But others found a lot to like, as various reports have indicated. Some of the swooning can be read here:
You can also read a more detailed discussion of the issues, from some of those who participated in that conference call, at this link. And the editor of Beliefnet, Steve Waldman, isn't terribly impressed.The Democratic Party remains staunchly behind a woman’s right to choose an abortion.
But the platform statement on the issue that will be adopted at the party’s presidential nominating convention in Denver later this month has been well received by some pro-life Christians, who applaud its emphasis on abortion reduction.
On a conference call Tuesday with journalists, several leading evangelical and Catholic activists welcomed the stress on abortion reduction as the “common ground” between those who support abortion rights and those who oppose them (camps which describe themselves as pro-choice and pro-life).
A draft of the platform circulating last week — which insiders say has had few changes — said “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade (the 1973 Supreme Court ruling granting women a constitutional right to abortion) and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion.”
But it also recognized the role of health care, education and “caring adoption programs” in reducing “the need for abortions.”
The language seems to be more of a change of emphasis than a radical change from past positions.
But it does strike a chord with some centrist evangelicals and Catholics who feel the pro-life and Republican Party aim of overturning Roe V. Wade has been futile and has not reduced abortions or offered support to low income women who may choose to terminate their pregnancies for economic reasons.
Joel Hunter, a prominent evangelical mega-pastor from Florida who describes himself as a “completely pro-life” conservative Christian and registered Republican, hailed the shift in emphasis as “courageous and historic.”
Jim Wallis, a leading figure on the religious left, said he saw it as “sorely needed common ground.”
“We could truly make reducing the abortion rate in America a non-partisan issue and a bipartisan cause. It is a common-sense approach,” he said in an earlier statement.
Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, also welcomed the move.
Their positive reaction to the platform’s language points to a broader shift among U.S. evangelical and other Christian movements to a wider “agenda of life” that includes a helping hand to the poor.
Not everyone in the anti-abortion rights camp is happy with the language. For many conservative Christians abortion is the taking of an innocent life, period.
Tom McClusky, the vice-president of government affairs at the Family Research Council, a conservative lobby group with strong evangelical ties, told Reuters that he didn’t really see how the Democratic Party’s take on the question had changed.
Abortion remains one of the most divisive and emotive issues in U.S. politics and it is a divide that has tended to follow partisan fault lines.
Frankly, I don't see a lot of moral courage -- or any kind of courage -- in the abortion plank. And I don't see any meaningful change that endorses life, either. But that's me. Obviously, others disagree.
Posts
5 comments:
This puts me in mind of the famous 'astrology' experiments. A room full of people were each given the exact same 'astrological' reading.
Each person was then asked to comment on the accuracy of this their 'personal' reading. Nearly every person in the room felt the reading was exactly right, some even felt it miraculous the reading mentioned things about them that apparently no one else knew about them. None of them knew that a blanket reading had been written and distrubuted to everyone.
Its a matter, I think, of seeing what you want to see.
Moral relativism at its ugliest!
John Paul II wrote in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (#58), “Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper names, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception… Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as ‘interruption of pregnancy,’ which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.”
I'm curious why these strong supporters of a right to abortion feel a need to reduce the number of abortions. It would suggest to me that there is some feeling at some level that it is not right or at least not ideal. I don't think I've every heard them say why. Until I hear why, I can't help but be a little skeptical about their motives.
For many conservative Christians abortion is the taking of an innocent life, period.
When it not the taking of an innocent life?
The starting ground must be we are against anything that supports the baby killing industry called abortion. That would include putting justices on the court who will overturn roe vs wade. Anything else is window dressing to give aid and comfort to those who call themselves christian and want to be fooled or given room to vote for the baby killers.
Ask a baby where the middle ground as they jam scissors into their skull.
Post a Comment