Will the Real Pro-life Party Please Stand Up?

Joel Hunter is a conservative, Republican megachurch pastor in Central Florida. He's giving the Democrats some free advice, if they care to hear it: Even if you stick with Roe V. Wade, you can show evangelicals that you are the pro-life party by showing us how you will actually reduce abortions--and how you will support "life" in other areas besides abortion. From Steve Waldman's Beliefnet column today:

Hunter makes a practical argument: providing women with economic help in carrying babies to term can actually reduce the number of abortions more, and more quickly, than focusing on overturning Roe v. Wade. "With eight years of Bush the abortion rates have not declined. Every indication is that with financial support and different forms of supporting pregnant mother and then some post birth help also we could come close to 50% reduction in abortions. That's huge. That's huge."

Continuing with the same culture war paradigm is therefore morally dubious. "If we insist on keeping this an ideological war we're literally not saving the babies we could save. The Democrats have a huge opportunity here to really steal the thunder from those who are seen as traditionally pro life."

Keep a look out for other Christian leaders popping up with the same message. What's causing this is the failure of the Republicans to significantly reduce abortions, even with 20 years of Republican presidency since the rise of the Christian right. Many Christians are finally getting fed up.

In my opinion, the Republican line on abortion--the singular focus on banning it--was just a cynical ploy. I know that many GOP leaders were sincere, but overall the strategy was simply to oppose abortion symbolically while doing nothing to reduce abortions in real life. Moreover, there is evidence from history and from around the world that banning abortion would not even reduce abortions (have we ever banned anything successfully?).

Pro-life Christians are finally getting this. If the Democrats take Joel Hunter's advice, and stand up as the real "pro-life party," they will not find formerly Republican Christians falling into lock step with them. Many of these Christians are so burned by their experience with the GOP that they will not join another party. However, in their pro-life calculations at the voting booth, many will choose the Democrat.

But how many? That depends on Obama, and if he will take Joel Hunter's advice. If Obama can boldly articulate a pro-life platform to reduce abortion, care for children and families, reduce arms and prevent war then he could bring about a seismic shift in electoral politics that makes the "Reagan Democrat" phenomenon look like nothing.

For many pro-choice advocates, that will feel like a concession. But has the status quo stand off worked any better for them over the past few decades? Abortion is still legal, but access to safe abortions for women who choose them has all but disappeared for many working class and rural women--right alongside other medical and social services. For sure, embracing a politics of "life" is a risk for pro-choice advocates. But Christian leaders who reject the status quo are taken an arguably greater risk: with their own congregations, with their national reputations and with anti-abortion extremists.

Only one thing is certain: It's going to be fascinating to watch how change and risk will be embraced or rejected by various advocates on both sides of the debate through this election and an Obama presidency.

Comments

[tasukibeth1]

Sex Education, Sex Education, Sex Education, Sex Education, Sex Education.

Forget religion, forget "morality", whatever that is. Just teach your f*($*%ing children in a straightforward manner about how babies are made and how they can be prevented. Thanks to the freaks running this country, we have girls drinking bleach and doooshing (sic) with mountain dew.

[indypete]

That's right, we need to make sure kids know all about the stork and cabbage patches.

[SuppersReady]

Bravo! My children have known since the day they asked about it. My teenage girls talk to me about sex, drugs, (well everything) because we opened that communication door a long time ago. The country of Denmark has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate because of sex education. When are the Puritans going to get with it....................

[DeSwiss]

"....providing women with economic help in carrying babies to term can actually reduce the number of abortions more, and more quickly, than focusing on overturning Roe v. Wade."

Well, at least the medical portion of this "economic assistance" could be offered as a part of a universal healthcare package for everyone. Healthcare that would be needed BEFORE and AFTER the child is born. Its that AFTER part which many conservatives and so-called Pro-lifers seem to forget about.

As for other forms of economic assistance, I'm not so sure that either the Dems or the Repukers want to revisit welfare program assistance. That's how "The Great Communicator" insinuated himself with these Reagan Democrats to begin with. The Welfare Cadillac Momma, was his creation and they bought it hook, line and sinker. So now they're asking for money for more Cadillacs???

I'm sure Detroit could use the help right about now though.....

:-|

[BuckeyePomp]

Look, I don't like Evangelical right-wingers. The fact is that religious crusades like anti abortion and anti gay-marriage should be kept out of my government. If you don't like red meat, don't eat it; if you don't like abortions, don't get one; don't like gay marriage? don't marry someone of your gender. It's simple. But if this Hunter fella can convert the Evangelical base to realize that republicans have been lying to them and using them for over 25 years, and they get fed up and give Obama a chance to fix this country, well then I think that would go a long way to redeeming the sorry Bible-thumping nutjobs. I like Christ, he was a great fella! But these people need to realize that beating America over the head with the Old Testament is NOT going to reduce gas prices, end a war, or fix our economy. It won't give relief to people still suffering in New Orleans and Darfur. If you want to call yourself a Christian, stop voting for people whose practices and policies advocate anything but What Jesus Would Do!

[GooeyButter]

We must remember that no one is pro-abortion; we just have the two sides -- pro-choice and so-called pro-life. People who want to completely ban abortion are taking the easy way out and neglect the inevitable difficulties in stopping all abortions. By taking the pro-choice position and legalizing abortions, we have the benefits of:
1) Rejecting Kantian deontology, which has flaws as an ethical system, since it can be argued, for instance, that killing is sometimes okay. To be consistent, people who reject abortion on Kantian grounds must also be pacifists opposing the death penalty and war, which comes with collateral damage. For the operation of society, such a position is impractical.
2) Allowing for abortions in cases of rape and other extreme circumstances, which permits maximization of public welfare and shows sympathy to innocent, often destitute mothers who had no responsibility for their fates.
3) Encouraging minimization of abortion through maximization of freedom. We aim to approach the most optimal situation in which both the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus are observed; in the case of banning abortion completely, only the rights of the fetus seem to be observed. Instead, while we give the mother freedom to have an abortion, we can encourage her to seek other means of dealing with her pregnancy by providing financial support as she carries the child. We can also focus on prophylaxis to prevent pregnancies by promoting condoms and birth control pills.

[gotborked]

People who reject abortion on Kantian grounds (essentially, you mean those who follow the believe "we should do unto others..."?) need not be pacifists. Not that I think that Kant has it all right (I think the Thomists would be a better source), but does a Kantian line of thinking really not allow for self defense and defense of others? I'm pretty sure it does. That is, a person can follow the Golden Rule, and still legitimately and consistently enter a just war.

Besides, isn't it better/more humane/more pro-hope to at least start with Kant, as opposed to the alternative--utilitarianism or, its ultimate culmination, nihilism?

[applebutter]

"we just have the two sides -- pro-choice and so-called pro-life."

And of course these are not distinct categories. I propose new ones.

Most people, regardless of their position on abortion, are "pro-life" at heart.

What we refer to as "pro-life" voters are really "anti-abortion" voters. Some may be "anti-choice (for women). Republican conservatives usually get the benefit of the spin, don't they?

[Loki1967]

Your way off base dude.

Reducing abortions needs to be done through increased birth control. Not by having women get pregnant at the same rate just to carry to term. We have 1.2 million children in the US living on the streets. We can not currently provide for them. So you want to bring to this earth which has 2 billion more people already than it can support and leave them to rot? We also need to come down on the men and stop making this a one sided argument. I think men who knock up women should be forced to have their tubes tied if they repeatedly do this to women. And this country should have no more than 200 million people in it. We already have destroyed so much of the US its ridiculous.

I fully reject your argument as as bad as Mr. Bush.

www.standupforkids.org

[LeftRight]

That's partly what he's talking about. Realize that there are many women out there who wouldn't get pregnant if they had a combination of access to and education about BC. By the same token, there are many women out there who wouldn't have a problem carrying a child to term, except for the financial hardship such an action would entail. BOTH need to be addressed, and BOTH would reduce the number of abortions!

[applebutter]

I have a sincere, ongoing question: Why do so many people who consider themselves "pro life" support wars? How can we have a warmonger, like McCain, getting the majority of the "pro life" vote? Are unwanted American fetuses more valuable than wanted Iraqi children? Tens of thousands of children have been killed in Iraq. Conversely, the majority of liberals, who believe in a woman's ultimate right to chose when she will become a mother, oppose war. Being "pro choice" is not the same thing as being "pro abortion". And it's not about religion. Many non-religious people are pro-choice or pro-life.

Studies have shown that the draconian Bush and "Focus on the Family" type abstinence programs do not reduce teen sex. Teenagers need education about sexual activity and pregnancy, and a full array of preventative options. I'll bet everyone, Democratic or Republican, believes abortion should be the last resort. No one, not even the most radical liberal, believes that abortion should be used as a form of birth control.

A realistic reproductive health policy would include making birth control and education available to all. I think we would have to take it one step further, and get over our naive belief that teenagers aren't having sex. They are. I think reducing abortions is a great idea, and I am a pro-choice voter. The methods have to be realistic. And safe, affordable abortion has to remain available as a last resort.

[sdskelton03]

To answer your question:

War and abortion aren't very similar.

[RedDonnaAnn]

Uh, I think the point is they both result in a loss of life.

[LeftRight]

That's true. In the first case you are taking the lives of full grown men and (often) women who are able to survive on their own outside the womb, for (hopefully) justifiable reasons. In the second, you are ending the "life" of a group of cells which is COMPLETELY unable to survive on its own without the symbiotic relationship it shares with its host.

[thebeerdoctor]

Yes applebutter, isn't it sad that the so-called pro-life crowd can embrace a culture of death? Nobody should desire abortion; the fact that so many women have found themselves in that position, is due to religious pro-creative nonsense that states that sex is only for the creation of children. There is a complete denial on part of those folks that sex is a mutual pleasurable activity that has been freed by scientific advancement to not be encumbered by the biological necessity, what George Bernard Shaw referred to as "the blind fury of creation". But of course, the draconian forces who still believe that sexual desire is a sin, will not listen to reason. In such circumstances, it is not a question of "pro-life", but rather, pro-reason.

[applebutter]

Well said! And it makes me think of the potential consequences of suppressed sexuality. Consider the difference between the types of sexual scandals between liberals and conservatives. Oh, my. Some politicians cheat on their wives, other try to illicit sex with other men in public bathrooms. Oops, going downhill.

[Paul]

Good question.

Also capital punishment....

[sdskelton03]

Abortion and capital punishment are similar in that they are each the deliberate taking of a human life.

However, abortion is the taking of a truley innocent life, whereas capital punishment is carried out only against the most heinous of guilty men and women.

[gotborked]

I have a sincere question for you, and then I'll answer yours: How is being "pro-choice" not the same thing as being "pro-abortion"? What "choice", if not the choice to have an abortion, are you advocating for?

I can't answer your question for all pro-lifers or for all wars, but I know that support for some wars can be very "pro-life". These wars, so-called "just wars", are entered into when it is necessary to defend and protect human life and dignity from forces that seek to destroy them. Similarly, a pro-lifer may be ok with someone killing an attacker in self defense or in defense of a family member or in defense of a stranger, for that matter.

[applebutter]

How is being "pro-choice" not the same thing as being "pro-abortion"?

This is an interesting question (which I honestly believe I addressed already). It reflects thinking differences between conservatives and liberals that I'm reading about in Political Brain by Drew Westen.

It's very simple, really: advocating a woman's right to chose abortion - as a last resort option - is not the same as advocating abortion. It's about leaving that option available, safe, and affordable. I'm actually pro-birth control, if you need to categorize my views into a neat little box. And as I stated: I don't believe that abortion should be used as a form of birth control.

p.s. The Iraq war is not a just war.

[mattheweste]

I don't think you'll get a convincing reply from anyone who is "pro-life".

People who vote Republican don't do so because of any sort of consistent set of principles and that is the big flaw in the reasoning of the main article. Pro-life so-called voters wouldn't stop voting Republican if Jesus himself came down on a cloud and showed them a bunch of charts and proofs of how voting Democrat was better in avoiding abortions. The truth is they really don't care. That's why they happily vote for warmongers that kill millions of people and in fact often call for more blood.

It's a mistake to think that because they pretend to be pro-life that they actually are. Mostly they are pro-death. If they were pro-life they wouldn't be voting Republican to begin with.

[roshni]

Pro-life is just pro-brain washing and anti-feminist. Once the "life" is born, the pro-lifers are the first to refuse welfare benefits, childcare benefits and vote for oil-based wars.
Just a part of the usual hypocrisy.

[gdogs]

I don't think this comment will be come as a shock to many here, but I'll say it anyway. The election this year is not going to be decided by the abortion issue.

And by the way, the same people that want to stop abortions are the same ones that don't think we should be paying welfare to citizens that keep having babies. Somehow I don't think telling them that you want to spend even more tax payer money on this type of project is going to make them come around to the Obama side. Now you probably could convince them that paying for medical procedures that ensure people on welfare don't have anymore children is a good idea. Keeping to the pro choice side is the only way Obama comes out ahead on this issue.

[applebutter]

"And by the way, the same people that want to stop abortions are the same ones that don't think we should be paying welfare to citizens that keep having babies."

"Keeping to the pro choice side is the only way Obama comes out ahead on this issue."

Worth repeating :)

[Lautenberg]

75% of Americans want abortion legal. That is why the republicans will NEVER make it illegal. The only no rich people who vote republicans are theocrats who want to drag this country back to the middle ages. Shame on you all.

[sdskelton03]

It's interesting that both sides of the abortion debate can provide statistical documentation that their side is most favored in the public. It all comes down to how you ask the question.

The most honest reading of public polling indicates that the majority of people want abortion illegal in some circumstance, available but highly regulated in other circumstances and available with very limited regulation in other circumstances.

[MyOwnPerson]

Seems to me the bottom line is that most people want abortion legal and safe.

[mattheweste]

Well... that and Republicans just lie about everything.

Weapons of Mass Destruction anyone?

[Nicolja]

Where did you magically come up with 75%? Britain, which has the most liberal abortion laws in all of Europe, has less than 75% support for unrestricted forms of abortion. I would find it hard to believe that the US is anywhere near that figure.

[RedDonnaAnn]

The problem is just the abortion,s it's the funding. You have women out there having six and seven abortions and the state is paying for it.

When I had my abortion at twenty, with a crummy 34 year old man who not only didn't go with me but also didn't give me a dime, I paid for it. I took responsibility for my actions.

The anti-abortionists, they are in no way pro-life as they are overwhelmingly pro-gun, pro-death penalty and anti-birth control, have a right to be upset, we all have a right to be upset, by the MILLIONS of abortions being paid for by the state.

It's birth control welfare. And it's wrong.

[eggman]

I respect your choice, but paying for your own abortion is not 'taking responsibility for your actions." Choosing responsible men to have sex with, taking effective birth control and having the baby would have qualified as taking responsibility. You did what you thought was best for yourself, as is your right.

[NHGranite]

Thank you for your sensible response. Education is part of the problem, if this young person got to 20 and didn't understand the real meaning of responsible choices. And where did those questionable statistics, like women having 6 or 7 abortions, come from. I don't know anyone who had one abortion who ever wanted to have another, no matter who paid for it.

[Thurber]

The answer to hot button issues like abortion for politicians is POLITICAL. I can't imagine even the most pro-choice person opposing political measures aimed at reducing the need for abortion.

Outright banning abortions, as well as trying to legally regulate them is essentially allowing politicians and lawyers to practice medicine ... SURGICAL medicine. How many of us would let a medically untrained politician operate on us or how many of us would hire a physician for legal advice? That is exactly what many pro-life groups are advocating and it is, in practicality, an anti-life position. Get that talking point across to pro-life voters and Mr. Exley's prediction would be beyond under-stated.

Obama would not only blowout McCain by at least a 20 to 30 point margins, but it would signal the end of the Republican party as we know it.

[FOXYLADY]

There are so many HYPOCRITICS in the REPUBLICAN PARTY!!
AS AN ELDERLY WOMAN I SUPPORT "A WOMANS RIGHT TO CHOSE"...IT'S OUR BODIES...
WHEN MEN BECOME PREGNANT, ARE RAPED OR MADE PREGNANT BY A 'RELATIVE' THEN THEY CAN HAVE A SAY IN OUR BODIES........OTHERWISE...BUTT OUT!!!

[MyOwnPerson]

Hallelujah! You got most of it. the only thing I would add is if you want to regulate and force women to have children they don't want, or shouldn't have, then there should be a registry of all pro-life people, listing your income and family status, so that a woman being forced, against her will to have a child, can pick which of you will be raising that child. AND, you'll do it whether you want to or not. Fair's fair, right?

[Laserbeam]

The real pro-life folks are the ones who are pro-choice. Pro-choice folks believe in caring for the babies after they are born. "Pro-life" as it is used now is completely inaccurate. My experience with the "pro-life" folks is that they are really pro-birth. Once the baby's been born they stop caring about the baby and begin talking about harsher jail sentences and enforcing the death penalty more often. The correct name for these people is "anti-choice".

Just my two cents as a woman....

[eggman]

I don't see that pro-choice people care for babies better than pro-life people do. Perhaps you mean that pro-choice people believe it's better to prevent a birth than to bring an unwanted child into the world.

Pro-choice people badly undermine their position when they support killing fetuses even after the point of viability, when they could be delivered safely and placed in a loving home. Pro-choice advocates claim late-term abortions are to protect the mother's health, but there are no examples of medical conditions where killing the fetus rather than attempting to deliver it alive would make a difference to the mother's health. When pro-choice advocates argue in favor of third-trimester abortions, the correct name for them is "pro-death".

[RedDonnaAnn]

If it was as easy to place an unplanned for child in a loving home as you posit then the off the charts adoption rate of Chinese and Central American babies would not exist.

Most people with your mentality live in a fantasy world. I taught middle school. Most children have had some form of genital experimentation by age 12, many have had intercourse. They do not think much about the consequence but they do talk about it being meaningful to their partner. It's public knowledge among their peer group.

Late term abortions make up roughly 3% of all abortions nationwide. I had a girlfriend who had one. It was horrible. Her baby was essentially brain dead: no urine in the amniotic fluid. Her doctor told her she had to induce labor that day, that moment or at the very latest, the next day. If she did not, she wold die.

She and her husband had to explain to their son why they would not be bringing home the little sister they'd been so excited about for eight months. She and her husband had to name and bury their little girl.

In Japan, where there is no religion recognized at the state level, most abortions are obtained by married women over 30. It's a form of birth control with no religious or emotional stigma.

Religion is bad for women and has been for thousands of years. This year is no different.

[Cybershaman]

Considering how 'liberals' pass legislation that helps people, while 'conservatives' seem to be only focused on punishing people, I'd say you are only looking at the stereotypes of what 'liberals' actually think.
Obama can try to articulate the progressive view until he is blue in the face. It will do no good, because the main stream media will twist what he says around until it appears to be the opposite of what he actually said. Conservatives have been doing this as long as I've been alive and they certainly won't stop now. We have always pushed for less abortions through better family planning but it is never reported as such. Only the conservative stereotypes are repeated endlessly.

[Laserbeam]

No, eggman, I said precisely what I meant to say. In my personal experiences and observations, I have seen many pro-choice people doing volunteer work on behalf of women and children having to do with their quality of life.

I have witnessed the anti-choice folks hurling ugly epithets at those entering clinics that do pap smears as well as abortions, anti-choice people who assumed women were there solely for abortions and were abusive and violent toward them. I have also witnessed anti-choice folks clamoring to ban contraception and sex education. That is a proven way to encourage unwanted and unplanned pregnancies.

As a man, I'm not surprised that you would be arrogant enough to tell me what I meant. However, you are incorrect about my words and meaning.

[Laserbeam]

No, eggman, I said precisely what I meant to say. In my personal experiences and observations, I have seen many pro-choice people doing volunteer work on behalf of women and children having to do with their quality of life.

I have witnessed the anti-choice folks hurling ugly epithets at those entering clinics that do pap smears as well as abortions, anti-choice people who assumed women were there solely for abortions and were abusive and violent toward them. I have also witnessed anti-choice folks clamoring to ban contraception and sex education. That is a proven way to encourage unwanted and unplanned pregnancies.

Furthermore, I know of no pro-choice people who would support a third-trimester abortion. That procedure is illegal in all parts of the world that I know of, including the United States. The only time such a procedure is legal is if it is the only way to save the life of the mother, and if it's the third trimester, the baby would not be aborted but simply delivered early. You are sorely misinformed on this country's laws and medical procedures. Incidentally, I work in the biggest hospital in the northwestern United States. I have also worked for women's organizations and know whereof I speak. It is people like you who deliberately spread misinformation to keep people ignorant that are the greatest danger to society.

[FOXYLADY]

LASER,,,,,,AS MY POST SAID...........TOO MANY DO NOTHING HYPOCRITES OUT THERE!! I AGREE WITH YOU 100%.........BIG MOUTHS BUT NO ACTION THAT I EVER SEE OR HAVE SEEN WITH THESE PRO-LIFE HYPOCRITES

[Laserbeam]

Thank you, Foxy Lady!

[Rothgar]

For me Pro-Choice is about the maintenance of the rights of biologically adult women!

The pro-life position is that except in extremus the rights of the fetus take precedence over the rights of a biologically adult women. I find this denigeration of adult women's rights in America totally intolerable (I am the FATHER of 2).

Giving women choice then setting up circumstances where they can reasonably chose to give birth (a super hard task all by itself) is PRO-CHOICE.

I think that if Pro-Lifers are successful in illegalizing abortion the Christian Church in the US is finished. Accordingly, I suspect that these Clintonian solutions will never satisfy the secret heart of hardcore pro-lifers but could satisfy the foot-soldiers.

If abortions are illegal largely to satisfy church teachings do you think that women (and their loved ones) who are forced into illegal abortions (with 1/3 of them ending up in a hospital) will be open to the message of the church that has forcibly redirected their lives? I doubt it. Clever very clever.

[Laserbeam]

Thank you. There need to be more men visibly supporting women.

[mattheweste]

And there need to be far fewer women visibly attacking men.

[Dialogue]

With 20 plus years of megachurches under the countries belt, what has changed? Tithing is as rampant throughout these organizations as it has ever been, devouring those resources for church buildings, props, huge church mortgages, and lavish orchestra presentations. While the people who come in at the last minute, sitting in the back rows, wonder why they came. Its an orgy of tithes verbiage, and serious, yet clap-happy melancholy songs, swaying back-and-forth like the jitterbug dance. The person in the back row, silently vows to never return, while exiting the so-called sanctuary (Galatians 4:10-11).

As for tithes guidance, go to: www. truthortradition.com - then click the top 30, at the top of the page then click on # 2, tithing versus giving - Its not rocket science.

[mivogo]

It's time to take this argument away from the 10%, "not even for a rape victim", pro-life extremists and the 10% "in any trimester/any time" pro-choice absolutists.
The other 80% of us are not "for" abortion, but recognize it as a reality-based though last resort choice, while also recognizing that everything should be done to prevent it.
The first Party to present this reality, the hypocrisy of being pro-life while being anti-birth control, while also recognizing the fact that a fetus is a potential, unique life, will offer up what rings true to the majority of thinking, feeling people.

[11907281]

I'm sorry but you must be thinking of another country. In America there is only left+right, good+evil, hero supporter+terrorist sympathizer, Rep+Dem, pro-life+pro-choice. *end sarcasim* Now if only the elected officials saw the 80% grey area and did some give and take ... my god, progress might happen.

[sdskelton03]

It is because of your reasoning that I believe the pro-choice community would do better to abandon Roe.

Roe is an outdated and undemocratic solution to the competing rights of a developing child and the woman within whom that child is developing.

If we could quit arguing about a bad legal decision we could begin a discussion of dealing with the problem without the burden of worrying whether or not a judge affirms Roe or a solution violates it.

[secondharmonic]

Ceindependence -- you might care to read 'The Open Society and Its Enemies' by Karl Popper. He details good arguments as to why 'natural ethics' and 'theistic ethics' are both deficient. Ultimately we choose what values we have. We do not and cannot derive it either from natural facts or from priestly dogma. Why? Because they do not dictate our behavior, rather our behavior induces justifications from THEM, instead. And because an "IS" is not an "OUGHT". Once obeying a God even unto murdering your own offspring was considered "moral". (cf. Isaac and Abraham). Yet as the tradition itself evolved (and it certainly DID evolve) then it was the individual's own conscience which decided (cf Elijah) and not some God-given dicta revealed by 'prophets' who were in any case no longer alive.
The morality of Jesus boils down to: 'don't be a hypocrite', which happens also to be that of Kant.