First Republicans and the topic of Abortion

In the wake of yesterday's ruling on abortion, I think it is appropriate to provide some thinking about this organization and its position on a mother's right to control her body as it balances with the value of the life within. First Republicans was founded especially by Republicans who were concerned that the Party had become too monolithic officially on a topic that actually divides Americans generally, and the Republican Party especially.

 

Why has this blog attended so much to  glbt rights?

Life/Choice is a topic on which I have tended to recuse myself.  When asked to join the board, I felt that my portfolio was mainly to ensure that the gay community's views were represented.  With a board otherwise of straight Republicans brought together on the topic of moderation, I imagined that others would represent the portfolio of women's autonomy.

To my surprise, there appeared to be unanimity on the board with regard to the rights of glbt citizens to nondiscrimination and unanimity of opposition to attempts to amend the Indiana Constitution.  As I felt the gay community under siege, I was moved to ensure that this unanimity was represented to the world at large, and fast, before the Constitution was irreparably damaged.  On the board, these positions were not met with opposition.

Life/choice issues

 

It was equally surprising to find that the positions of the board on the topic of abortion were not easily drawn to a consensus, and so this organization has been fairly silent on the topic.   That seems a shame, for the majority of Americans seem in polls to be united in a belief that while disagreement will always exist, the two sides should be able to find a way to co-exist without such polarity.

The language of this topic has lent itself to platitudes; it is appropriate to be more thoughtful. 

When does life begin?  It is a meaningless question, for it flows through us always, it is present in sperm and present in egg, and it is present in our cells at every stage except in the detour of death.   Life doesn't begin at conception; conception is the joining of two strands of life, not the genesis of new life from nothing.  When is life complete?  Not at conception either, for the mother's womb affords additional ingredients without which life would not be possible.

No, the question is not when does life begin, but when is human life vested with value sufficient to allow it to progress unimpeded?  On this, Humans disagree.  Some seem to vests  that value in the living sperm and in the living egg.  Others seem to vest that value when the living sperm and the living egg unite.  Others seem to vest that value when living sperm and living egg unite and implant in the uterus.  Others seem to vest that value when that life as received all its additional nutrients and has achieved viability.  Others seem to vest that value upon birth.  Others seem to vest that value when the infant has achieved and age of 1 and proven itself.  Others never vest that value.   These positions are all governed by mixtures of religion, science, morals, compassion, tradition, and instinct.

With these thoughts in mind, I would place myself among those First Republicans who believe this  organization should be developing and representing thoughtful discussions and even positions on topics of women's autonomy, abortion, sex education, contraception, disease prevention, abstinence -only education, pregnancy prevention, pre-natal care,  and the laws that affect these topics.  These discussions and positions may not be ones with which all agree, but I have hunch they would be of the variety and moderation with which most Americans would identify.

FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE that the stability of our society depends on the basic welfare of our people. Hunger, homelessness, poor health, and economic vulnerability are challenges that should not become insurmountable. To be great, our society must help those who cannot help themselves.
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE that government derives its power and authority from the individual, and that each person's ability, dignity, culture, religion, and freedom must be honored.
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights is the bedrock of American freedom.  The individual rights and freedoms established in federal and state constitutions must be protected from amendment and defended from encroachment.
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE the separation of church and state enables people of all faiths and beliefs to coexist peacefully and religion to flourish in America, freeing us from religious strife and affording us domestic tranquility that is enduring and historically unprecedented. Religious principles must not be legislated.       
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE in equal rights, equal protection, equal justice, equal opportunity and equal responsibilities for all people, regardless of race, religion, creed, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or national origin.
FIRST REPUBLICANS BELIEVE we must follow the example of our national and party founders by promoting respectful debate, applying reason, honoring the wisdom inherent in the past while rejecting its biases, and embracing thoughtfully such change as is necessary, beneficial, and just.

Comments

[kay]

Life begins at birth – in fact, even Jesus Christ began life on earth by way of passing through this threshold.

And I still searching for data on how many anti pro-choice advocates celebrate their conceptionday versus their birthday...

[The Scribe]

The abortion issue will never be discussed or approached in a meaningful way until we resolve the issue of unwanted pregnancies. Until we have a viable program of sex education (since we have become a society obsessed with sex, the price we pay is having to educate our children at an earlier age) that is based around the proper usage of contraception.

It's also horrible that adoption is never promoted as any form of alternative, while the stories of Americans who go to Asia or Africa to adopt a child become so well known that many feel that's the only alternative when they want to adopt themselves.

Once those two things happen (has anyone noticed any pigs beginning to develop wings lately?) then we can begin to have a mature discussion on this subject.

[Chris Douglas]

Scribe, I think you are correct about sex education.

There is a faction in the Republican Party that opposes sex education about contraception. Presently, for instance, that faction dominates Washington Township schools, where abstinence only education is the rule of the day. My understanding is that least one member of that school board makes a living around the state on the topic of abstinence only education.

Basically, with the majority of the population not progressing on to college, and with few who progress on to college getting sex education there anyway, the reality is that we are sending kids out into the world with no knowledge of how to have sex and avoid disease and pregnancy. What we get, then, is disease and pregnancy.

Not too bright on our part!

[scott]

I just want to thank Kay for the conception day quip. It is the best light I've heard (maybe the only)made of a serious subject.
In college I took a class which was intended to instil in students the understanding that science and politics mix poorly. The class worked for me. With this subject, we have at least religion, science, and politics. It makes, I think, a bad mix we will continue to stir with no happy result. Leave out the last ingredient and you get debate. Add the last ingredient and you get some degree or threat of coercion and the philosophical question of law and order about a topic where there is disagreement among reasonable people. (long sigh here.)

[kay]

Humor reduces stress by assisting us to view the world with perspective. My humor was intended to highlight the hypocrisy of five senior fundamentalists’ males once again dictating to women what control women will be legally allowed over their bodies, indeed, their lives. So, no, while there is no humor to be found in the act of abortion there is plenty, from my perspective, to be found in the latest perverse dictum of the Supremes.

[Chris Douglas]

Humor aside, Kay, do you take that position actually? Marla Stevens (for whom I have great respect, who is no conservative) places it at viability.

[kay]

Douglas, my opinion is that Life begins at birth: the emergence of a fetus from the mother’s womb into the outside. Once this moment occurs, this human life has a right to all medical/lifesaving options necessary to sustain life – assuming all legal, medical, and parental consent in place.

[The Scribe]

Chris, a wise old political mentor once told me that one really great way to judge one's political moderation and reasoning skills was to query their stance on partial-birth abortion.

If they were pro-choice and still found the idea of partially delivering a living and perfectly viable infant, in order to smash it's skull and kill it (without any pain medication) a repugnant one, then there was hope for them.

If, on the other hand they knew the facts of the procedure (I've found that most pro-choice advocates have no real concept of this gruesome form of infanticide) and still prattled some "woman's right to choose" nonsense, then there was no reason to waste any more time in hopes of a reasonable discussion.

It's been proven that there's no medical necessity for this procedure. Therefore, to advocate continuing this barbaric procedure makes me wonder about what the future holds for all of us.

[Chris Douglas]

Every step of this equation, no matter at what point, seems problematic.

Both of your positions, Kay and Scribe, seem to me to be fraught with problems, both pragmatic and transcendental.

Kay, I think "life at birth" is too late for most Americans to accept, if the being within is capable of life at an earlier stage and its physical location is an accident of natural or induced factors. (I doubt anyone could persuade you so.) My sense is that your position is not even widely accepted among those who favor abortion rights, for there seems to be a lack of support even among ardent champions of women's autonomy to late-term abortion. Perhaps others can chime in and back you up on that, and set correct my impression.

At the same time, if the being is to be considered fully vested, then the logical ramification is to clap any mother in irons who is endangering it whether through drinking, smoking, or evading doctor's orders of bed rest.

Scribe, it's not clear to me how, from the perspective of the being, partial birth abortion is any more violent than other forms. It's just that this form is within view. Our own moral status is (in my opinion) badly compromised by our willful ignorance (in which I am complicit) of the pain and suffering we cause much more sentient beings in our food and leather-goods chain. Out of sight, out of mind hardly seems like a solid standard either.

[The Scribe]

Good point, Chris

My argument was simply that one's position on partial-birth abortion was a good test of moderation, and whether that person was capable of reasoned discussion, debate and ultimately compromise. I learned real quick that if someone was so hell bent on maintaining the status quo regarding abortion without consideration of the horror of this particular procedure, then they likely weren't capable of maintaining a reasoned discussion about much of anything.

The problem for people like myself who hate abortion in any form, and who have counseled many young women and couples who've experienced this tragedy, is that it isn't going away anytime soon.

Much like the "war on drugs" has dramatically increased the usage of drugs on top of the resultant violence and erosion of our liberties, outlawing RvW will do absolutely nothing to curb this horror.

That's why we need to reduce the demand for it first, then worry about passing laws to restrict it.

[Chris Douglas]

Scribe, the "life-at-all-costs" argument against abortion in my opinion devalues life. To one steeped in military tradition, for instance, there is duty, honor, and country. The founding fathers pledged (and gave) their lives, honor and fortunes to establish this country. Patrick Henry cried for Liberty or Death. And caught spying, Nathan Hale regretted that he had but one life to sacrifice. The signers of the Declaration lost their lives by the legion, as did the citizens they summoned to war.

This nation was founded by people who thought many things were more important than life itself. I agree with them.

And I've been impressed more with the adamance of the pro-life movement than by its sincerity. I do share the criticism of the movement that it seems to be careless about whether that life survives or is cared for once it emerges from the womb, especially when we reflect upon the mass losses of life, infant and otherwise, taking place in poverty around the globe. If the value of each life is paramount, then it would be unconscionable that any of us enjoy our lives without diverting every spare resource to the rescue of life that is perishing abroad. That eats at my conscience, but I still spend a a few dollars at Blockbusters, the cinema, and a good restaurant from time to time.

As a metaphysical question, Scribe, why among God's creatures is it mankind for whom life is paramount over all other considerations? We are concerned about preserving each life in the womb, but vegans and Buddhists are as concerned with life of other creatures as our own. Why do you draw a line at abortion as that loss of life which you hate?

[The Scribe]

Chris, of all people I didn't expect you to lob such a softball my way.

Why do I care more about unborn children than I do animals?

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Clearly God created men to rule over the animals and plants, hence why man is the only creature with the ability to reason, to accept or reject Him.

As much of an animal lover as I am, there is no comparison between an unborn child and any animal, regardless of cuteness.

Another reason that I hate abortion is that I have known too many women who have made this tragic decision. I've witnessed their pain, heartbreak and overwhelming grief. These are feelings that last a lifetime, and appear to be very common. These are the things that pro-abortionists don't want to talk about, they don't want Planned Parenthood to discuss the possible consequences (psychological and physical) with this procedure.

[kay]

CHD: Kay, I think "life at birth" is too late for most Americans to accept, if the being within is capable of life at an earlier stage and its physical location is an accident of natural or induced factors.

My position that “life begins at birth” certainly does not disagree with your point concerning gestational duration. Like most, I live in awe of the simulated life sustaining possibilities (‘hold my spot’ ) that science and medicine affords which is exactly why I identify differently than a strict ~viability~ advocate. While also cognizant, by the way, of the unresolved challenges of access —who gets what treatment, when, where and by whom—which seems largely driven by who pays.

CHD: My sense is that your position is not even widely accepted among those who favor abortion rights, for there seems to be a lack of support even among ardent champions of women's autonomy to late-term abortion.

I did not address your attempt to align me with another (Marla Stevens, respected queer advocate) or others (ardent champions…) as I shed my sheeple need to do so many moons ago. So, widely accepted or not it is my position and feel no compelling need to convince others of my position…especially those who have second place dogs in the chase…so to speak.

“CHD: Perhaps others can chime in and back you up on that, and set correct my impression.

Perhaps … in the mean time, I’ll just continue to keep my eggs in my past experience basket as a know it to be a more reliable indicator of tomorrow’s possibilities.

CHD: At the same time, if the being is to be considered fully vested, then the logical ramification is to clap any mother in irons who is endangering it whether through drinking, smoking, or evading doctor's orders of bed rest.

And what would be the/your logical ramification for the father who is endangering “it” (oh my, was that a Freudian slip) via drinking, smoking or evading doctor’s orders…or for that matter, participating in other risky macho behaviors: volunteering to go to war, reckless driving, not taking care of their health, contact sports …

CHD: Both of your positions, Kay and … , seem to me to be fraught with problems, both pragmatic and transcendental.

So, Douglas, care to share your ‘fraught’ free position and little more clearly?

Ok, that’s it for now. Do hope you and yours are enjoying this welcome change in the weather. As for myself, I’m off to shoot hoops with the grandkids, YIKES!

[Chris Douglas]

Scribe, I think your biblical reference may support your position... (Or may not. If God created man in his image, and if Christ was crucified to cleanse us of our sins, then it's not clear to me that God had any greater respect for human life than any one else. Especially given that bible is replete with instances of God's chosen slaughtering widely and retaining his favor.) I actually find the Buddhist outlook as reflecting a more compelling view of the universe of God's creation, even if I don't subscribe to it, then you have set out.

By the way, Scribe, the old testament was assembled as a Judaic compilation, which I understand by tradition did not hold that it was the word of God, necessarily, but an assembly of important or beautiful writings with spiritual and practical import. It is more the fundamentalist and Catholic Christian tradition that holds it be an infallible word of God. I would have greater confidence in its infallibility if those who were compiling it had some sense of the responsibility that later Christians would thrust upon them. There are clearly, for instance, two different description of the creation of humanity which, I understand, in their ancient styles reveal two different and somewhat contradictory sources.

But that justifies why you oppose abortion (though not all Christians do), not why in a land of religious freedom in which any religious establishment is proscribed, your view should prevail. My softball turns out to have been a curveball. Your religious perspective tells us why you oppose abortion, but not why that should be U.S. policy. I may support or oppose circumcision or baptism or a kosher diet based on my religious perspectives. To make it civic policy requires greater justification. I don't necessarily doubt that you can supply it, but I do think you are obliged to if you wish your view to prevail.

Kay, I think Marla's definition of viability is that not established by science but by nature, based on the earliest age at which a prematurely born child can be sustained without extraordinary medical intervention. I do find that position to be more compelling than yours. Of course, I agree with you about men and smoking etc. That's my point. I don't think society would sustain the ramifications of considering even a viable life in the womb a fully protected human being, which I suppose plays into your outlook.

As for me, I don't have an answer. If there were an answer that were not fraught with difficulties, I suspect we would have greater consensus.

[Chris Douglas]

By the way, Scribe, the God of the old testament inflicted no shortage of death upon His creation. He bid man not to murder, it is true, but He seems not to have desisted from it Himself.

And if the Pope is correct, as he now sets forth, that unbaptized infants do not remain in limbo but instead pass into heaven, then what is peril to the life in the womb of death? Does this not hasten that life to its eternal reward?

[The Scribe]

Wow Chris, you left so much for me that I'm not sure where to start. This may be a bit tougher for me as my intelligence pales in comparison to yours, but here goes.

You seem to be suggesting that since Christ died for our sins that God must not have had a very high regard for human life itself. I'm no biblical scholar by any sense, but this seems rather easy for me.

God had such a high regard for humanity itself that he saved us from our ultimate consequence of damnation for our sins. Christ came down from Paradise in order to take on human form and to remove the separation that had existed between man and God since the fall of Adam and Eve.

In other words, it seems to me that the very act of sacrificing his own son in a painful and humiliating manner in order to save us from our own sins is the ultimate act of love towards the human race.

Your quip about the Hebrews slaughtering at will, as you put it, again misses a crucial point. God chose the Hebrews to carry out His own judgment against the other nations. It wasn't that the Hebrews were an ancient version of Muslims, who wantonly slaughtered in the name of Allah (both then and now). Muslims do it simply because those they kill are non-believers (though they seem to leave Buddhists and Hindus from the mix). The Hebrews attacked (and frequently annihilated) other cities and nations upon God's instruction. The God of the Old Testament frequently chose to pass judgment in this manner (i.e. Noah and the flood) before Christ's death and resurrection created a new covenant. The entire book of Joshua deals with the entrance of the Hebrews into the holy land.

I can't answer your point regarding Judaic tradition and the authorship of the Old Testament. I'm no rabbinical scholar, I'll leave that to someone else. But if those passages aren't direct quotes from God himself (and I'm not that silly) they certainly are designed to purvey the general intent of His commands.

My opposition to abortion long predates my conversion to Christianity (see, not all of us are brainwashed from birth). My opposition to the procedure isn't necessarily rooted in my faith, I think it exists independently. My original post regarding the inability to simply ban the practice outright immediately is likely at odds with my pastor's viewpoint (see, most of us really do think for ourselves), but is rooted in pragmatism.

I only quoted scripture to refute your point about animals and humans existing on an even plane. That wasn't intended to enter scripture into the overall debate, as I'm not aware of the procedure of abortion being mentioned in the bible.

However, my belief (and I am not Catholic, but many of my views closely relate to the Catholic Church) is that God created all life, and that we do not possess the insight to understand why He has done many of the things He has. One person's unwanted pregnancy may have been intended as a blessing or gift of some kind from Him. Trust me when I say that I have enough personal experience in this area, it's not just a mindless repeating of scripture.

I also don't answer to the Pope. He's entitled to his opinion, and I am mine, so I won't make an effort to respond to his statements any more than I would to Pat Robertson or any other prominent Christian. Protestantism was created exactly so we could think for ourselves outside of the One True Faith, and not simply repeat the Pope's teachings by rote. That's what drove Martin Luther to nail his manifesto on the church door.

Also, what's wrong with carrying a child to term and allowing it to be adopted? Simply because it's a woman's right to do with her body as she chooses? Why can't I sell my own kidney on EBay? Isn't it my right to choose what I should do with my own body? That's what feminists claim.

Owww....finger cramps.

[Chris Douglas]

Thank you, Scribe. We'll agree to leave Christian theology out of the mix, if I get your drift.

Still, I do think you are signing on to eventual abolition of abortion, assigning to the life in the womb the status of protected being. If that is true, and the life in the womb has that value, then why would we not be monitoring and controlling women who are in any way endangering that life or its potential? Why are we not demanding some form of protective custody for smokers or some form of probation officer for women who for some reason have a higher risk pregnancy but are not following doctor's orders?

This is not a rhetorical question, but one seriously designed to tease from you the appropriate limits to society's intervention in the life of the mother. I'm sure you would oppose such measures as excessive impositions upon women's liberties, but why exactly if the interests of the life in the womb prevail over the liberty of the mother?

[The Scribe]

Sigh...

In a perfect world, abortion wouldn't exist. Nether would homosexuality, thievery, murder, adultery, gossip or other sins. However, our world is less than perfect, and it's our choices that make the difference.

Do I wish to see abortion ended? Absolutely, without a doubt, with a you betcha thrown in for good measure. It's a horrible and tragic thought that we have adopted infanticide as an expression of choice in such a modern society.

You asked some other, pointed questions. I personally think smoking while pregnant should be a misdemeanor of some sort, and I happen to feel the same way about people that smoke in an enclosed space with children. I consider myself quite libertarian, believing that we should have the right to do as we please with our own bodies. EXCEPT for when what we do infringes upon the rights of others.

Here's the critical factor: when does the other party not have the opportunity to defend it's own rights? A fetus in the womb meets this standard, as does a small child stuck in the car with a smoking mother.

Chris, I do not believe in utopia in any form, at least in an earthly sense. We can't fix everything, regardless of how hard Democrats try. I honestly don't think we'll ever eliminate abortion, any more than we will smoking or drug or alcohol abuse. Those are all tragedies that affect us every day, but despite our best efforts continue to do so.

How far would I be willing to go? I'm not sure, but I get really angry when I'm counseling a young couple who have experienced the tragedy of poor choices, or watching a small child wheezing with asthma. I'm not a perfect father by any stretch, but since the birth of my son I've made literally every decision with him in mind. Scheduling, business decisions, investment opportunities, choice of neighborhood to move into, what car to buy, etc. I just hate it when others refuse to take parenting seriously, or who have such little regard for the blessing they've had bestowed upon them they choose death instead.

[Chris Douglas]

Scribe, I do, of course, agree with you about our personal responsibility for the welfare of children. You sound like my parents. Be careful. Your love for them, as demonstrated by the priority you assign them, may give them a valuable sense of personal worth no matter what other tribulations may confront them. If you're children feel your unconditional love, they might just be the sort that consider your love to be quite enough to satisfy a core need, and decide they don't care one wit what others may think of them for who they are, or what the personal consequences may be for taking stands of conscience. Er... wait... I've gotten off track.

Constitutional democracy, of courese, isn't designed to produce Utopia. Instead, it's designed with a confidence in humanity that consensus will, on average, produce a better result than tyranny, but that various checks must be in place to ensure that the consensus does not produce tyranny itself.

It seems that we are agreed that abortion at some point becomes problematic, though we might disagree on the question of when. In this regard, we reflect society's general areas of agreement and disagreement. It also seems that we agree that we will not achieve a utopia in which abortion is eliminated, although we might disagree on the question of how far society has a right to intrude upon a mother's control of her own life and body before society becomes a tyranny. In this regard, we also reflect society's general areas of agreement and disagreement.

It seems to me that (and in this regard, too, Americans actually seem to agree) we should be able to approach (though never reach) a consensus that establishes (as today) restrictions on abortion which balance society's legitimate concern for the life within with the legitimate right of women to be free from society's natural tendency toward tyranny.

[The Scribe]

I'm in such a state of shock that I' even contemplating writing this that I'm actually having to force my fingers to type the actual words...

Chris, I agree.

Thanks for the complements as well. I believe children are such a precious gift (and because of personal reasons, an even more poignant gift to me) that I vowed to God that if He ever saw fit to bless my wife and I in that manner, that I would devote everything I had to developing these precious gifts. To date, being a father has been even more of a blessing than I ever imagined.

[Chris Douglas]

(Hm! For the sake of excitement, we may have to seek additional topics for disagreement! Perhaps today's post will serve that purpose!)