Here's one policy: "We are committed to creating a society where children are safe and can thrive physically, emotionally, educationally, and spiritually." Practically demonic, no? There are plenty of other policies that I have a hard time believing are wrong to most sane and ethical people. So, yup, "100% wrong" is wrong. Big surprise there!
What I most want to know from reviewing the platform is how much room there is for me in it. Plenty, actually. But I am going to suggest a modest amendment to make more room for me and others who are fleeing the white ethnic political entity often referred to as evangelicalism.
Under the heading Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice, the second sentence of the second paragraph says:
We recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care, evidence-based sex education and a full range of family planning services help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortion.I'm asking the DNC in the next draft of the platform to change "need for" to "incidence of." In this context, the word "need" makes some of us uncomfortable. By focusing on the reduction itself, the statement says that reducing abortion is a good thing. I hope this is something most can agree on, and I think this tiny change makes room for perhaps million of voters, who are and may remain uncomfortable with a previous statement, that is likely to remain a part of the party platform:
We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to...legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured.I guess I owe an explanation for our discomfort. I realize that a belief that life begins at conception is more or less a religious one. But to believe that life begins at birth, or at the third trimester, or on some scale associated with fetal development is equally a belief-based point of view, isn't it? Given what we do believe, can you understand our interest in protecting the unborn? Please allow us this, and make more room for us in the party.
By protecting the right of women to have abortion and working to protect women from having to make this often tragic choice, the DNC can set itself apart from the RNC by actually doing something about abortion. Those of us who have felt manipulated by Republicans, who whip up anger about the issue while refusing to take effective action, can sign onto a platform that includes policy for reducing the number of abortions. Finally, we can feel like we are doing something rather than being used to support other policies unrelated to this one.
If the DNC wants to go beyond the simple two-word change that I'm recommending and make us feel really welcome, it could add something like this paragraph.
We also realize that many Americans believe life begins prior to birth. While we hold that every woman should have the right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy, we also recognize that this is often a tragic choice. Therefore, we pledge to work with those of all points of view to reduce the incidence of abortion in our country, through improved health care, education, and access to contraceptives.I don't think this is a radical change to the Democratic Party platform. Among other things it would give many of us something to point to when trying to convince one-issue-vote family members that, even on this issue, the Republican platform is misguided and ineffective.
Mr. Tim,
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you on (at least) one point here, that “I realize that a belief that life begins at conception is more or less a religious one. But to believe that life begins at birth, or at the third trimester, or on some scale associated with fetal development is equally a belief-based point of view, isn't it?”
It’s interesting that it’s the pro-life side that’s painted as religiously based when the opposite is actually true. It’s the pro-abortion argument that is filled with obfuscations and mis-directions, all designed to avoid what seems obvious and justify an indefensible “belief”.
Just by chance, I read your post and a piece by Kevin D Williamson about an hour apart. He argues the case much better than I ever could:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442562/texas-fetal-burial-rule-abortion-remains-cremation-greg-abbott
In the case the link doesn’t work, the summary statement is this: “The same people who will lecture you about science eight days a week inexplicably embrace pre-modern superstitious notions of “ensoulment” and work up some fine angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin material about “personhood,” the legal construction one uses when one is trying one’s best not to notice that what happens in an abortion is killing and that what is killed is a distinct and individual human being.”
We can argue all we want about whether an unborn child has legal rights, but there is no rational argument that the unborn are anything other than human beings. Further, anyone who honestly thinks about what’s going on and concludes that abortion right up to deliver should be allowed – well, let’s just say I find it frightening to think what other conclusions they are capable of.
Tom Sinke
Hey Tom,
DeleteI think what you are saying is that it is a greater leap of faith to say that a fetus is not a human being than to say that it is. Fair point.
Some years ago, I read Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation. He raised some valid points to be sure, but I kept looking for an alternative view about when life began. I never found it. It struck me as very strange--and irresponsible.
My point is that there is no reason not to work together to reduce the number of abortions. They have been declining lately. ObamaCare may actually be partly responsible for this trend. I'm asking the Democratic Party to commit to reducing the incidence of abortion. If the current trend stops, slows, or reverses, I will expect RTL to ask why and re-evaluate their approach or bear some responsibility for protesting abortion without encouraging policies and actions that have an effect in preventing them.