Young Adults Went for Obama 2 to 1
by Motte Brown on 11/14/2008 at 1:41 PM
Pew Research just released a report on the overwhelming support Obama received from the 18-29 year-old demographic in last week's election. Not that it affected the outcome much, since they represented only 18% of the electorate (1% more than 2004). But still, it does tell us something about the current political landscape in America.
I think this portion of Pew's study pretty much sums it up.
Young voters are more diverse racially and ethnically than older voters and more secular in their religious orientation. These characteristics, as well as the climate in which they have come of age politically, incline them not only toward Democratic Party affiliation but also toward greater support of activist government, greater opposition to the war in Iraq, less social conservatism, and a greater willingness to describe themselves as liberal politically.
The combination of "more secular" and "the climate in which they have come of age politically" tells us a great deal about the disparate support Obama received among the young voters. It's no coincidence that the last time there was a 2 to 1 margin favoring one candidate over another was during another tumultuous time in our nation's history, the end of the Vietnam War in 1972.
But as I noted in another post-election blog, it's not enough to just be the right candidate during difficult times. You have to go after voters in the right way, with the right message. And Obama did just that with Gen Y by leveraging new media technologies such as YouTube and campaigning on a theme of moving past red state, blue state divisions.
Young people like the idea of a post-partisan nation. Never mind that Obama was voted the most liberal member in the United States Senate.
There's a lot in the Pew report to worry political conservatives, particularly with how young people are willing to identify themselves as liberals and want an activist government. But if there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that four to eight years of liberal policies and more government will just as surely change the political landscape as war fatigue and a bad economy.
1. Adam said the following at 2:38 PM on Nov 14:
"But if there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that four to eight years of liberal policies and more government will just as surely change the political landscape as war fatigue and a bad economy."
While I believe that this is probably true, I'm not sure that we are in for even four years of liberal policies and bigger government. Government has grown way more in the past 8 years (maybe in spending just the past 8 weeks) than at any time in our nations history. This under a "conservative" administration.
I am certain that some liberal policies will come to be. If those that are liberal have any wisdom - they would not want to make very many changes unless it helps the majority of people. Like the conservatives, they want to be in power for as long as possible. Right now, liberals are consistently losing 5-4 on Supreme Court decisions. They would like to change that and it takes being in power for a long enough time to change it.
Politics seems to be on a pendulum. First is swings conservative, and then to liberal and back again. It has swung conservative the better part of the past 30 years, now it is swinging back.
2. Hayley said the following at 2:48 PM on Nov 14:
I was NOT one of the 18-29 year olds who supported Obama. I'm 21 and was really hoping for a different outcome to the election.
3. NeedACatchyName said the following at 3:16 PM on Nov 14:
A few points come to mind:
1) How is this different from previous elections? As the article noted, the 18-29 demographic almost always tends to be liberal, so is this any different than previous elections?
2) Obama ran a brilliant campaign utilizing all kinds of new media. Give credit where credit's due; I don't think any politician has ever done such a great job reaching the 18-29 demographic. The Republicans are going to have to be a lot more creative in getting their message out if they want to be competitive amongst this demographic in future elections.
3) The war in Iraq seems to be a hot topic amongst young adults, and the overwhelming majority seem to be opposed to it. That helps Obama a lot.
4) Few young adults were actually excited about McCain this election. Most of his "supporters" didn't vote for McCain because they liked him, they voted for McCain because he was perceived as the lesser of two evils. Most of my friends actually voted for McCain, but I only have one friend who was enthusiastic about McCain. The rest voted for him because he "kinda sorta" lined up with their political stances, and they hated the alternative (Obama) even more. But it's difficult to win a group when your "supporters" are only voting for you because of the absence of what they perceive to be more qualified candidates.
4. Jacob said the following at 3:20 PM on Nov 14:
I think young people also tend to be more emotionally driven when making decisions. It just plain feels good when someone promises a vague warm fuzzy like "change." Rather than face the fact that because we are sinful, fallen creatures who, if given the ability, will abuse power, we fall under utopian delusions that problems that have been around for decades and centuries (like poverty, economic uncertainty, war, etc) can be fixed by an inefficient government bureaucracy, so long as the "right person" gets elected.
5. Kerry said the following at 3:20 PM on Nov 14:
I think the biggest problem this election year for young evangelicals (not young people in general) was the poor choice of the Republican Party for their presidential and vice-presidential candidates. McCain was willing to pick a pro-choice presidential candidate (Lieberman) but only chose not to because of fear of party backlash. What if he chose to do that for the supreme court justices, but then he would not be worried about getting elected and would pick whoever he wanted? Moreover McCain did not want more legislation against abortion, he simply wanted to turn abortion decisions to the states. To me that is a pro-choice movement. The selection of Palin, who while socially conservative, her attitude and willingness to not attend to her children in a time of need (one disabled and the other an un-wed pregnant mom) made me question her morals. (I am a female who believes in traditional male/female roles...i.e. I read boundless)
I, along with others, considered both McCain and Obama as both pro-choice candidates, and voted for Obama because of the other policies he endoreses. Despite the opinion that "Obama is going to make more abortions happen" he is committed to reducing the number of abortions. If the Republicans picked a candidate that was truly pro-life I might have voted Republican again.
6. EconNicole said the following at 3:28 PM on Nov 14:
As a 23 yr old who was very much against Obama, but saw many friends support him, I can say that young people vote far too much with their heart and not their brain.
They hear good emotional things -- healthcare for all, fewer abortions (going back to earlier posts), first black president -- and think WOW. They don't really think through the implications and see that the first black president is a beautiful thing, but doesn't mean it has to be this one.
Someone (been attributed to MANY different people from Churchill to Disraeli) said that "If you aren't a liberal in your 20s you don't have a heart, and if you aren't a conservative in your forties you don't have a brain." Always made me smile. I don't think it was meant to be taken exactly as stated, just because you vote with your brain at 20 doesn't mean you don't have a heart, just means that you are actually rational with your heart.
That's my thought. It gives me hope that they will grow up and start voting with their brains.
7. Samantha said the following at 4:16 PM on Nov 14:
If nothing else, Obama's time in the White House will prove why the democrats shouldn't be in power.
8. nikki said the following at 6:13 PM on Nov 14:
To the commenter #1:
You said "I'm not sure that we are in for even four years of liberal policies and bigger government. Government has grown way more in the past 8 years (maybe in spending just the past 8 weeks) than at any time in our nations history. This under a "conservative" administration."
That doesn't seem to make sense to me. If a conservative president - who is supposed to be about less government and less spending - can justify a glut of expenses, how much MORE will the liberal president do so - who is already ideologically okay with using more of peoples' money? You can't say that a conservative president spent too much, therefore a liberal one won't. If anything, it's a dire foretelling of what the next administration will be like.
And to comment #3: I was one of those grudging voters. I didn't like McCain much, and Palin was alright (certainly the most interesting politician I've seen in a while) but the only reason I voted was to vote against Obama. Lame, I know, and I might have stayed home. But I'm so sick of politics and politicians...I'm quite convinced that the vast majority of them are are selfish and greedy, and I didn't see any exceptions to that rule in either party this election!
9. Jennifer said the following at 7:12 PM on Nov 14:
I think that in this election young people saw exactly what voters of all ages noticed...that compared to 8 years ago our country now has a bigger deficit, is knee-deep in a costly war that as it turns out was based on faulty information, has an economy that is heading down the tubes, has a host of wall street executives with little moral/ethical judgment (and even less oversight), and continues to struggle with health care and education compared with the standards of our economic peers in other countries.
To be clear, I am a conservative and pro-life supporter. However, I don't think that young people failed to "vote with their brains" as EconNicole suggests, or that they were being led by foolish folly (if this were the case, then why would so many older people also vote for Obama?). No, I think that it is probably fair to look at what has happened over the past 8 years and be dissatisfied...and perhaps feel uneasy about putting the repair work in the hands of the party that has governed over this period.
Perhaps, as Motte predicts, 4-8 years from now the country will grow equally unhappy with the Democrats. But I can't really blame anyone, young or old, for wanting to give another group a chance.
10. Chris said the following at 8:44 PM on Nov 14:
nikki writes:
You can't say that a conservative president spent too much, therefore a liberal one won't. If anything, it's a dire foretelling of what the next administration will be like.
Well, if a conservative president can go against small government and fiscal responsibility, why can't a liberal president reduce/control spending? You're begging the question by assuming that a conservative president not holding to conservative ideas implies a liberal president will hold to liberal ideas. That's faulty logic.
11. TMD said the following at 8:56 PM on Nov 14:
I didn't vote for either of the liberal and pathetic mainstream candidates. I went with Charles Baldwin...(of course, it helps that I'm almost out of the 18-29 demographic.) Of course Obama swept this demographic - he was a brilliant and deceptive liar for 20 months, McCain wasn't much different. And what else should we expect from a demographic, most of whom still live with their parents?
If this election doesn't scream for limiting voting eligibility, I don't know what will.
12. kelsey said the following at 9:25 PM on Nov 14:
(At earlier comments) As an 18 year old who voted for Obama, I truly detest it when other adults say that all youth who voted for Obama are mindless teenagers who prioritize style and charisma over the deeper issues.
I am simply not a conservative. For example, with regards to abortion, I am personally "pro-life." This means that should I ever become pregnant (not possible anytime soon) :), there is no way I would allow my child to be harmed. I value animal life greatly, how much more would I value my own kid! That being said, I would not like to live in a country where women were forced by the government to give birth should they become pregnant accidentally. This is an example of just one issue where my own values are clearly different than that of most conservatives. For those who think young liberals are mindless, please refrain from ad-hominem attacks just because we do not share your ideology. I do not call all McCain supporters delusional fundamentalist rednecks (although some are).
13. Jacob said the following at 9:18 AM on Nov 15:
Kelsey,
It is quite clear that our generation is much more emotionally driven. We have been socialized by images, not words, to a far greater extent than any other generation in recent history. This does not mean that we are completely irrational or that we do not think, but it does mean that we do not think as well or as often.
"I would not like to live in a country where women were forced by the government to give birth should they become pregnant accidentally."
And I would not like to live in a country where the government allows innocent people to be put to death on account of situations beyond the control of those persons. I understand that rape is traumatic and has severe long-term consequences, but killing someone who had no control over how they were conceived in no way makes the situation better, in only creates another victim.
14. David said the following at 2:11 PM on Nov 15:
Being from Canada where for years we have had liberal governments which have made it their goal to separate church and state and make us a godless nation, it saddens me how easily American young people were swayed by all the bells and whistles and the giant propaganda machine which was "Obamania"
You got caught up in the hype and stopped thinking for yourselves.
After years of liberal policies and an utter disregard for Christian morals and values, Canada is NOT a Christian nation and the fact that our national anthem includes "God keep our land, glorious and free" is a joke. Christians are routinely insulted and criticized for being narrow-minded and ignorant by government officials & the general population.
I pray Christian young people in America will still fight for what is true, pure & right before you lose your voice as we have in Canada.
15. Cara said the following at 3:12 PM on Nov 15:
From what I can tell, I seem to be one of many who voted for McCain because he was the "lesser of two evils." My sister (19) and I went to vote together and were bemoaning the lack of qualified and appealing candidates. To be very simplistic, Obama can talk but has very little experience, he's a "new face in an old crowd". McCain has quite a bit of experience behind him but is not very convincing. One thing that had a very big impact on who I voted for was that the next president will be replacing 2-3 supreme court justices. That's 1/4 to 1/3 of the whole court. And unfortunately many of the courts in this country have taken it upon themselves to become legislators too, not executives of the law.
As for being "more liberal." I consider myself in the middle somewhere, neither conservative nor liberal. I don't agree with "sending all the Mexicans back to Mexico", neither do I side with those who believe being gay is "genetic." So where does that leave me?
16. saidahwk said the following at 4:42 PM on Nov 15:
For the millionth time people; No one becomes pregnant "accidentally." That's like saying you ate lunch accidentally. No one except Mary ever had the excuse that pregnancy was an imposition on her. Some of us might not be pregnant willingly, but most of us got there on our own two feet.
17. twilighthunter111 said the following at 11:26 PM on Nov 15:
In response to Samantha's comment (#7)-
We do have a TWO party system, do we not? If anything, the last 8 years have proven why REPUBLICANS shouldn't be in power. Conservatism is now verging on the brink of demise, and George Bush's extreme spending policies and the economic collapse that occured under his adminstration did not help. At least Clinton balanced the budget!
18. Jeremy said the following at 6:38 AM on Nov 16:
"If a conservative president - who is supposed to be about less government and less spending - can justify a glut of expenses..."
"Well, if a conservative president can go against small government and fiscal responsibility..."
I think we need to face facts -- the Republican party is no longer economically conservative. The administrations with the highest federal government spending increases in the last 40 years were Bush (W) and Nixon. The lowest? Bill Clinton.
I agree that "four to eight years of liberal policies and more government" are bad for the country; I am just confused that some refuse to acknowledge that this is exactly what we have had for the last eight years and pretend that, despite their track record, Republicans are still the party of economic responsibility. Because they are not.
19. Alex C, said the following at 4:45 PM on Nov 16:
reply to post #11
TMD, I'm interested to know what kinds of voting restrictions you would suggest. And I wonder if you would be so quick to suggest those restrictions if this demographic you speak of had voted against Obama instead of for him. Are you implying something like "they voted for a democrat, therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all".
20. Kim said the following at 7:54 PM on Nov 16:
I don't think it's helpful that we continue to assume that people who voted the opposite way of us are automatically not thinking logically. I have friends who voted passionately for both candidate-because of their Christian beliefs. There was no candidate that completely lined up with the values laid out for us in scripture. Just for example-there was no candidate with a consistent ethic of life. The Republican party tends to be pro-life in abortion, but allows war and capital punishment to continue. The Democratic party lined itself up against the war, but allows abortion to continue. I think we need to acknowledge that thinking Christians could have voted for either candidate, and move on to the fact that now that a president has been selected, we need to live respectfully under their governing, as God has established the ruling bodies over us.
21. Mike said the following at 8:14 PM on Nov 16:
I forgot who said the following quote. "If you are young and not a liberal you have no heart but if you are old and not a conservative then you have no brain." From a fiscal perspective, I think this is quite true. Young people have the passion and heart to wage war on poverty. Whereas older people, after seeing how much taxes they have to pay for so little results are much more pragmatic when it comes to taxes and social causes.
As for conservatives going for the younger vote, they should have appealed to our greed this past election but that usually doesn't work since most young adults these days are still supported by their parents or have the reassurance of falling back on their parents at least. On a less cynical side, the liberals have a monopoly on helping the poor. Conservatives need to show that as well. Rarely do you hear about a Republican being a champion for the poor or disabled. Its always a democrat champion those kind of issues.
22. Kevin said the following at 6:53 AM on Nov 17:
Quoting from #6:
"I can say that young people vote far too much with their heart and not their brain."
You know, I would say the same thing, except change "young people" to 'Christians', and "vote" to 'reason.'
If more Christians actually read the Bible (I know, a foreign concept to some) with their brains rather than just their hearts, there would be more understanding of it and less disputes over morals and beliefs.
If you ask me, Christians actually do a lot less thinking with their brains than non-Christians do.
23. Loris said the following at 8:05 AM on Nov 17:
I am 24 and didn't vote for Obama, but for all our sakes, I hope he does well. I would like to see Sarah Palin run for president herself in a few years when her youngest children won't be as vulnerable.
24. Hannah C. said the following at 8:39 AM on Nov 17:
kelsey (#12):
If your view on abortion was presented anonymously, and I was asked to decide whether this person was pro-life or pro-choice, I would say they were pro-choice. Because they think that women should have the choice to abort their child if for any reason, within a certain time, they decide they do not want to give birth to that child. I think there are many who hold to this position who, like you, would not actually have an abortion - but the fact of wanting it to remain legal so that others have that choice makes one, well..pro-choice. So I guess it's a question of terms.
I would say the pro-life position holds that women should not have that choice - that once a life has been begun it should not be ended for the convenience of the mother, no matter how pressing that convenience may be.
-----
That being said..I'm a 19 year old who voted for McCain and disagrees with Obama's moral policies. I have NO doubt that some, perhaps many, of the young people who voted for Obama did not really know what or who they were voting for. I've no doubt there were older people who were the same way. And I also have no doubt that many of those who did vote for Obama did it based on some or perhaps all of his positions on issues (in other words, were knowledgeable voters). I personally have found it difficult as to where to draw the line concerning voting for a candidate who supports many things I think would be good, but whose positions on moral issues are diametrically opposed to mine. In this case, I decided I could not possibly in good conscience vote for a man who is so excessively pro-choice. Then I had to cope with trying to understand how other people who I know, who say they are Christians, some of whom I deeply respect, voted for Obama anyway.
I go to a college filled with conservative Catholics, and I am almost positive that nearly everyone here did NOT vote for Obama.
25. IMO said the following at 9:30 AM on Nov 17:
"pregnant accidentally."
One word: personal responsibility.
26. IMO said the following at 9:53 AM on Nov 17:
unless it is rape
27. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:07 AM on Nov 17:
#17 said,
If anything, the last 8 years have proven why REPUBLICANS shouldn't be in power. Conservatism is now verging on the brink of demise,
That's why we need a new PARTY already. Holy cow if true conservatives would just grow some balls and vote for a more conservative party instead of thinking "votes for third party count towards the other party" we might actually be in luck for actually KILLING one of the two Liberal parties...and actually having a legitimate choice at the polls =p
As for the last part of your statement, I really wish people would get it straight...the Economic collapse had its ground work laid in the clinton administration. It just took a long while of watered down loans, greedy investors, and careless (and greedy) buyers for it to come tumbling down around our ears.
28. Lisa said the following at 11:10 AM on Nov 17:
saidahwk (#16):
Mary's pregnancy wasn't accidental either. If you'll recall God gave her the choice and she chose to bear the Son of God despite personal consequences. "Let it be to me as you have said," she said.
My friend who was violently raped did not choose to become impregnated. But it happened. It was foced on her by a vial and disgusting individual who took away her freedom, her choice and her dignity.
We live in a fallen and broken world where everything is not black in white, rather, there are many many shades of gray.
29. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:53 PM on Nov 17:
Christina says:
That is absolutely correct, although I don't think that is Clinton's fault. (I have many axes to grind with the Clintons, but they get a pass on this one.)
The dot-com bubble popped in March 2000; that is when the stock market started tanking. That means the dot-com meltdown started nine months before Clinton left office.
In response to the meltdown, Fed Chairman Greenspan cut the Fed Funds Target Rate and the Discount Rate by a combined 1,000 basis points within calendar year 2001 alone. Only 100 of those basis points were in the aftermath of 9/11. This was an unprecedented expansion of the money supply.
He kept those rates down for 30 months, even cutting them further in 2002. He did not begin raising the targets until mid-2004. Even then, he started raising them in 25-basis point increments.
In other words, he was contracting the money supply much more slowly than he expanded it.
What does this mean? The Federal Reserve dumped an unprecedented amount of money into our financial system. That money was going to chase something. And it did, as we got:
(1) The real estate bubble
(2) The merger and acquisition Bubble
(3) Another stock market bubble
(4) The commodities bubble.
We have now run out of bubbles, and the Fed has cut rates all the way back to their mid-2004 levels. They are dumping money into the system, the Treasury is trying to get monetary velocity back up, but nothing is working.
To make a long story short: what we are experiencing now is the result of Federal Reserve actions taken in the wake of the dot-com meltdown of 2000-2001. Those actions resulted in an unprecedented inflation of the money supply, that has handed us FOUR different economic bubbles within a seven-year period.
Clinton didn't cause it.
Bush didn't cause it.
Even had Bush and Clinton done everything right, they could not have stopped this from happening. That is because the culprit is the Federal Reserve.
The dot-com bubble was the culmination of low interest rates and huge speculation in the midst of a technological paradigm shift.
The current mess is the result of Fed actions taken in the wake of the dot-com crash.
Until we hold the Federal Reserve accountable for this, we will not come close to resolving this crisis, let alone preventing future ones like it.
30. Jim H. said the following at 1:52 PM on Nov 17:
Regarding Kim #20, "The Republican party tends to be pro-life in abortion, but allows war and capital punishment to continue."
Comments
------------
I don't see the inconsistency implied by your statement. The Bible is pro-innocent human life, not universally pro life in every situation. For example, there are many offenses in the Bible which mandated capital punishment. Regarding war, there are examples of God commanding the Israelites to go to war which means that war is not universally unjustified, especially against monstrous dictators like Hitler. Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas developed the idea of justifiable war and this concept made its way into the Catholic Catechism in paragraph 2309 which listed 4 strict conditions for justifiable war:
1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Regarding abortion, Christians like me see unborn babies as innocent human life and abortion as tantamount to murder. There are many Bible verses that can be cited to support the idea of the preciousness of unborn babies to God, but to me the most compelling is Jeremiah 1:4-5 (NIV)
"The word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Many people seem to have bought into that false inconsistency regarding capital punishment, war, and abortion - that if you are anti abortion, you should not be pro capital punishment or pro-justifiable wars. That is demonstrably false.
Please also note that I am speaking in general terms and am not trying to defend the Iraq war (that is debatable), or the Republican party because I think they have lost their way and no longer adhere to the principles of small government and fiscal responsibility. But I just see so many people repeating this false inconsistency, and it really bothers me because most of them have not carefully thought it through or researched it.
31. BDB said the following at 2:09 PM on Nov 17:
Everytime I saw an Obama ad on facebook I realized that McCain was falling further behind...
The fiscal restraint cited under "Clinton" was actually imposed by Newt Gingrich and the House Republicans. Democratic President, Republican Congress = spending control. At least it used to.
I actually felt better about McCain the more I listened to him. I am fully persuaded that he would have appointed conservative justices to the S. Ct. His comment about it going back to the states is the standard Federalist response - back from before Roe v. Wade nationalized the issue. He's old enough to understand that perspective, it does not mean he is "pro-life."
I remain grateful that he chose to elevate a religious conservative to the VP slot. She has captured the imagination of a new generation. Perhaps she can persuade people why the pro-life position ought to be policy.
Hey, he has good genes. He may sill be in the Senate after Obama retires...
32. Jim H. said the following at 2:18 PM on Nov 17:
Kelsey #12
"For example, with regards to abortion, I am personally "pro-life....That being said, I would not like to live in a country where women were forced by the government to give birth should they become pregnant accidentally"
Comment
-----------
Government has a moral obligation to limit choices of people when they infringe upon life or well-being of another person. That is why we have laws against murder, which limits our personal choice to murder someone else.
If you accept the premise that life begins at conception, then the mother has no right to murder her unborn child, especially for whimsical reasons like "an accident." Maybe you don't accept the premise that life begins at conception? If you DO accept the premise that life begins at conception, then the only way you could be logically consistent is to ask the government to repeal laws against murder. That would be a true "pro-choice" society in an absolute sense.
33. Christina (in green) said the following at 2:25 PM on Nov 17:
I second all that Jim H said in #30 :)
34. farmer Tom said the following at 2:38 PM on Nov 17:
I would like to add to what Amir said, and suggest that the real problem can not even be laid at the feet of GWB or Clinton, but with Woodrow Wilson, and his destruction of the Constitution by allowing the government to be involved in a fiat currency scheme.
Some of you need to do some research on sound money and fiat currency.
And what is true money?
35. JoshuaKeirn said the following at 6:45 PM on Nov 17:
Just a couple things:
I was going to post that quote about young liberals and old conservatives.
We haven't had a very conservative government for a long time. Just because someone labels themselves something doesn't give them that quality.
Also, something that puzzles me is this: How on earth did so many Democrats win congressional seats? The congressional approval rating has consistently been LOWER than Bush's approval rating, and it only got WORSE when Democrats had huge wins in 2006. Are people really that foolish?
Apparently they are.
As many others have said, I wasn't a McCain fan, but I was even less an Obama fan. Unfortunately, my state went to Obama.
36. Mada said the following at 4:52 AM on Nov 18:
I am someone who is neither American nor a participant in the electrol process. I am actually all the way in Africa but was closely fllowing the events happening in the states. As an Obama supporter and a Christian i have come to the conclusion that whatever our beliefs choices, preferences, God is still sovereign over everything, and ALLOWED that Barack Obama be presidnet- Our role as Christians now would be to pray for his administration that God would place in it people who will stand for the truth and who will fight to uphold the moral values your country so proudly stand on et al.
37. Letsallsingalong said the following at 6:43 AM on Nov 18:
I agree with a few other posters here that have expressed anger at some of the comments about young people not voting with their brains.
As a young person I took a very long time doing research on candidates and policies, and then made my decision. I voted for Obama, but not because I voted with no brain, or because of his "charm", it was because I agreed with his proposed policies as opposed to those of McCain.
Now I'll be honest, based on policies only, I would preferred to have voted for Ralph Nadar. However I have the sense to know that a vote for a third party, unfortunately, has little effect on the outcome of the election. So I set my focus on the two main candidates.
On abortion-I am pro-choice. I am Christian. I'll admit I'm not sure I know when "life" begins. My husband and I have never had to "choose", so I can't give any opinion from experience. I know there are verses in the bible that some would use to say abortion is wrong, but there are ones I have read that seem to point that it is not murder, but a minor transgression that would call for a simple fine.
All this means is that I am unsure on this issue, and since there are people who believe life begins at conception, and people who don't, I just will hold that it shouldn't be illegal. (first trimester only).
Even if you say that the Bible explicitly is against abortion, if we made every one of our country's laws based on the bible, we would not be a democracy, we would be a theocracy. We have freedom of religion, which means other people have different beliefs than we do. We can't impose our beliefs on them any more than we would want to be Christians living in a purely Muslim country where the law of the land is based on Islamic law.
I don't want to argue. I just accept that I don't know everything and I try to make the best of my opinions anyways. If you disagree with me that's ok. We all are entitled to an opinion and we can each interpret scripture a different way, believe it or not. Two people may read a poem and think it's about two completely different things, and in parts of the bible I think it's similar in those regards.
You all have a nice day, and God bless.
38. Hannah C. said the following at 7:50 AM on Nov 18:
Perhaps the high level of Democratic seats came from people who didn't know who to vote for except Obama voting the straight Democratic ticket..?
It's possible that that caused at least part of the votes..
39. Amir Larijani said the following at 8:47 AM on Nov 18:
JoshuaKeirn says:
Like the late House Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neill (D-MA) once said, "All politics is local."
People generally have a low view of Congress, but--with few exceptions--are happy with THEIR congressman.
In turn, every Congressman will talk of the need to reduce spending and waste, but they'll never--EVER--work to cut spending for projects in THEIR districts.
That is why nothing ever changes. Voters think that the other 434 congressmen are the problem, when in fact their own is almost always a primary culprit.
It's only in years where one party suffers a large backlash at the top--like 1994 or 2006 or 2008--where one party loses a lot of seats.
In 1994, the GOP capitalized on a lot of voter sentiments, Clinton Administration gaffes, and Democrat missteps in Congress, to take both houses back. For a few years, the Republicans did a good job, but they ended up becoming co-opted into the system. Most of the really good Republicans--like Steve Largent (R-OK) and Joe Scarborough (R-FL)--retired because they believed in term limits. What was left were the country-clubbers.
In 2006, the Republicans suffered the perfect storm of their own making:
(1) the Foleygate scandal
(2) The Abramoff scandal
(3) Bush's spending record
(4) The stagnant situation in Iraq
(5) gas prices
In 2008, McCain was actually polling well against Obama, but the financial crisis--and his response to it (voting for the bailout)--killed him.
The larger GOP suffered because they were completely outfunded.
It is ironic that the GOP got out-maneuvered in campaign finance, because the DNC took advantage of the very law that McCain himself helped write.
40. Hannah C. said the following at 10:22 AM on Nov 18:
To #37 (letsallsingalong) -
For me, the religious arguments on why abortion is wrong have very little to do with why I am pro-life.
I am pro-life because each of us, before we were born, were fetuses, and before that we were embryos, and before that we were zygotes. Every single pregnancy will result in a baby. That baby deserves to live. Where is the line drawn? How can we say that an embryo is not a person when it will become a person? How can we say something which will become a baby can be killed earlier on?
If I was an atheist I would be absolutely as pro-life as I am now..because that's where my reasons come from. The Bible only supports that even more. Murder is wrong outside of the Bible as well as inside. It only gets worse when afflicted on innocent children..as the horror at the crime of infanticide shows.
41. Jim H. said the following at 10:44 AM on Nov 18:
Letsallsingalong #37
"All this means is that I am unsure on this issue, and since there are people who believe life begins at conception, and people who don't, I just will hold that it shouldn't be illegal. (first trimester only)."
Comment
-------------
First of all, it is not just the Bible that supports the idea that life begins at conception - some in the scientific community have come to that conclusion as well. On Nov 3, Candice Watters posted a blog that pointed to this scientific paper on the issue.
http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/images/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf
You say you are unsure of when life begins. Why, then, why do you suggest erring on the side of death (choice)? Shouldn't a moral society founded upon Judeo-Christian values err on the side of life rather than death if an issue is uncertain? Below are some excerpts from an article written by the late great Ronald Reagan in 1983. The full article is well worth the read as well and the link is posted below.
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp
--------------------------------------
We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life. We saw tragic proof of this truism last year when the Indiana courts allowed the starvation death of "Baby Doe" in Bloomington because the child had Down's Syndrome.
The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother's body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law — the same right we have.
The 1981 Senate hearings on the beginning of human life brought out the basic issue more clearly than ever before. The many medical and scientific witnesses who testified disagreed on many things, but not on the scientific evidence that the unborn child is alive, is a distinct individual, or is a member of the human species. They did disagree over the value question, whether to give value to a human life at its early and most vulnerable stages of existence.
What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives — the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn't feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.
42. Letsallsingalong said the following at 11:14 AM on Nov 18:
Yes, two lives. The lives of the mother and the unborn child. I could have been that "unborn child". I was almost aborted. Instead my birthmother put me up for adoption. She suffered these past years until I finally contacted her when I became an adult. I'm not saying that another decision would have been better for her life, who can really say that? But if it would have been better for her, and me end up being "not born". I'd be ok with that. If I had never existed it wouldn't bother me too much because I wouldn't have ever known existence in the first place.
All I'm trying to say is that each person makes decisions the best they can. Some regret them to the point of severe depression, and other's feel that the choice they made (adoption, abortion, parenting) has resulted in being able to have the life/family/career that they now love and enjoy.
At this point in my life, while I still don't know what the "right" choice was, how can we know the "what if's"?, I do know that I'm happy right now. And while adoption is much more complicated and sad than people think, I think my life turned out well. I was raised in a wonderful family and I now have a decent relationship with my birthmother. But for her it's harder. She can't be my mother, although deep down she knows she wants it. But she made her decision and this is how it turned out.
So all those women out there who have made a decision regarding a pregnancy and are living with it, whether they regret it or their lives have improved incredibly, they still had a choice.
I know women who've had abortions. Women who are still young, and those who are much older. Most of them have no regrets, and believe that the wonderful families that some of them have now wouldn't be possible if they hadn't have made that choice. I know women who had children too young, and my birthmother who made the choice of adoption. They struggle, but some of them are doing well, while others are not and perhaps regret their decision.
I respect all these women and wish them well, but I wouldn't think of those friends who had abortions as "murderers". They didn't take their decision lightly, and it wasn't easy. They are good women, some of whom are Christians who have spent most of their lives caring for beautiful families and some of them do mission work. That at one point they chose abortion doesn't make them evil in my eyes. I wouldn't want them to be considered "criminals" if abortion were to have been illegal then.
And on the question of when life begins, I still am unsure. We can argue around the bush if we want, but I find it complicated to compare the possibility of a future child, with an actual living child.
Forgive me if you think me ignorant or stupid for being unsure on this, but I simply try to see two sides to everything, and I find myself on the fence on this one.
For the record I think that instead of focusing on making abortion illegal, we should focus on making it easier for women. Make birth control more affordable and educate women that they have that option of preventing a pregnancy. Many women in poverty who may be illiterate or live in rural areas don't know how to prevent pregnancy. Let's focus on education. And for those who end up with an unplanned pregnancy, lets have programs to help them. Instead of leaving teenage mothers or young married couples who have no money with no choices but adoption, abortion, or sinking into poverty, lets have non-profit organizations to provide these parents with an education, help with finding jobs, and even have volunteers provide childcare till they get on their feet. Yes these programs exist but not very extensively. Someday when I my hubby and I are not broke students like we are now, I hope to be able to donate to programs like this.
Sorry for such a long post, but the criticism for abortion bothers me when so many women don't feel as if they have another choice, and the people who don't want them to have one aren't doing anything to make any other options easier.
43. Ashley Harris said the following at 12:32 PM on Nov 18:
Letsallsingalong,
You said,"...the people who don't want them to have one aren't doing anything to make any other options easier."
I hear people say this often. And to some extent I'm sure it's true, but I know many, many actively pro-life people who volunteer their time at pregnancy crisis centers. My college suitmate was the busiest student I have ever met, and she still gave hours of her week to the pregnancy crisis center on campus. Another friend of mine works with innercity teenage women helping them get their GEDs meanwhile educating them about the dangers of promiscuous lifestyles.
There are people practically reacing out to women who think they have no other option.
44. Doy said the following at 12:47 PM on Nov 18:
Dear Letsallsingalong, it's kind of amusing that you say "so many women don't feel as if they have another choice." When the choice in the very first place is to not hav sex. Because, let's face it, that's what gets "so many women" in trouble in the first place.
Can we all just agree that this is the BEST way to not get pregnant?
And if this was their first choice, there wouldn't be a need for "another choice."
I know, I know, what I'm so saying is wayyyyyyy too unpopular to even endorse.
45. Jim H. said the following at 12:55 PM on Nov 18:
Letsallsingalong #42.
Well, you may not be bothered too much if you had not existed, but I am very glad that you are alive and well and that your birth mother chose to give you life rather than death. I think that way of thinking is an outgrowth of this post modern culture -that human life has been devalued so much that sometimes we doubt even our own value and the point of our existence, or become apathetic to it. Sometimes we justify and comfort ourselves for these thoughts by applying the mantle of humility to them, but in reality, it is a poisonous devaluing of human life to think that way. I sometimes catch myself thinkg that way too so you are not alone. In fact, we are all precious and loved creations of God from the moment of conception who deserve full protection under the law.
In no way do I think you are ignorant and stupid. On the contrary, I think you are very intelligent and thoughtful in trying to weigh both sides of the issue. But the crux of the issue is this: this "choice" that so many people revere is a one-sided choice - the unborn baby does not get to have a choice and that is the point. The mother has a unilateral life or death choice over another human being who has no say at all.
46. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:02 PM on Nov 18:
:::turning sarcasm on:::
I'm sick and tired of religious conservatives imposing their morality on people, and attempting to regulate their personal lives.
I see no greater case of that than our predatory laws that criminalize rape.
Personally, as a Christian, I abhor rape, as it is morally reprehensible.
On the other hand, I must respect the fact that many men have a complex set of choices, given our difficult socio-economic landscape. We cannot impose narrow-minded morality on men.
As one who abhors rape, I believe we must work very hard to reduce the number of rapes in America.
But we cannot afford--as a society--to infringe on free choice. We must instead work on changing hearts and minds, respecting that men have a variety of complex choices that they face.
Voters who vote on this issue are narrow-minded for being "one-issue" voters. We must move beyond this issue of rape and focus more on economics.
After all, if we improve the economy, we can reduce the occurrence of rape.
:::turning sarcasm off:::
47. From MSNBC said the following at 3:12 PM on Nov 18:
I am copying and pasting an article from the msnbc website. Perhaps this will "shed light" as to how unexpected pregnancies take place. And it's not due to the girl's lack of education. Surprise.
On “The Tyra Banks Show” airing Friday, eight girls ranging in age from 14 to 17 discuss the survey findings and share their own personal experiences. Seven of the eight say they are sexually active; of those seven, just one says she uses protection when having sex.
“A lot of the guys, if I didn’t have unprotected sex with them, they would get mad at me and I still wanted that closeness with them,” one girl says during the show. “I was afraid if I didn’t do what they wanted, they wouldn’t be my friend.”
Any opinions?
48. Louise, 43 said the following at 3:56 PM on Nov 18:
Comment 46:
Alas, here I was getting my hopes up that the commentors on this blog were actually capable of a reasonable and respectful discussion with a "pro-choice" person!
Oh well, maybe next time....Louise
49. Reno said the following at 4:22 PM on Nov 18:
In response to several previous comments; the concept of convincing people to buy into your ideas by insulting them has a pretty good track record of failure. If this was your attitude towards your peers, you probably drove them to Obama.
The current Gen Y is about the most 'informed' generation that has ever lived (Quantity).
If you want to know why Gen Y volunteered, campainged, raised money and voted for Obama, look at what he put in our media streams.
A nuanced view on the relationship of religion and secular government, and race in America. Web 2.0.
Detailed policy papers on most issues on his website. And a pretty convincing explanation for the state of the country and economy - spending, wars, corruption, ill-conceived policies, selfishness, polarizing politics.
Telling a generation that has been routinely called apathetic, immoral, lost, confused, brainless and with no greatness that we can change the world, and showing us the things we want to change - poverty, health care, peace, and the environment.
And what did the other side have in response?
Ideological attacks. 'socialism'. Attack on persons 'terrorist'. Attempts to separate, divide, polarize and inspire fear.
It's just not that hard to see why things went the way they did. Even worse, multiply that by the rising minority groups (typically on the receiving end of attacks and fear) and the GOP has got some problems.
What happened to compassionate conservatism?
50. Al said the following at 5:21 PM on Nov 18:
To Letsallsingaling (#37):
"I know there are verses in the bible that some would use to say abortion is wrong, but there are ones I have read that seem to point that it is not murder, but a minor transgression that would call for a simple fine."
I'm not sure which verses you are referring to, but if you're speaking of Exodus 21:22-25, it does seem to stress the entire opposite:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
So the verse actually demands for a potentially stiff fine even when there is *no* actual injury, presumably to either mother or baby. But if there is injury, it appears that both mother and baby are treated as whole persons, using the justice code previously established for injury against human individuals.
And all this is in reference to *accidental* injury to mother and infant.
51. Al said the following at 5:42 PM on Nov 18:
To Letsallsingalong,
I also just realized that certain translations like the NASB render "miscarriage" instead of "gives birth prematurely" like the NIV. Here's an article that argues the original world does not imply the death of the child as suggested by "miscarriage":
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700
In fact, the 1,061 times the word is used in the Hebrew bible, it is never used to refer to a miscarriage. The one time it is used in a reference to still birth is accompanied by other contextual words explicitly referring to a dead child. Other than that, it seems to almost always refer to live birth, and other words are used to refer specifically to abortion or miscarriages.
52. Anonymous said the following at 6:38 PM on Nov 18:
Re: Amir Larijani (#46)
Since you mentioned the issue, there IS a possible way to reduce the occurrence of rape (and thus abortions due to pregnancies caused by rape). The problem is that it is unconstitutional due to the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment):
Why not physically castrate all rapists after the 1st offense regardless of the age of the offender?
The idea is that punishment should be extreme enough as a deterrent, plus that the same crime literally cannot be committed again. Plus, this is worse than the death penalty for the rapists, as they'll have to live with the consequence for the rest of their lives.
53. Andrew said the following at 9:35 PM on Nov 18:
Re: Amir (#46)
*Raises Guinness*
Brilliant!
54. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:22 AM on Nov 19:
Anonymous suggests:
:::turning sarcasm back on:::Anonymous: While I absolutely abhor the acts of the rapists--as I consider rape to be a degenerate, despicable, unconscionable act--again, we must not impose our morality on rapists, as we must consider their wider set of complex feelings, fears, insecurities, and perceived dangers that they are experiencing.
It is not for you or me to criminalize their behavior, because it is not for you or for me to impose our morality on the rapist.
I am not pro-rape; I am just pro-choice.
We need to instead focus on socio-economic issues, get to understand rapists better, and work to reduce the number of rapes.
Criminalizing rape, after all, has done nothing to stop its occurrence.
:::turning sarcasm back off:::
55. Kit said the following at 8:54 AM on Nov 19:
I looked at all candidates and wanted Ron Paul because the fundamental issue in this country is the economic collapse and he nailed that on the head.
However. He was not the nominee, and I voted for Obama. I am a Christian and am not a 'brainless' liberal as some people seem to think.
"so many women don't feel as if they have another choice." When the choice in the very first place is to not hav sex. Because, let's face it, that's what gets "so many women" in trouble in the first place." was stated in another post. That's really idealistic. The question is not, how do we overturn Roe v. Wade or make people stop having sex. That just simply won't happen and is unrealistic. Sounds great, is true, but won't happen.
The question is now, "where do we go from here on these issues, and how do we compromise." We simply can't run a multi-ethnic/religious nation from a christian standpoint all the time without alienating the majority of the country. Period.
56. Hannah C. said the following at 9:36 AM on Nov 19:
Kit (#55):
I don't think being pro-life is a solely Christian position. There are atheists out there who are pro-life. You can argue for pro-life without using the Bible at all.
And the woman who won Roe v. Wade (Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who argued it) was the child of a Methodist pastor and was supported by a Methodist church.
Life is life..regardless of what the Bible says. Once we know when life begins, we need to not kill it. As an article posted on Boundless or Boundlessline not long ago said, we know when life begins - at conception..regardless of what your religious beliefs are. So abortion should not be legal. The majority opinion on Roe v. Wade stated that, actually...if it could be proved that life begins at conception abortion could never be legal. Unfortunately in Roe v. Wade, Wade had a weak argument and a bad lawyer...and now, it's doubtful whether anyone would accept life begins at conception because they don't want to accept consequences or acknowledge what's going on...
Sarah Weddington's biography is one of the most disturbing books I have read..and I honestly think pro-life people should read it. It's eye-opening. And it's where I got this information about Roe v. Wade.
57. Kti said the following at 10:28 AM on Nov 19:
Hannah C,
I agree wholeheartedly with your point.
My point is not that abortion isn't wrong. It's that, realistically, in our country, we simply can't go backwards.
It would cause more upset than progress.
The question is, rather, what do we do now?
58. Jim H. said the following at 2:56 PM on Nov 19:
Kti #57,
If something is inherently wrong, then we must fight to "go back", and end the practice. By your logic - complacently maintaining status quo because too many people might get upset - slavery would have never ended.
59. Zusanne said the following at 4:25 PM on Nov 19:
When people speak of the "ignorance" of many (not all--qualified) Obama supporters, they often don't mean that many Obama supporters were ignorant of HIS positions (his stated positions, anyway), they refer to knowledge of his voting record and to knowledge of history in general.
Context, please!
60. Louise, from Chicago said the following at 7:32 AM on Nov 20:
Comment 44, re the issue of "choice"...if you remove the option of abortion there is still a choice to be made between adoption and parenting.
I mean one can talk all day about "why did you have sex" or "why didn't you use a reliable birth control method" but it's an after the fact question for the present situation and is only relevant to avoid another occurance.
61. Loris said the following at 8:07 AM on Nov 20:
#42, you mentioned that birth control needs to be more affordable. My birth control prescription from Target costs $9 a month. That's hardly out of reach for anybody. If some people say it is, I would counter that they could stop buying sodas and poof, they might find the money to afford the pills.
The next counter would be "But you're middle class and have health insurance." Yes I do. But birth control is not covered by any insurance company I've ever used and it's still only $9 a month at Target.
62. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:58 AM on Nov 20:
My birth control prescription from Target costs $9 a month.
Funny...
I was 22 when I had my first gyno exam. I didn't have health insurance because I was still in school and not covered by my parents because I was not listed as their dependent.
I went to Planned Parenthood (didn't really know who they were at the time...just was told they'll give me a free exam...)
They offered me FREE BC. =p
63. (Canadian) Andrew R said the following at 12:24 PM on Nov 20:
Amir,
You are clearly strongly opposed to abortion, and I was just wondering: how many babies have you given birth to or adopted?
64. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:24 PM on Nov 20:
how many babies have you given birth to or adopted?
Please explain how that is relevant?
65. Zusanne said the following at 3:48 PM on Nov 20:
(Canadian) Andrew R:
what does giving birth or adopting a baby have to do with being opposed to abortion? seriously!
That's not really even a logical argument. The fact that a child is being destroyed does not change whether the person holding the conversation has birthed/adopted a child.
When does personal experience trump Scripture?
it's been made more than clear that:
1. Pregnancy is a consequence of a choice of a person's behavior (a couple's--excuse me). Those who don't want to be pregnant should avoid the behavior that causes pregnancy.
2. Those who are opposed to abortion(i.e., church groups, believers, etc.) are very actively involved in providing assistance to those who have chosen to continue the lives of their pre-born children. Just as Planned Parenthood and other organizations provide free services (with some government funding), there are plenty of places that offer help.
66. (Canadian) Andrew R said the following at 4:07 PM on Nov 20:
Zusanne,
"Those who are opposed to abortion(i.e., church groups, believers, etc.) are very actively involved in providing assistance to those who have chosen to continue the lives of their pre-born children."
Yes, and I think that is fantastic. I asked Amir the question because I felt that the way Amir dismissed the entire argument by resorting to gratuitous sarcasm and then treating the subject of rape like it didn't really matter was extremely offensive and detrimental to the conversation.
67. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:36 PM on Nov 20:
(Canadian) Andrew:
:::turning sarcasm back on:::
While I understand your sensitivity to the issue of rape--as I find the act to be highly deplorable and disgusting--the fact remains: criminalizing rape has done nothing to reduce its occurrence.
Therefore, we must--as a society--come together in unity to find more equitable solutions to this crisis. We must seek ways to make it safer, and reduce its occurrence.
But we must do so in a way that reflects tolerance and understanding, as we seek to understand the fears, insecurities, and pressures experienced by those inclined to rape.
It is only through gaining such understanding that we can really make an impact on this issue.
:::turning sarcasm back off.
Seriously, Andrew, your question has no logical basis and is itself gratuitous.
On the other hand, I am merely using the pro-choice line of reasoning to demonstrate the absolute absurdity of their logic. After all, I can legitimize any hideous crime via such reasoning.
That you find such application offensive is not my problem. Your problem is in demonstrating why abortion should be legal.
I'll ask you the same question I asked DP and Jeremy on the other thread.
Given that we have performed over 50 million abortions in America since 1973, either we have (a) the greatest advancement of human rights in world history, or (b) a mass slaughter on the scale of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, combined.
Which is it? (a) or (b) will do.
68. Louise,43 from Chicago said the following at 10:11 PM on Nov 20:
To comment 64 and 65:
Comment 63 is directed to Amir L., who may answer if he chooses.
If you do not think the question is relevent, well so what, the question is not direct to you, and whether or not you think it is relevent is doesn't matter.
And BTW, I am not very impressed by sarcastic comments Amir has made in this thread and if he (or anyone else for that matter) think you are going to convert anyone to your way of thinking by sarcasm you are sorely mistaken.
69. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:54 AM on Nov 21:
Andrew,
And you asking that question helps...HOW?
Already having personal conversations with Amir on his attitude towards women who have had abortions, you're in for more sarcasm with that irresponsible, irrelevant question.
But you know, he's got a legitimate point. Just because some people think that some people should have the choice to kill doesn't mean we should let them - either politically or spiritually.
And I think that was his point with his sarcastic little essay on rape. Just because some people think they should be allowed to do it doesn't mean we should make it legal and come up with other ways to put a stop to it - like educating and "changing people's hearts".
70. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:08 AM on Nov 21:
Louise, 43, from Chicago says:
Louise: The reaction you are providing to my "sarcasm" is the same reaction that pro-lifers give when someone--who favors keeping abortion legal--makes similar arguments.
Why must pro-life advocates be tolerant of abortionists--when they speak of "keeping abortion legal" while "seeking ways to reduce the occurrence of the act"--whereas your indignance at my sarcasm, for using the same logic is justified?
Either (a) my sarcasm is actually a legitimate argument for the legalization of rape, or (b) the pro-life position is correct? Which is it?
(a) or (b) will do.
My answer is (b).
71. Carrie (the original) said the following at 10:52 AM on Nov 21:
I'm with Christina (in green) #64 - Andrew, please explain how your question - on a singles forum no less - is legitamate.
72. IMO said the following at 11:51 AM on Nov 21:
Louise,43 from Chicago-Why are you telling people how to comment or what not to comment on? I thought you were all for our rights and choices to proceed on this blog as how we like (unless it interfers with Comment Policy). What you said in comment 68 is kind of hypocritical, considering your previous comments.
73. Jeremy said the following at 12:18 PM on Nov 21:
Amir, you are employing a straw man fallacy. When crossing legality with positivity, there are 4 possible categories:
1. Should be legal, is positive
(marriage, for example)
2. Should be legal, is not positive
(obesity, for example)
3. Should not be legal, is positive
(I am not sure anything falls into this category)
4. Should not be legal, is negative
(rape, for example)
Pro-choice advocates contend that abortion properly belongs in category 2, and thus should be kept legal, but discouraged. You feel it should be in category 4, but using "their logic" on a separate example from category 4 is attacking a straw man.
Of course that line of logic would be ridiculous if applied to rape, it would be ridiculous if applied to anything in that category. That is not the position of those pro-choice people in question. They contend that abortion does not belong in category 4 at all, but rather category 2.
74. Jim H. said the following at 12:52 PM on Nov 21:
Jeremy,
Following your pattern of logic, shouldn't #2 read "should be legal, negative"?
Or was that subtle word shift, using "not positive" instead of "negative", done because you don't want to say abortion is negative? You used the word "negative" for case 4 whose example wsas rape, so why not case 2?
75. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:15 PM on Nov 21:
Jeremy says:
If killing a child in utero belongs in category 2, then so does rape.
Either (a) I have made a strong case for the decriminalization of rape, or (b) the pro-life position is correct.
Quit ducking this by trying to suggest what is indefensible: that the child in utero is somehow not a human being.
That dog won't hunt. Not even in the pro-abortion slaughterhouse known as the People's Republic of California, which convicted Scott Peterson of double murder--and sentenced him to death on that basis--for killing his wife and their unborn child.
What I have presented is hardly a strawman. Abortion represents killing a child in utero. That is the only basis on which you can conclude that it is a "negative".
That being the case, if killing a child in utero belongs in the "it's wrong but we need to keep it legal", then there is no logical reason not to put rape in the same category.
After all, (a) rape has never been treated as worse than wanton homicide from a legal standpoint, and (b) the same arguments that one uses to legitimize in-utero infanticide can be used to legitimize rape, or even child trafficking.
Ergo, it is on you to justify the outrage over my "sarcasm" whereas the pro-lifer must simply be more tolerant when your ilk uses the same logic to legitimize in-utero infanticide.
76. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:20 PM on Nov 21:
Oh, Jeremy, one more thing. You have not answered my question.
Given that we have performed over 50 million abortions in America since 1973, either we have (a) the greatest advancement of human rights in world history, or (b) a mass slaughter on the scale of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, combined.
Which is it? (a) or (b) will do.
Let's have your answer for the record.
77. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:41 PM on Nov 21:
Jeremy: Category 3 would include medicinal marijuana.
I do, however, find it laughable that you rank abortion in the same category as obesity.
As I said, even pro-abortion states like California do not accept that logic, and their laws reveal a huge inconsistency as a result.
And that is your dilemma. Either abortion is no worse than obesity--in fact, if it is as unimportant as you suggest, then it is even less important than obesity, as abortion does not present the health care issues that obesity does--or it is an epic mass slaughter of Stalinist proportions. Which is it?
Making matters worse, given what we know about human life in-utero, if abortion is no worse than obesity, then neither is rape.
So you are now in a corner: either rape is no worse than obesity, or the pro-life position is correct.
Which is it, Jeremy?
78. Zusanne said the following at 2:41 PM on Nov 21:
Random thoughts:
Louise, 43 from Chicago
The question wasn't in a private conversation. It's in an open forum. I was wondering how the question contributed to the discussion. That's all.
BTW, I appreciated the explanation.
And, yes, I agree with Louise, that Amir's sarcasm is unnecessary. Be more direct, please. Back to argument--just because you can claim that others argue that way doesn't make it a legitimate form for framing your own arguments.
And, since this has spent so much time on the subject of abortion--and rape, I always wondered how I would feel, should I or someone I loved were raped and became pregnant. Although the possiblity is slim (fewer than 2% of rapes result in pregnancy), it can still happen. But God wants us to preserve life, right? While I can see compassionately how a person would feel, at the same, time, it's not the child's fault.
My answer came several years ago when I read an article in a magazine about a woman facing that same situation. She's since written a book about her experience. She was raped and chose to keep the child; the article and book were her testimony.
About the time the book was published, one of my friends was raped and became pregnant. The first seven months of her pregnancy, she had every intention of giving the baby up for adoption. Circumstances caused her to change her mind. She has a beautiful son today.
Her life as a single mother comes with significant challenges, but as part of the body of Christ, many of us have had the opportunity to be blessed by helping her--food, time off, taking our own sick days when her son is sick, etc. Her son is a blessing to her, even though his conception not exactly what she had imagined.
79. keruss said the following at 4:55 PM on Nov 21:
No suprise here. the Republicans did a terrible job of getting their message out. There are many misconceptions on what a Republican is. The party needs to go back to being fiscally conservative and socaily moderate. Abortion and gay marriage should not be a litmus test for a Repbulican. Tax cuts, strong national defense, small goverment, constructionalist interpretation of the constitution, and minimal socail programs. the extreme prolife wing has taken over the party and has ruined it. Good canidates like Guliani could never run because he is prochoice but he passes the test on the fiscal issues.
80. farmer Tom said the following at 9:36 PM on Nov 21:
73. Jeremy,
They contend that abortion does not belong in category 4 at all, but rather category 2.
And "they" are unequivocally wrong, since the "shedding of innocent blood" is always morally unjust.
81. alex said the following at 1:20 AM on Nov 22:
Haha Amir et al: I concur!
On a practical note, you can thank your Federal government for many of the rapes that occur. How many sentenced, convicted rapists get out of jail because some liberal wackos in our society want to give them a second chance? How many crimes are by repeat offenders? A LOT. We need to put pressure on our officials to lock those people up and throw away the key. Preferably in a hard labor camp, so they can help pay back their considerable debt to society, instead of the other way around.
82. Louise, 43 from Chicago said the following at 11:37 AM on Nov 22:
Comment 72, you do make a valid point.
I am just of the opinion that if a commentor specifically directs a question to another commentors than people should let the directly addressed commentor field the question.
However as I have stated on here before, this isn't my blog, so I don't make the rules.
Please proceed as you will, everybody.
:)
83. John said the following at 1:36 PM on Nov 22:
Jeremy,
You make no sense.
Abortion should be illegal and criminalized.
Death penalty for all parties involved.
Period!
"Pro-choice" (those in favor of murdering innocent, defenseless human beings) are for abortion whenever, wherever, for whatever reason.
Despite any nuances you'd like to suggest.
Your knowledge of logical fallacies is incorrect as well.
84. Carrie (the original) said the following at 1:14 PM on Nov 23:
Andrew (#73) said:
"Of course that line of logic would be ridiculous if applied to rape, it would be ridiculous if applied to anything in that category. That is not the position of those pro-choice people in question. They contend that abortion does not belong in category 4 at all, but rather category 2."
You conceded the point that Amir was making and then you go on to state that the "pro-choice people" don't really believe that abortion should be illegal.
That, to me, seems to be a "Well, duh!" sort of statement.
Of course pro-choice people don't want to make abortion illegal because they don't believe abortion is bad. That is the point of this whole discussion: either you believe abortion is bad and should be illegal or you believe it is "not ideal" and should remain legal.
I opt for the former.
85. Mary said the following at 2:31 PM on Nov 23:
It is a worry that young people are so lacking in basic understanding of our national principles. Obviously we cannot just rely on the public schools to teach them basic civics and American history. Perhaps Christian churches, organizations and individuals can start looking for imaginative ways of teaching the basic American values. Churches could have book mobiles for their young people which would include, not only Christian books but books on citizenship. These bookmoblies could be share by several churches. Individuals and groups could fund American history and citizenship essay contests. It wouldn't take much, the top prize could be $50. This could be a yearly thing and would get the kids to go into the library to do research on American civics or history.
86. Jeremy said the following at 9:37 AM on Nov 24:
Jim H. (#74) -- Yes, that was just a mistype. Don't read anything sinister into it.
Amir (#76, 77) -- Internet arguments are ridiculous. Everything I said went straight over your head, and you have resorted to ascribing positions to me. A wiser man than I once compared arguing on the internet to banging one's head against a brick wall.
So to clarify, I am not pro-abortion, I think it should be illegal. The reason I think that is that given the uncertainty involved in trying to answer the question of when a soul is first present in a body (and yes, there is uncertainty involved; anyone who says otherwise is being intellectually dishonest), society should err on the side of caution because of the gravity of the question itself. Having said that, I don't think the answer to your question is either (a) or (b), but instead the question itself is flawed, as has been pointed out to you in other threads.
"If killing a child in utero belongs in category 2, then so does rape."
That is an unsupported assertion. If indeed a soul is NOT present at the time of an abortion, it would be morally equivalent to killing an animal. That would not have any effect on the moral problems with rape, which would still belong in category 4.
And, naturally, that same line of thinking applies to: "And "they" are unequivocally wrong, since the "shedding of innocent blood" is always morally unjust." If that statement is universally true, then killing animals is wrong.
87. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:02 AM on Nov 24:
Keruss says:
Giuliani got fewer delegates than Ron Paul. Even the libertarian/fiscal conservative wing of the GOP wanted nothing to do with Rudy.
Romney made a good run, but has not enough experience to truly establish himself as a "complete package" conservative. He should run for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat when it opens up. That would give him some time to entrench himself and provide a basis for his capacity as a President.
Zusanne says:
Actually, my argument is necessary to expose the moral and intellectual dishonesty of the so-called "pro-choice" camp.
Again, why is the outrage at my case for legalized rape justifiable whereas outrage over mass slaughter amounts to "extremism"?
Either I have a good case for the legitimacy of rape, or the pro-life position is correct.
I'm not letting the abortophiles off the hook.
Either the issue of in-utero infanticide is serious enough to warrant expeditious attention, or--as Jeremy suggested--it is no worse than obesity.
This is no time for moderation.
88. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:27 AM on Nov 24:
Jeremy says:
Baloney. If killing a child in utero is no worse than obesity, then neither is rape. After all, murder has always carried more legal seriousness than rape.
On the other hand, while your position on abortion is laudable, your basis is not. After all, the basis you attempt to use is the same basis by which an abortionist may justify that position, using it as a pretext to devalue human life.
Ergo, your basis is weak.
Hardly. There is no moral basis for the general prohibition of killing animals. To make this jump, you have to devalue human life and/or elevate animal life to levels foreign to Scripture.
Peter Singer, in fact uses your line of reasoning to make the case for (a) criminalizing the killing of animals and (b) legitimizing abortion and many cases post-delivery infanticide.