defending the rights of women trying to access healthcare; come talk to the women and see how they are treated by the old white religious freaks standing on the corner. until you do this, you have NO IDEA what these women’s lives are about.
here’s a fact for you: 70% of all women having abortions identify themselves as either protestant or catholic. i bet you didn’t find that in your research.
We’re seeing character attacks within the comments of this post that mirror David’s original point related to the presidential campaign. No one here, however, is running for elected office, and so I hope that we can calm down and share our opinions and “facts” without packaging them in sarcasm or vitriol.
My wife and I suffered the pain of a miscarriage early in our marriage. The pregnancy ended about two months after it had begun–well within the timeframe of when a legal abortion could be conducted.
I didn’t shrug off the miscarriage or downplay its significance. I couldn’t. I sobbed over the loss of a child that I wouldn’t get the chance to know.
No one can convincingly argue for or against the issue of whether that living, yet unborn, entity within a mother’s womb is a “human life” as everyone would define that term. To my wife and me, this was a baby, and it had died.
So my view regarding abortion is similar to Jane’s, in that I would like to see far fewer unborns lose their chance to live.
For Democrats, it might be important to understand that this issue alone is galvanizing sections of the non-Democratic voting population.
Certainly, the next president may have the opportunity to appoint a new Supreme Court justice, potentially tipping the scale to one side or the other in the abortion debate.
One last point: early Christians distinguished themeselves from other people at the time by proactively rescuing babies that had been left out to die. No one could save every baby then, and no one could save every non-aborted baby today. But that doesn’t mean that people aren’t trying.
Here are some historical “facts” about Christians that relate to this topic:
(link: http://chi.gospelcom.net/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps155.shtml)
The Epistle to Diognetes, c. AD 130
“They marry, as do all others; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring.”
From the Apology of Tertullian, AD 197
“On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. These gifts are . . . not spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines or banished to the islands or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God’s Church, they become the nurslings of their confession.”
And, finally, the observations of a prominent present day researcher.
“. . . Christianity served as a revitalization movement that arose in response to the misery, chaos, fear, and brutality of life in the urban Greco-Roman world. . . . Christianity revitalized life in Greco-Roman cities by providing new norms and new kinds of social relationships able to cope with many urgent problems. To cities filled with the homeless and impoverished, Christianity offered charity as well as hope. To cities filled with newcomers and strangers, Christianity offered an immediate basis for attachment. To cities filled with orphans and widows, Christianity provided a new and expanded sense of family. To cities torn by violent ethnic strife, Christianity offered a new basis for social solidarity. And to cities faced with epidemics, fire, and earthquakes, Christianity offered effective nursing services. . . . For what they brought was not simply an urban movement, but a new culture capable of making life in Greco-Roman cities more tolerable.” Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity, Princeton University Press, 1996, page 161.
“For Democrats, it might be important to understand that this issue alone is galvanizing sections of the non-Democratic voting population.”
Tom, if I ever run into a Democrat who is not aware of the above, I will establish Chicago’s first Hospital for the Hopelessly Ignorant, and I’ll bring him to the emergency room.
“Tom, if I ever run into a Democrat who is not aware of the above, I will establish Chicago’s first Hospital for the Hopelessly Ignorant, and I’ll bring him to the emergency room.”
Some of them will be the descendents of residents of Pompei, who stood watching smoldering Mount Vesuvius and said to one another, “I think it’s not going to blow up on us.”