From "Nuanced" to Principled: The Lessons of Pastor Rick, and Why and How Obama and the Democrats Should Make Abortion a Voting Issue
For years Democratic candidates have struggled with how to counter Republican stands that paint the world in black and white, readily summarized in brief, evocative phrases (e.g., "life begins at conception," "tax and spend," "cut and run"). A prime example is abortion, which has left Democrats outside the Northeast and Northwest (where candidates can safely proclaim, "I'm pro-choice" and live to talk about it) and national candidates tongue-tied for years.
Barack Obama faced this problem Saturday night at Rick Warren's "Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency." When asked when he believes life begins, he led with a wonderfully disarming comment about the answer to that question being "above my pay grade." But he then proceeded to offer a somewhat rambling, discursive response that I can't readily summarize after having just read the transcript three times. The main thing I remember is that he said he believes in a woman's right to choose and Roe v. Wade. Commentators referred to his response, like many of his responses Saturday night, as "nuanced," a politic way of saying that it showed greater complexity than his Republican opponent's answer but had the usual ring of a Democratic presidential candidate's response to a question about an emotionally charged issue: too intellectual and difficult to grasp its essence.
When asked the same question, John McCain knew what his task was: to convince the far right, and particularly Christian conservatives, that he is one of them. So his answer was crisp and unequivocal: "At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress and in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That's my commitment."
So is the problem, as many apologists on the left would suggest, that progressive positions are just more complex and not easily reduced to sound bites? Yes and no. Sure, it's easier to summarize a Manichean world view than one that posits more than two forces in the world (good and evil) and more than two options in every situation (pro-life vs. pro-death, staying the course vs. surrender, free markets vs. communism). But the problem is not that our ideas are too sophisticated. It's that the way we present those ideas is not sophisticated enough.
Most Americans actually disagree with John McCain on abortion, as they do on most of the issues that separate him and his Democratic rival. Polls show that only 30% of Americans believe all abortions should be illegal, and few support a return to the pre-Roe era. The majority -- including the majority of evangelical Christians, who made up Warren's audience -- think we should find some kind of "middle ground" on abortion. The reason is that most Americans are ambivalent about abortion. Virtually no one -- left, right, or center -- is comfortable with late term abortions except when the mother's life or health is in danger. The idea of aborting an 8-month-old fetus for convenience (something no one would really do, but it makes a great bogey man to push Democrats down slippery slopes) is deeply disturbing to the vast majority of Americans in a way that aborting a 10-week-old fetus is not.
Why? Because the concept of life is what cognitive psychologists call a "fuzzy set" -- a concept that doesn't have clear boundaries. Unconsciously, most people view a newly fertilized embryo as qualitatively different from a late-term fetus because it doesn't seem like a person. But the point at which a fetus seems to us more like a person than not is indeterminate.
Regardless of their conscious beliefs -- that life begins at conception or that life begins when a baby takes its first breath -- most people's feelings follow their unconscious perceptions. That's why early in pregnancy even most evangelical Christians find it morally repugnant to force a rape victim to bear her rapist's child, even though they may consciously believe that the fertilized egg is a life, whereas late in pregnancy most people aren't comfortable with abortion except in exceptional circumstances. In their guts, most people feel that Roe v. Wade got it about as right as we're going to get it -- which is why the vast majority of Americans don't want it overturned -- even if they can't articulate why.
The million dollar question is how to talk about an issue that requires nuance in a way that is succinct, principled, and captures our gut-level sensibilities. If Democrats continue to parry Republican war cries of "baby killer" with emotionally bland or euphemistic phrases like "reproductive health" or continue to couch the debate in terms of life vs. choice, offering ambivalent voters a Hobson's choice, they do indeed have something to worry about.
But that isn't how Democrats should talk about abortion. The pollster Stan Greenberg and I recently completed the first draft of one of the most wide-ranging progressive messaging projects of which I am aware, using a sample of 10,000 to study 10 different ways of talking about 9 issues, from wedge issues (e.g., abortion, guns, gays, immigration) to national security and taxes (where Democrats have traditionally similarly been on the run) to the economy (where Democrats hold an advantage). We found that progressives can win the abortion debate by 15 to 20 points seven different ways against a strong "pro-life" message much like the one McCain offered Saturday night, and they can win in some very unlikely parts of the country. When progressives speak honestly to voters' ambivalence and make their principles clear and emotionally compelling, Americans tend to prefer honesty and nuance to oversimplification. The answer doesn't lie in "dumbing down" our messages. It lies in ratcheting up their emotional intelligence. On some issues it took us several tries in focus groups and online dial-tests to find the words that conveyed what we were trying to express without triggering some other meaning we hadn't intended, but by the time we had completed the latest round of testing, we had multiple messages that beat well-branded conservative messages by 8 to 30 points on every issue.
The language of "choice" is not, in fact, the most compelling way to engage most Americans on abortion. It doesn't resonate with most voters in the center, and it activates negative stereotypes about feminism and promiscuity (and, not surprisingly, it polls particularly poorly with men, who have conflicting feelings about both). It was the right language in the 1960s, when women's right to control their own bodies was emblematic of their struggle for equality, but that was 40 years ago, and as meanings change, so should messages. It is a particularly weak appeal to an evangelical Christian audience, for whom it begs the question, "Whose choice matters most, God's or a (mortal) woman's?"
Obama wasn't going to win over the majority of Warren's parishioners, but he could have spoken to them in their own language while winning the hearts and minds of the majority who were listening on television. He might have begun by acknowledging the obvious, that he knew he wasn't going to convince most of Pastor Rick's flock, but that he was nonetheless one of them, with a comment like, "Well, I knew at some point I was going to be in there with the lions. I know many of you won't agree with me, but I hope my answer at least leaves you with as much respect for me and my beliefs as I have for you and yours." He could then have continued, once again drawing them in while addressing concerns about him that had been raised in recent weeks, "The Bible says that pride is a sin, and I'd be showing more pride than even John McCain thinks I have, with those celebrity and Moses ads, if I told you that I know with certainty when life begins. I wish I did, because then this would be an easy question. But here's where I stand":
No one truly knows what's in the mind of God, and I just don't like the idea of government telling a woman or couple when they should or shouldn't start their family based on somebody else's interpretation of Scripture. We need to find the common ground on abortion, reflecting our shared moral beliefs, not the beliefs that divide us. We are all united in the belief that we should do everything we can to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies, and abortions, starting with instilling in our children both the values and the knowledge to make good choices. And we all agree that abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control and shouldn't be an option late in pregnancy except when the mother's life or health is in danger. I could go on and talk about how misguided I think our currently policies are that deny access to birth control to women and teenagers in our inner cities, which does nothing but perpetuate the cycle of poverty, stop young people from getting an education and fulfilling their God-given potential, and make it more likely that they'll have children before they're ready to be good parents. But the main point I want to make is that in this country, we don't force one person to live by another person's faith. This should be a personal and moral issue, not a political one.
This is a variation of one of the messages we tested, although it is considerably longer than those messages, which we kept to about 45 seconds. I revised it here to fit both the audience and the central narrative of Obama's campaign (the theme of focusing on what unites and not what divides us).
I'm not claiming that this is the best or only narrative Obama could have offered on abortion. Central to Obama's appeal is his genuineness, and the only messages he should offer voters are those that fit his values and style. But this way of talking about abortion has several features that render it a strong, principled message. It isn't hard to come away with the central theme, because it's offered in both the opening sentence and at the end: That as long as we do not all share the same religious beliefs, the government has no business forcing one person to live by another person's faith. It speaks to religious freedom and government intrusion, two themes usually associated with narratives on the right but that should be central to a progressive narrative on abortion. It recognizes, as Obama did in his actual answer, that this is a moral issue, and it builds on common ground, emphasizing themes like reducing teen pregnancies and instilling values that are shared by both the left and right and hence are likely to be compelling to people in the center. And it re-enfranchises males by reminding men that they have a stake in this, too: that although ultimately the decision to abort or not to abort resides with the mother, women usually make these decisions together with their husbands or boyfriends, and that a woman or couple, not the government, should make these kinds of intensely personal decisions.
I would be remiss not to conclude with one final thought. The impact of a message doesn't reside solely in the words, metaphors, imagery, frames, or neural networks it triggers or fails to trigger. The messenger, the delivery, and the nonverbal communication are equally important. This year Democrats have chosen a messenger who is a tremendously gifted orator. But Obama has not been able to translate what he can do on the stump to debates or interviews. In contrast to McCain, who had clearly been coached to speak to his audience, to use personal examples, and to stay focused throughout on his primary goal--to convince doubters on the right that he is one of them -- Obama too rarely spoke to his audience, too rarely connected with personal stories, and did not seem to have come into the evening with a game plan of what he wanted to accomplish.
None of that should have happened after over 20 debates and hundreds of television appearances, and none of it would have happened after the second or third Democratic debate if Democrats understood the importance of narratives and nonverbal cues. Republican presidential candidates have outperformed their Democratic counterparts for most of the last 40 years in message, and they have outperformed them in delivery. The reason is simple: They have understood the value of both. Whether or not McCain had a little help outside the cone of silence Saturday night when he sauntered into the church in time to have heard half the questions, there is no question that he had the benefit of superb coaching on both his verbal and nonverbal messages. The Obama team needs to take the cue. If someone with the appropriate expertise hasn't spent a few days with Obama watching the tapes of his prior debate performances and giving him feedback on what voters are picking up between his words, there's no better way he could spend the week of the Republican Convention.
Drew Westen, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation," recently released in paperback with a new postscript on the 2008 election.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I really hope someone high up in Obama's administration reads this.
See Chris Weigant's Profile
While this was an interesting article, I liked what Westen wrote in his book better. Here are two responses suggested by him for dealing with the absoluteness of the GOP position (their party plank says no abortions even in the case of rape or incest):
"My opponent puts the rights of rapists above the rights of their victims, guaranteeing every rapist the right to choose the mother of his child. What he's proposing is a rapists' bill of rights."
As for parental notification laws, Westen had this to say:
"My opponent believes that if a sixteen-year-old girl is molested by her father, she should be forced by the government to have his child, and if she doesn't want to, she should be forced by the government to go to the man who raped her and ask for his consent."
Point out the extreme nature of the GOP position every chance you get. Force the GOP to defend their extreme position, and you'll open the eyes of some moderates and independents.
-CW
Brilliant. Thank you. That is the essence of their twisted position. That women must be subjugated, at all costs.
It has nothing to do with subjugating women. That's a dramatic perversion of the position. Does that mean pro-life women want themselves to be subjugated? That's non-sensical. Even some feminists know your comment is ridiculous, and therefore can be a feminist and at the same time anti-abortion.
It has to do with protecting a defenseless life.
Admittedly Its problematic for pro lifers like myself to make the argument that life in the womb should be protected, and then try to exclude out certain life from that protection (rape, incest).
I wrestle with that all the time, because if I think life in womb should be protected, and my aim is to protect a defenseless baby-in-waiting, how do I reconcile that with an understanding and compassion for a woman who has been raped and then required to carry the child of a rapist, or her brother or father.
I don't have an answer for that, other than the morning after pill, which while not the perfect answer in my mind, at least its stops the pregnancy sooo early in the process that I could live with it.
How many times has a woman become pregnant from rape? I would agree that even one time would be too many and she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. I just wonder, because if this is to be an effective argument, I think it would be best to know how many people have been affected to predict how many COULD be in the future. The idea being that if it looks like it might touch someone's life, God forbid, they might be more in line to listen to that argument.
I like your comments. I hope that someone from the Obama campaign does read your statements because, he needs to employ some form of attack against the GOP on the topic of abortion.
OBAMA '08
Exactly! Exactly! Exactly!! Hard-hitting, succinct, 100% truth and damaging to the GOP's (McCain's hard-line p.o.v.) these are exactly the things Obama needs to make his own to counter the barrage of attacks by do-nothing-promise-the-world GOPers!
Send your post to the Obama people POSTHASTE! It's time the GOPers own-up to their corporate-media backed buzz-words and sentences and put their money where their big mouths are.
In addition, pregnancy should not be a punishment. It should be welcome, wanted and most important, afforded.
Pregnancy is a potential consequence of a grown up decision to have sex.
If you can't afford the child, put it up for adoption.
Most important thing is whether you can afford it? The decision to terminate a life in waiting is based on money? That's really sad.
If it isn't welcome or wanted, don't take the risk by having sex.
Obama should not go anywhere near the abortion discussion. It has been designed to destroy liberals politically. There is nothing he can say on the topic that is going to make him look good to this group.
If he wants the conservative religous vote Obama needs to take a strong moral stance against the war, torture, corruption and poverty. He needs to show he has the courage to stand up for important moral and principle issues (exactly what he did not do when he caved on FISA).
He needs to talk evangelicals (and others) in neutral settings like small churches, town halls. If he is going to do a meeting for a potentially hostile group like evangelicals, he needs to run it himself and be in control of the content and message.
Allowing himself to be led into a shooting gallery situation where he was completely at the mercy of that pastor, was incredibly stupid.
It is not logical to speak of "birth control"! "Birth Prevention...is logical!
How about "pregnancy prevention"? That way the "contraception=abortion" equation can't be invoked as easily.
I don't understand why the Democrates seem to be so clueless whenever they are called on to take a stand on abortion. If they would just state the truth , that the Bible say in Genesis that man becomes a living soul when he takes his first breath, they would have the high moral ground. The religous right has never been able to give biblical justification for their anti-abortion stand because none excists. However it is very clearly stated in Genesis chapter 2 verse 7 that Adam was formed from the dust of the ground (fully formed) and then he took his first breath and then he became a living soul. The only other reference to the subject is in Leviticas where we are told that the life (the soul life) is in the blood. which also confirms that as long as the fetus shares its' blood with the mother there is only one soul present, the mother's. The child becomes a living soul when it takes its' first breath and the cord is cut. The religous right has nevercared to be biblically accurate. by taking the Biblically accurate high ground even the Bible believing evangelicals could be won over.
First off God is not a person or some sort of super person. We humans, realizing we lack perfection, have created a standard of perfection that most cultures refer to as God. God can do no wrong. Thus when folks try and win a point they frame it as if it is something that God would want or expect. After all, as the rationale goes, you just can’t top God’s intentions for us. But in reality, God (really nature) screws up constantly, and sometimes those screw ups make abortion the better of two evils. Of course it would be political suicide in this superstitious nation to express the problem in so blunt of terms
You are the created, isn't it a bit presumptuous of the created, to judge the creator?
"isn't it a bit presumptuous of the created, to judge the creator?"
Probably but not nearly as presumptuous as pretending that you, the guy you would vote for and your minister know the mind of God.
As man (we'll let women off the hook on this one) created god in his own image, we are free to judge the 'creator' as we please.
I think some of the questions were chosen specifically to make McCain look good. For example, the question about orphans gave McCain the opportunity to talk about adopting his daughter from Mother Theresa's orphanage.
What bothered me the most though was that Pastor Rick didn't ask anything about healthcare! As a pediatrician and the wife of a cancer survivor, I can hardily attest that the American healthcare system is broken. It seems incredible that Pastor Rick could ignore this issue. After all, wasn't healing the sick one of Jesus' most important missions?
He also failed to ask about global poverty, the environment, and issues of war and peace ("blessed are the peacemakers"). However, these are not the religious "right" issues -- the forum clearly was biased.
I found those omissions interesting and questionable, as well. Young evangelicals, although tending to be as "pro-life" on the abortion issue, ARE overwhelmingly more moderate in approach to most issues. Critical thinking on issues such as "creation care" environmentalism, war/ peacemaking and especially global poverty, which is given much consideration and relevance in cause/ effect for the other two issues..make them, more than older evangelicals, favor Obama over McCain. Although abortion is the one issue that troubles them, the fact that poverty does circumscribe all "pro-life" decisions, may also make them more open to inclusive ideas/ broader programs such as Obama's, providing support and financial aid to those who may choose to carry a pregnancy to term and raise a child, if they had the resources to do so.
I found it disingenuous and indicative of a more explicit agenda, that Rick Warren and his forum did not reflect this attitude in young evangelicals and engage in ideas coming out of that faction. Rather, they chose to pander to the "holier-than-thou" mentality that claims to know the mind and decisions that their god would make on their behalf only! One can only hope those young evangelicals, will see the changes they seek in Barack Obama. Otherwise, I fear the "radical right" will once again hijack the moderates and their influence, electing John McCain.
Last night's "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" had an informative piece discussing these issues..if you're interested, PBS has archives of past broadcasts.
MASTURBATION IS MURDERRRRRRRRRR!!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
Maybe then you should consider stopping it.
Manicures, too. Those cells had potential. Soon, any cell will be able to be cultured, fertilized, and turned in to whatever kind of monster they want. The forced birth advocates should be against in vitro fertilization, since it results in all those excess embryos.
In my bible the fifth commandment reads simply and clearly: “Thou shalt not kill”.
Rick Warren a supposed man of God should have questioned John McCain and Barack Obama if invading a country in false pretenses and killing and maiming thousands if not millions of people is MURDER.
In other bibles, it's not the fifth commandment, and sometimes it's "Thou shalt not murder."
It's easy to understand how someone could be both pro-life and pro-death penalty. I am both. My reason for being pro-life is simple: fetuses have done nothing to warrant killing them other than their mothers do not want them. Now, being pro-life -- at least for me -- doenst mean I want Roe v Wade overturned. I agree that it's not right for government to make that choice for everyone. But, I do want to see the government make having an abotion so restrictive that it's not used as a form of birth control. It's the approach Obama should take: "I'm pro-life and pro-choice. I believe we should do all we can to cut the number of abortions per year in half, then half again. We must give women (and men) better access to birth control and alternatives to abortion." That's what I want to hear.
If someone rapes and murders a child, they should get the death penalty. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but that's how I feel.
Then what happens to those fetuses that women don't want if they are not allowed, under a more restrictive system, to terminate the pregnancy? Do you think that these women will suddenly decide to care for a fetus they do not want because the government says they have to keep it? I would suggest, no they wouldn't.
I agree that better education and more access to birth control products is a great idea, and can help cut the number of unwanted pregnancies way down with time. However, it is ironic that many who are vehemently against the right to choice are also those who are against teaching young people about birth control. This of course leaves us with ignorant people running around with hormones a-blazin', which is a recipe for disaster.
Additionally I agree heartily with you on death for those who rape and brutally murder a child.
That's a good question, John, and one I don't have an answer for. I do, however, believe that putting restrictions on abortions would cause SOME people to consider the consequences of thier actions (not using birth control). But like I said, I'm not for the government telling people what they can and cannot do in most cases. But the fact is that we abort way to many fetuses in this country.
By the way, my opinions on this issue are not influenced by religion in any way; I'm quite agnostic.
"Then what happens to those fetuses that women don't want if they are not allowed, under a more restrictive system, to terminate the pregnancy? "
Federaly funded health care for the mother during pregnancy and for some period of time post pregnancy. The baby would be given up for adoption at birth. Given the amount of $$'s we spend on pointless things, this should be an easy sell to the country.
I agree with you on the education and access to birth control front.
If the would-be mother does not want to bear a preganancy against her will, then that's good enough for me. Abortion of embryos and non-viable fetuses on demand is A-OK with me. I'd opt for the woman over a fetus every time. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
As for the death penalty - we only have to see the sorry record of convictions that are overturned on dna evidence to know that we HAVE TO BE against capital punishment
"Polls show that only 30% of Americans believe all abortions should be illegal, and few support a return to the pre-Roe era"
I'm a bit puzzled by this 30% number. Here is a link to a collection of polls about abortion http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm and nowhere do I find a number as high as 30 representing folks who believe all abortions should be illegal. Indeed the average is about half that.
Still, the issue is more evenly divided than I would like, I believe that this is due to the fact that Democrats have refused to fight for women and particularly low income women since the party has been dominated by 'centrist' strategists who wish to appease and cater to the biases of men who have "conflicting feelings about feminism and promiscuity " rather than speak common sense truths. My sense is that their "conflicting feelings" would clarify quickly were they to have anything at all to lose. Right now a majority of court ordered child support is not paid, a majority of children born OOW have no court ordered child support and congress cut federal funding for child support enforcement and republicans are doing what they can to limit the access of low income women to contraceptives.
The fact that way too many men refuse to support in any fashion the children they are responsible for is something we all pay for
I agree. In fact, I was waiting for Obama to say that his pro-choice position still shares the same goal of the pro-life movement -- to reduce the number of abortions . The pro-life position seems to focus on criminality but Obama's position focuses on preventing unwanted pregnancies and providing better support to pregnant mothers. I was surprised I didn't hear him say this -- it would have been the perfect forum and it would have been true.
I did hear Obama say that he wanted to reduce the number of abortions and focus on unwanted pregnancies. He also introduced the notion of encouraging and increasing adoptions.
Yes. But he didn't make clear to the audience that their goal and his are the same.
I personally believe that given the same brain-time it took you to come up with that response, BO would have done that well or even better but you and I know that a nuanced response no matter how beautifully clever it is in hitting all the right notes can not draw more applause that the two word McCain response given the crowd.
Yes. I love how McCain states that he will defeat evil during his administration.
That's rather a tall order, isn't it?
It is interesting that many 'pro-lifers' as to being totally against or wanting very restrictive laws on abortion support the death penalty, torture, going to war, as well as not being supportive of the needs of the poor or universal health care. I don't find that 'nuanced'.
Still, the 'not my pay grade' comment by O wasn't very good, but at least he didn't pander with a simplistic answer to that crowd like McC did.
The pro-lifers' answer to that is that the unborn are "innocent," so they deserve protection. Those sentenced to death deserve it, those going to war volunteered to do it, and those that are poor must be lazy since in America anyone can become a millionaire. I don't agree, but that's how they think.
I'm amazed by the number of Americans that believe all muslims should be killed on sight while abortion is immoral.
Right after 9/11, a student of mine who had written a passionate anti-abortion essay stated, and meant it, too, that the US military should invade all other countries on Earth and "kill everything that moved."
I agree with the irony that pro-lifers are all about saving the baby, but once the baby is born into a family that cannot properly provide for it, taxes be damned if they're going to help that baby any more. I guess once it's out of the womb, they don't care about life so much.
I like the "not my paygrade" answer. He isn't God; he is a mere mortal.
Genesis 2:7
American King James Version
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
This verse from the Bible does not mention conception or a fertilized egg as the beginning of "life", does it? It says that man became a living soul when he first breathes (the first breath after birth) I have never heard this discussed and do not know where the evangelical Christians are getting their "at conception life begins" belief.
It doesn't suit a 21st century society to try to decode Bronze Age conceptions (no pun intended) of how the universe and people began. Are men's ribs sacred because "woman" was made from one?
No sensible person would trust their life to such guidance: who would consult a shaman for cancer or a Santería priest for arthritis?
Yet, so many people refer to these musty texts to try to figure out "when life begins" whereas consulting a biology text would provide a really accurate answer. At that point, we can vote on whether we think an unborn human organism can have its life terminated by its parents -- or not.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. The right wing wants to overrule that. If we think differently, we need to make sure the next president is a Democrat.
Framing it as when life begins is already misleading. the real question is when is there a person who can be murdered. I often hear it argued that the fetus is alive and has human DNA therefore it is a person. Same argument applies to the tip of my finger. the issue is not when life begins but what do we have at 3 weeks- an actual person? This question is one that should make us think and search our inner self- it does not reduce to a simplistic answer and it does a great injustice to the sublimity of creation to reduce it as the fundies do to a simple dichotomy.
"The Bible says that pride is a sin, and I'd be showing more pride than even John McCain thinks I have, with those celebrity and Moses ads, if I told you that I know with certainty when life begins. I wish I did, because then this would be an easy question. But here's where I stand":
No one truly knows what's in the mind of God, and I just don't like the idea of government telling a woman or couple when they should or shouldn't start their family based on somebody else's interpretation of Scripture. . . . "
Since you brought up the Bible, the Bible also says:
Psalm 139: 13 "For You formed my inward parts; You knitted me together in my mother’s womb."
So much for "interpreting" scripture.
(Huffpo censor: Think long and hard about this as you delte it . . . .)
"You knitted me together in my mother"s womb."
Knitted together...as in progress, not yet completed, underconstruction: NOT YET A PERSON.
Yup, seems clear to me....
There is also the passage in Exodus where it does NOT treat simply causing a miscarriage as murder. Absolutely inconsistent with the current viewpoint.
There are a good number of us that also believe in the separartion of church and state and that what the Bible says in irrelevant when it comes to governmental and societal policies.
I understand that your argument is formed this way because the Bible was brought up previously somewhere.
The bible also says that eating shrimp is an abomination.
LEV 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.
Do we really need a better argument as to why basing public policy on the Bible isn't really a good idea>
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
