This is the 2nd and final part of my analysis of an open letter from Anne Rice. Part 1 was posted yesterday.<\/p>\n
Abortion<\/strong><\/p>\n Anne Rice spends most of her letter covering this issue, and she starts with an assertion that, to me, shows a lack of consideration of the history of the issue.<\/p>\n I want to add here that I am Pro-Life. I believe in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Deeply respecting those who disagree with me, I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Ms. Rice does touch on these historical issues lightly later on, and I\u2019ll hit them more in-depth then, but even looking at how the abortion issue generally falls between the parties today, I don\u2019t see this as making sense. What I hear from Democrats are things like John Kerry with this sentiment<\/a>:<\/p>\n I completely respect their views. I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views. But I disagree with them, as do many. I can\u2019t legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn\u2019t share that article of faith. I believe that choice is a woman\u2019s choice. It\u2019s between a woman, God and her doctor. That\u2019s why I support that. I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If one\u2019s commitment to Christianity should be \u201cabsolute\u201d, as Ms. Rice has said, there is a big problem with this statement, that is generally the line religious Democrats use when talking about abortion, and that is the canard about legislating one\u2019s religious faith, or sometimes call ramming one\u2019s religion down your throat. Civil rights are very much a moral issue, but does Sen. Kerry have the same problem with legislating that? No, he\u2019s very willing to impose his view on KKK members, and rightly so. It\u2019s right, it\u2019s moral and it\u2019s the law. Legislators all throughout our country\u2019s history, and more so in our early history, based many of their decisions partly or mostly on their religious faith. This excuse is disingenuous.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Regarding Hillary Clinton, NARAL gave her a 100% score on her 2006 voting record<\/a> (PDF), and she\u2019s a big supporter of Roe v Wade<\/a>. See here for other details.<\/a> You won\u2019t curb abortions by voting the way she does. Like her husband, she\u2019ll talk the talk<\/a>, but watch the way she votes.<\/p>\n When voting, as Ms. Rice says, \u201cConscience requires the Christian to vote as a Christian\u201d. If there is a substantial difference between Ms. Rice\u2019s vote and Sen. Kerry\u2019s or Clinton\u2019s vote, I\u2019d like to know what she thinks it might be. Both votes affect more than just the voter, and one\u2019s Christianity shouldn\u2019t be compartmentalized between private and public life.<\/p>\n In one sense, votes by representatives will, to different extents, reflect the people represented rather than the representatives views. At the same time, by that very title, the representative represents<\/em> their constituents views and values, and his or her own views are part of that; he or she was voted in partially or mostly because of their views. It\u2019s certainly not always a perfect fit between the politician and the constituents, but Sen. Kerry\u2019s statement takes his religious beliefs totally and completely out of the equation. If Democratic politicians, in general, can\u2019t bring themselves to vote against abortion, how in the world they be better in stopping the horror of it? I have heard many anti-abortion statements made by people who are not Democrats, but many of these statements do not strike me as constructive or convincing. I feel we can stop the horror of abortion. But I do not feel it can be done by rolling back Roe vs. Wade, or packing the Supreme Court with judges committed to doing this. As a student of history, I do not think that Americans will give up the legal right to abortion. Should Roe vs Wade be rolled back, Americans will pass other laws to support abortion, or they will find ways to have abortions using new legal and medical terms.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I agree that repealing bad legislation or overturning court decisions will not bring an end to abortion in and of themselves, but without them, how can we make real headway? For too many people, what\u2019s legal is what\u2019s right, or at least what\u2019s neutral. Our government\u2019s laws should reflect our country\u2019s shared morality. Do we or do we not value life in our culture?<\/p>\n The idea that Americans will just pass laws to support abortion is akin to saying that kids will just use drugs anyway, so let\u2019s give them clean needles, or that they\u2019re going to have sex anyway, might as well give them condoms and a clean room. None of those remedies will even stem the tide, so neither is a \u201csolution to the horror\u201d. People are going to steal from each other and hurt each other and kill each other anyway; they do all the time. Should we throw our hands up and legalize those actions? And thus, keeping abortion legal isn\u2019t going to somehow reduce the number of abortions.<\/p>\n And while we\u2019re on the subject, one might ask if I\u2019m also against passing laws against anything I find morally wrong. One might say that I\u2019m inconsistent in my views if I favor the continued legalization of alcohol or tobacco. Fair question. I would also ask the religious left if they are in favor, morally, of state-sponsored gambling, since it\u2019s typically politicians on their side of the aisle pushing for state lotteries and the like. Just as fair. Let me answer that by saying that I believe there are some moral issues that should be decided on an individual basis, but there are other issues that should have the weight of our representative government behind them. Whether one drinks wine with dinner is, I think we can agree, an individual choice. Whether one is allowed to be born or not is the first right of them all, without which none of the others matter, and should have the force of government behind it.<\/p>\n And referring back to Sen. Kerry\u2019s statement on abortion, I wonder if Ms. Rice finds his comment \u201cconstructive or convincing\u201d. How constructive to the pro-life cause is that sort of declaration?<\/p>\n And much as I am horrified by abortion, I am not sure \u2014 as a student of history \u2014 that Americans should give up the right to abortion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Try saying it this way: \u201cAs much as I am horrified by sucking a living being out with a hose and killing it, I am not sure \u2014 as a student of history \u2014 that Americans should give up the right to sucking out living beings with hoses and killing them.\u201d Depending on your opinion of the living-ness of the fetus, this is one reading of that statement, and it sounds almost comical, if not utterly incredible. How horrible can you really believe something is if you think we should retain some \u201cright\u201d to it?<\/p>\n And if you don\u2019t think the fetus is a human being, then how could it be described as a \u201chorror\u201d? It\u2019s no different than cutting off a fingernail. This is a major inconsistency I see with people who say they\u2019re pro-life, but think abortion should remain a right. If the fetus is alive, why are you for allowing it to be killed without cause, and if it\u2019s not alive, why use the label \u201cpro-life<\/em>\u201c?<\/p>\n I am also not convinced that all of those advocating anti-abortion positions in the public sphere are necessarily practical or sincere. I have not heard convincing arguments put forth by anti-abortion politicians as to how Americans could be forced to give birth to children that Americans do not want to bear. And more to the point, I have not heard convincing arguments from these anti-abortion politicians as to how we can prevent the horror of abortion right now, given the social situations we have.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I have to refer to Sen. Kerry\u2019s statement and Sen. Clinton\u2019s voting record again. Are they \u201cpractical or sincere\u201d with regard to ending abortion? I honestly don\u2019t think so.<\/p>\n Ms. Rice is either deliberately framing the issue here to benefit her argument, or is naively parroting Democrat & Planned Parenthood talking points. The point at which the determination of whether or not to have a child is made is at the time of conception, but she doesn\u2019t mention this issue of responsibility. She might be talking about it regarding the \u201csocial situations we have\u201d, but she doesn\u2019t elaborate.<\/p>\n If that is what she\u2019s talking about, that our overly sexualized culture has to be addressed, then I would agree with that. But again, who is in the better position to work at retreating from that? Was it liberal or conservative values that brought us this rise in teen sexualization? Was it liberal or conservative values that brought us \u201cfree\u201d \u201clove\u201d in the 60s? Was it liberal or conservative values that gave us a welfare system that allows absentee fathers to assuage their guilt? Again, the Republican party has not been completely true to conservative principles, but Democrats are certainly not anywhere near them, and many times deriding them.<\/p>\n And here\u2019s a nice irony: \u201cI have not heard convincing arguments from these anti-abortion politicians\u201d, so her solution to the horror of abortion is to vote for pro-abortion politicians? Completely upside-down.<\/p>\n Do I myself have a solution to the abortion problem? The answer is no. What I have are hopes and dreams and prayers \u2014 that better education will help men and women make responsible reproductive choices, and that abortion will become a morally abhorrent option from which informed Americans will turn away.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I heartily agree that education is one of the keys to this; winning the hearts and minds. But that alone, like overturning bad court rulings, is not enough, yet essentially that\u2019s the only solution she talks about, and frankly overturning Roe v Wade by itself would curb more abortions than education itself. (Don\u2019t believe me? Say what you want about Prohibition, while it was in force as law there was less alcohol consumption<\/a>. Generally, people respected the law. Legislation works.) Suggesting this remedy alone, I would argue, is what is not convincing.<\/p>\n Who would fund that education? Can we count on Democrats, who lobby for government money on behalf of Planned Parenthood<\/a>, be the ones to entrust with this? Hen house, meet fox. Again, the unintended irony (and it is unintended, as far as I can tell) is just all over this letter, and especially with the next paragraph.<\/p>\n There is a great deal more to this question, as to how abortion became legal, as to why that happened, as to why there is so little talk of the men who father fetuses that are aborted, and as to the human rights of all individuals involved. I am not qualified as a student of history to fully discuss these issues in detail. I remain conscientiously curious and conscientiously concerned.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As much as Ms. Rice appeals to history, you\u2019d think she would consider these questions rather important. Who got us into this mess is a serious question that would need to be answered as part of an informed decision as to which party is best to lead us out of it. For the edification of those interested, let\u2019s hit all her points.<\/p>\n How abortion became legal, and why it happened:<\/em> Let me ask which side of the argument the two political parties were on at the time Roe v Wade was decided, and have been since then. The answer is obvious. The only dissenters in that decision were conservatives, and at least one conservative justice voted for it not understanding the gravity of that decision<\/a><\/p>\n In his concurring opinion, [Justice Warren E. Burger] explained, \u201cI do not read the court\u2019s holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting justices; the dissenting views discount the reality that the vast majority of physicians observe the standards of their profession, and act only on the basis of carefully deliberated medical judgments relating to life and health. Plainly, the court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/a><\/p>\n