That said, I can understand his reasoning. It makes sense to me on a certain level, and I can’t judge Obama too harshly as a father for thinking it. I wouldn’t be surprised if such a thought crossed my mind if my teenage daughter were to get pregnant.

I think “I don’t know” is a much more charitable and honest answer. I think the problem with a lot of these debates is that they’re often posed as absolute dichotomies. You’re either anti-choice or anti-life or anti-unborn-child-rights or anti-family-rights. Carrying the debate out on those lines makes perfect political sense; it lends itself to slogans and soundbites, and it’s great for energizing bases, but it polarizes us and clouds our ability to see each other clearly. Before you know it, as you point out, we can’t lean on either side of the issue without risking falling into a pit of “crazies.”

This issue is far too complicated and nuanced for me to reduce it to a binary. A lamp can be turned on or off, but what if it’s not plugged in? What then? Is it on, or is it off?

I’d rather avoid hanging legal hammers over people’s heads and let the doctors, mothers, and families of the country decide for themselves how they want to approach this issue as it affects them.

Thank you also, Taylor, for expanding the context of the discussion, regarding the clearly pro-abortion factions, I admit that I’m largely unaware of them, and have never been particularly sensitive to them. However disturbing, it makes sense to me that such organizations would get public funding, as they’re ostensibly providing some kind of health care services. That they receive funding not only seems terribly insensitive but completely unfair, as the opposing, pro-life, side doesn’t have the benefit posturing as a public health organization.

And thank you, Aluwid, for engaging me. Your framing of the argument in terms of rights of the unborn child is very compelling. I choose not to decide right now, and I doubt this will this be a deciding factor in how I vote in November.

I recognize that there are folks like you (and me, honestly) who are genuinely in the middle — understanding (either intellectually or through sad experience) that there are circumstances where an abortion may be genuinely necessary.

Like you, I struggle with associating myself with *either* end of this debate. Major segments of the militant “pro-life” crowd seem frighteningly naive to me. I’m also quite leery of letting the militant wing of the “pro-life” gang have their way with this issue.

My feel is that the societal equation of “pro-choice” politics with “reckless abandon” stems from the almost militant defense of unfettered sexuality that comes from the most vocal defenders of the “pro-choice” position.

*I’m* fascinated by the ferocity with which a lot of folks on the pro-choice side (not suggesting you, or even Obama) will jump down my throat when I even *suggest* that this message might not be acceptable for government schools to be teaching to my children.

It’s really tough for me to understand how broad-based public funding of organizations that *do* actively encourage abortions of convenience as a perfectly acceptable method of birth control is a beneficial thing for our society.

Seriously, is it really in the best interest of our society to have the local state university include a sexuality lecture as part of their mandatory freshman orientation, complete with free condoms and a preemptive referral to the local Planned Parenthood clinic “in case you get in trouble?” I really can’t align myself with the side of the debate that does *not* see this as “encouraging and promoting abortions.”

Granted, Obama is not teaching the freshman orientation course, but honestly, what message do you think people (including my children) took from his statement about his own daughters? If he as a father would not want his own daughters to be “punished with a baby” if “they make a mistake” (which in my mind would never imply rape, incest, or a threat to their health), then what does that say about his thoughts on the matter, when the rubber hits the road?

…and in an attempt to circle back to the original post, how does that possibly reconcile with the latest “Shucks, I just don’t know” at Saddleback?

It’s discouraging to me that our society has conflated “pro-choice” with “permissiveness free of consequences”, but that’s the sad truth. The militant wing driving the “pro-choice” position certainly doesn’t seem anxious to talk about the downsides — and stridently shouts down any cautionary word from those of us who might actually know a little something about this.

Personally, I really don’t want to criminalize a tragic thing like abortion. But in my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, it’s becoming increasingly hard to even raise a cautionary voice (one way or the other) without being immediately lumped in with the wackos.

Rather than calling pro-choice people pro-abortion, I think it’s more accurate to call them “anti-unborn-child-rights”. Because that is really what it comes down to, do unborn children deserve some degree of rights or not? If they do, then why shouldn’t the state provide protection to such vulnerable individuals? Instead pro-choice politicians like Obama are unwilling to afford any rights in these cases, providing no degree of protection to developing humans.

“I have no way of empathizing with a victim of rape or incest, let alone any pregnant woman.”

To put it another way, you don’t have a conflict of interest in the matter. Abortion is a controversy involving competing rights: The right of the woman to control her own body, and the right of the unborn child to develop and survive. The fact that you don’t have a personal right at stake in the controversy, along with all other males, gives you a better chance of being objective and fairly weighing between the two parties.

I’m fascinated that pro-choice beliefs and policies are so often equated with “reckless abandon” and “blindness.” It’s as though a pro-choice person is somehow “pro-abortion,” and Obama is encouraging and promoting abortions across the land. That’s not true!

It’s characterizations like this that make me hesitate to call myself pro-choice, but I’m too much of a libertarian (I also hesitate to call myself a libertarian) to want the government make this decision on behalf of so many people. Does that make me pro-choice? Can’t I just be pro civil liberty?

I’m leery of demanding a hard line against abortion because, while I’m personally disgusted by “abortion for personal or social convenience,” I have no way of empathizing with a victim of rape or incest, let alone any pregnant woman.

Obama’s position could be perceived as a hearty and confident “I don’t know. I (clearly) defer to my constituents to make their own choices. I see no reason to criminalize a medical procedure that could be life saving in certain circumstances.” I believe it takes guts and integrity to refuse to take a hard line when there is no clear answer.

I could quote a Rush song at this point, but I’ll quote Learned Hand instead: “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women.”

It is ok for an executive to not know something! It’s especially ok (in my mind) for an executive to admit he does not know something and defer to his constituents.

Re: #1: I’m not usually one to prattle on about distinctions without differences. My bad. However, the expectation that politicians should exercise “their best judgment” (in addition to reflecting the will of a constituency) is still present, even if you remove that darn political lecture, right?

Re: #2: Interesting thought. My first reaction was, “Really? Are you not following California right now?” …but then as I thought more about that one, I remembered that Prop 8 is a ballot initiative — conceptually much closer to “handing people their own rope” than “choosing someone to string us all up.” In the end, though, (sorry to be pedantic) I think it’s tough to make a case that the church really doesn’t expect representatives to exercise good judgment.

Re: #3: Certainly nobody said they had to sit still and listen. So… If someone is “beyond feeling” and not paying any attention to the Spirit, is the Spirit still talking? Maybe this is a topic for your latterdaysnark blog. Maybe its just a comment on your 8/4/08 post about “The Power of the Spirit”. (I’ve always thought that was a kinda silly limitation, BTW.)

Re: expecting hypocrisy: Sad, but true. Still troubling, but par for the course, I suppose. To be honest, both of these guys drive me nuts at times. (Though I’ll probably end up voting for one of them.)

On a vaguely related tangent, the “flip-flopper” label can drive me nuts too. I can muster some serious respect for people who have taken the time to study an issue and are humble enough to honestly arrive at a conclusion different from their initial assumptions. (…and then defend the new conclusion eloquently.) *That* takes some character, regardless of the political “direction” of the change.

I agree fully with point 1. It drive me nuts.

Where in the DC area? Me too, so I am curious.

1. People who go on about how the US has a republican form of government in response to people saying the US is a democracy are completely ignoring the fact that “democracy” in the US (and elsewhere) has a colloquial meaning of “republican”. It’s especially annoying when it takes the form of a lecture. Get over it–it’s possible to be absolutely correct on the terminology, but still be making a distinction without a difference.

2. I see the church’s statement on political neutrality as tying in quite directly to Mosiah 29:26-27, actually–basically, the people are allowed enough rope to hang themselves. The interesting thing is that the church doesn’t seem to see it as elected representatives’ job to keep the people from doing so.

3. I don’t disagree with the claim that “the Spirit will *always* advocate correct moral positions”, but i do disagree with the implication that that means that the Spirit will always tell elected representatives to vote in a way that consistently supports morally correct positions. (See point #2, above.)

And finally, a general thought on the original topic of this thread: I expect hypocrisy from my politicians. Maybe it’s the cynicism that comes of having grown up a political junkie in the DC metro area, but i don’t trust politicians who don’t show a little bit of hypocrisy. It’s *stupid* hypocrisy that bugs me, and i have to say that i really haven’t seen that from either Obama or McCain on the abortion issue.

I was very careful to keep political affiliation out of my answer by clarifying that my usage of the words “republican” and “democratic” were NOT references to the political parties themselves, but rather references to the underlying principles from which the political parties happen to have drawn their names. I hesitated to add those words, thinking that someone might misunderstand. I’m sorry I was not clear enough about that for you.

All political bias aside (at least from me):

“The point at which human LIFE begins” is an abstract question, the answer to which has been neither scientifically determined nor divinely revealed.

“[The point at which] a baby get human rights” (the question asked of Obama) is a practical question well within the ability of reasonable humans to interpret, and certainly a question about which any politician (of any political flavor) aspiring to guide public policy in this area should have already come to some important conclusions.

Again, as the original post from David (Sundwall) states, it is troubling that Obama appears to be *talking* like he’s not yet made up his mind, but *voting* in a manner that leans heavily toward giving fetuses and even babies human rights at a *very* late stage.

..and yes, that kind of hypocrisy *from any source* is troubling.