The woodsy smell of the fire my husband had built in our gathering room suffused the house and gently goaded me to consciousness. As I waited for the water to boil for tea, I shuffled outside with the dogs. The air was as sharp and crisp as Vermont cheddar cheese. As I looked out over the pasture, one of my first coherent thoughts of the day was a question: What’s the difference between a Republican and a Democrat, a conservative and a liberal? Where are our differences?
I poured the tea and remembered the weekend I spent with my friend Sandra, the facilitator of a Jungian group in a nearby state and a staunch Democrat. She is one of the kindest, most interesting and most hospitable women I’ve met, and I’ve met a lot of women in half a century. One of the best words I can think of to describe her is “delightful.”
Most of the group that Sandy has met with for over a decade are Democrats, and one holds political office. I fit right in with their group, though, as often happens when I go around people, for I am interested in and curious about people, and I find something lovable in everyone. They were much the same—caring, friendly, warm, intelligent. Warmth has no political party, and so we all got along.
A few years ago, Sandra’s son, Ben, had a near-fatal car accident that left him a quadriplegic. As we drove to Ben’s house to visit, Sandy told me the story of his suffering and the toll it had taken on the whole family. It was a difficult story to hear, but Ben had adapted and is an active, interesting man who is always busy doing something useful. He had bought a lovely home on the lake, but was having problems with a local businessman, whose property Ben has to go through to get to his house. This businessman has piled the access road to Ben’s house with all sorts of salvage and junk, usually in defiance of the city codes. He wants to buy Ben’s property, they explained, and so is making life as difficult as possible for Ben in hopes that Ben will give up the fight and move. Sandra pointed out that Ben’s special van or an ambulance can barely make it through the access road, so great is the businessman’s encroachment. In a life that has already been full enough of suffering, Ben had one more fight on his hands.
We had to slow down as we approached Ben’s property through the jumble of junk piled along both sides of the access road. The very sight of it incensed Sandra, who exclaimed, “Those damn Republicans! They care nothing about anyone else!” I, her shocked Republican house guest, said nothing, for I too was appalled by this man’s terrible behavior. Even so, Sandra’s sense of outrage was no greater than the offense I felt over being lumped in with an asshole who used his power and money to make life miserable for a quadriplegic.
This moment has stayed with me ever since. When my emotion rises and I think a thought that begins with, “Those damn—!” I know that I’ve already gone past the point of reason and am dealing with others out of my pain and frustration. Pain and frustration can transform us, but they also have the power to alienate us and drive us to see our pain and the cause of it everywhere. This is where bigotry and prejudice often arise. Prejudice does not see individuals, it only sees collectives.
What, exactly, divides us by political party, by label, by outlook? Have we worked out what we mean by our political party affiliations, whatever our nationalities? What do you mean to communicate with your vote? What values are behind it? What makes us so passionate about our politics, if not our closely-held beliefs?
Sandra’s entirely understandable fury against the politics of greed has changed me in a subtle but significant way. I know now that my Democrat friends may well see Republicans as greedy, mean-spirited or exploitive people. I understand that Republicans tend to see Democrats as lazy and amoral. But I wonder what it is that really divides people. I suspect only a handful of so-called social issues divide us, and most of them are not as much social as they are moral: abortion, gay marriage, and money. Isn’t this what all this fuss boils down to? If not, what else would you add to this short list?
I’ve been wondering. So I looked up some demographics, and I’ll be writing about those because what I learned was interesting and sometimes even surprising. We are alike more than you’d think. I suspect so much of this is about money, the haves and the have-nots. I suspect that I may find that Jesus was right again when he said, “Where your money is, there will your heart be also.”
In the meantime, I thought I’d ask you: What do you think divides political parties and people? What values do you believe you have that the opposing political party does not share? Is there one issue in particular that decides whether you are liberal, conservative, libertarian, Democrat, Republican, Independent, moderate? Where do you draw your line, and why?


46 responses so far ↓
renaissanceguy // October 24, 2008 at 10:30 AM |
I could write a book on this topic.
I think we have reached a dangerous point in our history, because party affiliation has become largely a matter of superficial marks of identity. If you are black, then you are a Democrat. If you are a woman, then you are a Democrat. If you are a white man, then you are a Republican. This is very sad and dangerous, because party affiliation should be determined by reason–which party actually has a platform that is morally sound and practically feasible?
Beyond identity, I think that what divides us is our approach to making crucial decisions. For some it is a matter of what feels right. For others it is a matter of knowing what is right through reason. Ask about government welfare and a liberal will tell you how he feels, while a conservative will quote facts and figures.
Ask a person why Obama is their choice, and that person will usually say something about CHANGE and HOPE and INSPIRATION and VISION. Ask a person why McCain is their choice, and they will cite his voting record and his years of experience in the military and the government.
—————————————-
My top three values would be
1. A respect for the life of the unborn, the aged, the terminally ill, and the profoundly disabled.
2. Fidelity to the Constitution of the United States.
3. Economic freedom.
The other party approves of abortion and euthansia. The other party believes in a “living, breathing Constitution.” The other party believes in confiscatory taxation and redistribution of wealth as well as excessive regulation of business.
———————————————–
I don’t think that there is one issue alone that matters to most people. I think that once people realize that they have a certain cluster of core values, they understand which party they most identify with and approve.
Generally liberals like the government to control business but not to control behavior. Conservatives like the government to control behavior but not to control business.
—————————————————
I draw the line at abortion. It just so happens that the party that is against it also supports most of the other ideals that I believe in. I would honestly vote for the farthest-left Democrat out there if that person would actively promote a respect for the sanctity of life.
I’ve said it, and I mean it, that I would vote for a black female Muslim, if she were pro-life and the other candidate(s) were not.
The Librarian in Purgatory // October 24, 2008 at 10:40 AM |
I’m not sure where you’re going with this so I won’t say too much but the “big answer” is that there is no line. However, most people don’t live in the “big view” so lines inevitably appear— maya. As such, I think that Piaget’s Cognitive Development is a useful way/tool of looking at the issue as is Susanne Cook-Greuter’s work in human development. The differences in ego, ethno, and world-centric views and the resulting beliefs and courses of action they engender becomes clearer as well as the extreme difficulty in the different levels relating and communicating to each other.
It’s been a while since I’ve read up on it but I think I can fairly safely say that McCain is squarely concrete-operational (black/white, either/or, us/them) much as gw is and those he has surrounded himself with. In a very nuanced world, it is not a nuanced way of looking at things and a lot of time and effort is spent pounding square pegs through round holes; typically much to the dismay of those being pounded. I don’t mean to imply that there is anything wrong with the concrete-operational level of development, or any level of development for that matter.
Obama? Off the top of my head I can’t say, like I said, it’s been awhile. Will leave that open.
Aunty Christ // October 24, 2008 at 11:35 AM |
This is a hugely interesting question. I could–and likely should–think about this for a day or two before answering, but a few things spring to mind.
I would never vote for anyone who didn’t want to promote sustainability and stop damaging the environment. The argument about global warming aside, we should try to save what we have. (So, Palin did not get my vote.)
I also would never vote for anyone who wanted to take away women’s right to choose, or nominate Supreme Court justices who would do so. That whole “safe, legal and rare” thing? Yeah, I’ll back that. In my second year of college, I was raped, and I remember being so destroyed from that experience, and no one really trying to help. If I had been pregnant, I would have killed myself: Baby would be dead, I’d be dead. So, it’s personal for me, obviously. I still remember that feeling.
As far as renaissanceguy’s economic freedom goes, I’m sympathetic, I want to see his point of view, but I fall to the left of him on that. I don’t believe that taxes are about redistributing wealth (although–I know, I know!–Obama used those exact words). I believe they’re about doing your part, to whatever your ability, to help society function–build bridges, pay cops, etc. I believe that corporations have too much power, and if any candidate, no matter which party, promised to take away their legal standing as people, and amend the law so that corporations have a duty to their shareholders, yes, but also have a duty to their communities and their country, I would not only vote for that candidate, I would hang a life-size poster of him on my bedroom door for make-out purposes.
Gay marriage? Sure, why not. You go live your life, gay guy. I don’t see why anyone who’s not gay cares.
I also feel like it is actually–maybe not the government’s duty, which was what I was going to write, but–to the government’s advantage to take care of its citizens. Nations comprised of healthy, well-educated people generally thrive. Again, this goes back to taxes, and how the government spends them, and it also goes back, in some respect, to RG’s concern for the unborn and the terminally ill. I look around me, and most people I see are neither fetuses nor terminally ill. I think people should have a thoughtful compassion for all. This includes the unborn. This includes the very old. This includes public school students. This includes the working poor. I don’t necessarily feel that government needs to be equally compassionate, but I do feel that government should do its best to keep its citizens healthy and educated, and not only prevent them from killing their babies or themselves.
Honestly, though? It would be very difficult for me to vote Republican ever, following the 2000 election. The taste that was left in my mouth following the recount was so bitter that even if GW had been a decent president, that still wouldn’t have been enough to make me forget. My grandmother hasn’t voted for a Democrat in 70 years of voting because her father’s government job was taken away from him and given to a Democrat under FDR. And my father won’t vote for a Democrat … I think for the same reason. So, I come from a long line of political grudge-holders. Take from that what you will.
Thanks for the chance to respond, Eve. And thanks for the interesting question.
Lee // October 24, 2008 at 11:36 AM |
I am actually not democrat or republican. I have no party designation on my voter registration and I vote according to candidate. Yes, most candidates do not embody all of what I feel passionately about but I look for the one who seems to most exemplify what matters greatly to me. I have friends who are democrat, family who are republican and friends who are libertarian and green party. I agree that warmth transcends political parties.
Issues that matter greatly to me are gay marriage, a woman’s right to choose(though I would never choose this, I do feel the right is important), some fiscal accountability and an end to siphoning away our financial and physical resources into a war I don’t believewe should have started in the first place.
I am tired of our country being perceived in the world at large as a big bully and don’t feel it is our place or our right to enforce our vision of democracy or proper politics on every other country in the world.
I am deeply and sincerely tired of an administration that seems to thrive on selling fear to the public. I personally reject living in fear. I also don’t feel safer because of the rights taken away under the Patriot Act but I promise not to rant about that on someone else’s blog!
So yup, I’m going to go with Change, Inspiration and Vision. (smile) I know it isn’t all that easy, it may not even change that much, but I live in hope.
Alida // October 24, 2008 at 11:57 AM |
I think that what divides people are moral issues. You named it, abortion, gay marriage and money. The funny thing is that these moral questions leave me siding more and more with Democrats than with Republicans.
The problem with taking moral stands in politics is that it leaves no room for compromise. That’s the key to an effective government, one that can govern all its citizens, one that allows each member to express themselves and one that respects individual rights. Now that shouldn’t be so hard.
David Rochester // October 24, 2008 at 1:32 PM |
I don’t have an answer right this minute, but I would point out that there has been a divide between Liberal and Conservative, Democrat and Republican, Whig and Tory, for centuries, long before abortion or gay marriage were even thought of as political issues or indeed, in the case of the latter, as possibilities.
So I think it comes down to something more basic. Maybe it really is all about money.
kmcdade // October 24, 2008 at 2:24 PM |
Eve, I do want to say that I appreciate your opening this up for discussion and thought. I want to take an appropriate amount of time to respond, though, and I have to go to work now.
So I will be back later. I’m not running away, at least not yet.
henitsirk // October 24, 2008 at 9:22 PM |
When I thought of a possible answer to your questions, it occurred to me that I feel it rather repugnant to lump people into such broad categories. How can we really accept being reduced so? And how meaningless those words are, since they depend so much on context and endless connotations that differ depending on the speaker. Kind of like “Catholic” indicates a very different set of likely opinions, beliefs, and behaviors in the US than in Italy.
And then rereading your questions, and the ensuing comments, led me to another realization: moral issues, in my opinion, should not be legislated to a large degree. I think these issues are divisive because for the most part they are personal. Maybe I’m a social libertarian, whatever you might call it. I wish on some level that government would just be a lot simpler, working on the larger issues (foreign diplomacy, public services like roads and utilities, issues that affect more than just one state or country like the environment) and staying out of personal and cultural issues.
For example, I’ve never thought gay marriage should be such a big issue, because I don’t understand why it matters, honestly. If you think it is a bad influence on “traditional family values” (whatever that means), then by all means, inculcate the opposite values in your own family. But why foist your beliefs on others?
My beliefs about abortion are similar, but there we get into trickier territory, because whatever your beliefs about the timing of life’s beginning, abortion means removing what was once living. So I can totally support other people’s belief that abortion is wrong, and that they do not want their tax dollars to directly support abortion-related activities. However, I don’t agree that that belief should extend into preventing others from doing what they believe is morally acceptable, especially when there are extenuating circumstances like rape or incest, or life-threatening medical problems. Now, I can see where for some people, abortion is close on the moral continuum to murder, which is not acceptable to me. So I’m internally logically inconsistent, because I am against capital punishment, but somewhat pro-abortion.
What renaissanceguy wrote about feeling vs. thinking was fascinating. I wonder why that seems so true?
sharon // October 24, 2008 at 11:18 PM |
The environment, affordable health care, women’s rights, gun control; religious, racial, and sexual tolerance/equality; separation of church & state, diplomacy, & human rights.
colleen // October 25, 2008 at 10:20 AM |
Renaissanceguy wrote “I’ve said it, and I mean it, that I would vote for a black female Muslim, if she were pro-life and the other candidate(s) were not.”
This got me to thinking. Not so much about myself but about people I know. For me abortion has always been the #1 voting issue. But I know people who have fallen for the “Obama is a Muslim” rumour and they claim it is a problem. However, for them abortion is also a big consideration and truth be told most Muslims are very moral, with convictions similar to Christians.
So I will probably pose this question to some friends this weekend. The answers should be interesting.
The Librarian in Purgatory // October 26, 2008 at 12:34 AM |
Renaissance guy, wow, I’ve been scratching my head all day on this one. I was just taken aback and since you wrote it I have to ask: do you find blacks, females, and Muslims objectionable, though less so than pro-choicers, or just black female Muslims? And actually, it’s none of my business and it really doesn’t matter; but I’m curious if you meant to write that because it is the logical conclusion of your statement.
If you didn’t, no hard feelings and if you did, I give ya credit for being honest.
Alida // October 26, 2008 at 12:52 AM |
David,
I agree with you, but think even way back there issues of morality that people grappled with. I didn’t finish my thoughts earlier. I don’t think that moral issues solely pertain to one party or another. Although it does seem the way it’s gone lately.
Democrats take a moral high road fighting on behalf of the poor, women so forth
Replublicans do so fighting for the rights of the unborn, for business owners etc. Really these issues cross party lines…at least they do for me.
I agree with Anthromama and think that morality should not be legislated in a large degree. I didn’t get that RG’s comments
were meant to be objectionable. I gathered that gender, race or religion didn’t matter to him if the candidate was pro-life. I agree that some people use logic, some rely on their emotions. Some think they are informed, but it goes no further than regurgitating information they hear in commercials. It’s just how it goes.
Scott Erb // October 26, 2008 at 10:49 PM |
I’m going to go back to the French revolution and the enlightenment. Most humans, I’m convinced, have their political views determined less by reason than emotion. That goes equally for both political parties, for libertarians, for socialists, for everyone. That’s because reason does not provide values and core ideals, it is just a tool that one can use to rationalize the position one takes with ones’ gut. We have forgotten that we use reason in this way, and thus create an illusion that each of us has our particular view because of reason and correct, rational thinking, while others are ignorant, or simply not thinking.
I admit, I see this bias very much on the left (I say that as someone who usually votes Democratic). The left tends to be secular, and tends to approach issues as if their particular form of rational thought is superior to religious values or the emotional issues of nationalism and greed. So the view is created that “we” on the left use reason and see clearly, while the “right” is guided by mythology, greed, and an irrational connection to “country.”
Of course, the right sees the left as just wanting to help the poor, reacting to stories of people suffering, and not thinking through the consequences of their choices. To them the left is seen best by the radicals protesting for some cause, not thinking about the real nature of what they are fighting for.
So each side thinks they are objectively right and more reasonable, thereby making them less self-critical, less able to empathize and understand the other side. And, much as how in some cultures ethnic differences cause very similar people to ignore the humanity of others and see them as an enemy, these intellectual, ideological facades we create to rationalize our core values allow us to categorize others as enemies. So I think part of the problem is the way our very secular, materialist culture has made reason seem superior to sentiment, denying the power of sentiment in creating our core beliefs and values.
BTW, I was a Republican until I was in my twenties. I was at Reagan’s Detroit convention in 1980 (and on the floor when he accepted the nomination), worked for a GOP Senator, and was active in College Republicans. I now would be categorized a liberal, and usually vote Democratic. Having been on each “side of the aisle” I know that the people on each side are good.
Elizabeth // October 26, 2008 at 11:54 PM |
I am highly offended by anyone who would wish to dictate what I can or cannot do to my own body. As such, the Republican platform offends me, and I would never vote for anyone who is anti-choice.
I was thrilled when my state had a pro-choice Republican candidate for governor. Unfortunately, she was also anti-union so I did not vote for her.
In 20 years of voting I have never cast a ballot for a Republican.
Thankfully I have never had to exercise my right to reproductive choice, but the thought of being forced to breed and give birth horrifies me.
I really wish abortion was not a political issue.
renaissanceguy // October 27, 2008 at 6:28 AM |
Elizabeth, do your realize that a baby has its own blood supply? Often it has a different blood type from the mother. That’s because it is a unique combination of 46 chromosomes–half from the mother and half from the father. In other words, it is not your body. It is attached to your body by the umbilical chord, but it has its own separate nervous system that controls its body functions, including its movement and its metabolic activities.
Destroying the fetus is not like cutting off a part of you body. It’s destroying a human being with its own unique DNA code.
What the fetus is in the womb is what you once were. And what you are now is what it will become.
Nobody has to ever have an abortion. For that matter nobody can force you to breed–that is your choice. (Unless, God forbid, you are raped.)
You wish abortion were not a political issue, because you wish that women could do it without anyone calling it into question. Too bad for the millions of babies that we have lost!
Scott Erb // October 27, 2008 at 7:35 AM |
I tend not to argue abortion because the two sides have such different definitions and understandings of the issues at place, that they will simply yell past each other. It’s not worth getting into the muck. I simply say that I don’t want government making that call when there is no societal consensus. I also say that given the contentious moral issues at stake (and no matter what either side says, there is no objectively clear answer), I prefer to leave it to a woman and her doctor. I don’t vote on the issue, though my state does have two pro-choice Republican Senators. I am glad that abortion has been an almost absent issue from the debate this year.
But people on both sides have their own language and definition of terms. Each have their own assumptions which, if you buy them, will lead you to their position. And, since neither side is about to bring their own assumptions and definitions into question, it’s going to remain divisive. Technology — such as the increasingly available (especially on college campuses, it seems) morning after pill might make abortion more rare than ever. Then the issue will fade away.
Eve // October 27, 2008 at 9:33 AM |
Librarian, I don’t think that RG has seen your question yet, and I hate to put words in his mouth. But I know him well enough to hazard a guess that “black, female, Muslim” is a metaphor for the most disenfranchised, unlikely political victor imaginable. And, statistically speaking anyway, he is correct. This combination is the least likely to be elected in America today. (Although I think he might as well have said Orthodox Jew or Fundamentalist Christian, for we can see that the knee-jerk reaction against Sarah Palin makes his point, and she is a white Christian).
Eve // October 27, 2008 at 9:45 AM |
I’m surprised by the thought you all put into your responses, and I thank each person who responded. I don’t have an answer to where my line is yet, but it may well come down to only one issue: abortion. I’m not sure yet, for I also believe in fiscal responsibility and generous giving that is not only government-controlled.
But I’ve recently realized that abortion is a big determinant for me. Just last week, as I researched Barack Obama’s stance and voting record on the killing of children born alive after failed abortions, I happened across the testimony of Jill Staneck, the RN who first brought this problem to light in Illinois. Jill worked at Christ Hospital (how ironically named), where many babies survived abortions and were left to die. Yes, they were taken to a utility close and left to die by themselves. Jill and other nurses would go into the closet and hold the babies until they died.
In her testimony, she told of parents whose child had spina bifida and survived the abortion. The parents impatiently waited for almost four hours for their baby to die (she was over 5 months gestation at the time) and kept asking, “When is it going to die so we can leave?”
Similarly, other handicapped babies and many, many healthy ones were aborted. I followed that link to some priests for life site and for the first time in my life saw photographs of aborted babies. This was no tissue: this was people with hands, feet, and fully formed bodies. I sat in front of my computer screen and cried.
My son came in while I was sitting there and asked, “Mom, what’s wrong?” and I said, “I’m looking at photos of aborted babies for the first time in my life.” He was astounded. “What? You’ve never even looked at one?”
“No.”
He is 16 years old and he replied, “There’s no way any thinking, feeling person can look at what they’ve done and not know they just killed their own child. And you of all people ought to know this; didn’t you spend years counseling women who were screwed up because of abortions?”
My answer of course was yes. Yes, I did spend years counseling women for all types of childbearing loss: the loss of abortion, the loss of miscarriage, the loss of stillbirth, the loss of having a handicapped child, the loss of having a child who dies at any time, the loss of infertility, the loss of giving a child up for adoption, the loss of adoption, the loss of having a child taken by the state, the loss due to kidnapping of a child, the loss of the murder of a child.
And so on.
I have never written about abortion and my personal thoughts about it, but I do appreciate everyone’s comments.
Elizabeth, I thank you for being civil in your disagreement and your statements of your beliefs. So many pro-abortion people are not civil. RG, I thank you for your civility, too.
Scott, I disagree that even with the use of abortion pills that abortion will stop being an issue. I was looking at several different polling statistics and almost 90 percent of all Americans believe abortion is morally wrong. However, among that 90 percent I am quite sure are many, many people who have had abortions, fathered an aborted child, or been the grandparent who has supported or forced an abortion on a child. They know it’s wrong, but they do it anyway. Taking a pill to abort your child is still an abortion. It’s just no muss, no fuss. But it has a psychological, emotional, and spiritual impact that lasts a lifetime, and just as with giving up a baby for adoption, nobody wants to openly talk about it and advise young women of the price they will pay for the rest of their lives. And perhaps even afterward.
The way to stop abortion is to use birth control. Abortion is a barbaric reaction against the cancer of irresponsibility that besets Americans more than people in any other country in the world. It is deadly to the child and devastating for the mother (in particular) but also to the father and other human beings involved.
This is what I think; and my comments about the psychological effects of abortion afterward are empirically supported and not a matter of my opinion.
renaissanceguy // October 27, 2008 at 10:00 AM |
I didn’t really notice Librarian’s question.
My point was that I, despite people’s assumptions about me, would vote for anyone who was pro-life. Because I am a white, male, Christian, lot’s of people have assumed that I would never vote for a black person, a woman, or a non-Christian. I get pretty tired of that assumption. Especially since it comes from people who claim to be against stereotypes. That was my point.
I don’t like to be pigeonholed. I don’t like people to assume that I am a racist because I am white. I don’t like people to assume that I am against women because I am a Christian man.
All that to say. . .my point was that I am not bound by identity politics and would vote for any pro-life candidate.
renaissanceguy // October 27, 2008 at 10:05 AM |
Scott, it’s a biological fact that a fetus is not a part of a woman’s body. Once an ovum is released by the ovary it floats freely down the fallopian tube. It is fertilized by a sperm cell, which certainly is not part of the woman’s body. The zygote continues to float freely until it reaches a certain stage and implants itself onto the wall of the uterus.
At no time in the process is an embryo or fetus a part of the woman’s own body. It has its own unique DNA, it’s own blood flow, it’s independent nervous system, and other marks of an separate human being.
That’s not pro-life propaganda. Those are facts that you can find in a high school biology textbook or a family medical handbook.
Scott Erb // October 27, 2008 at 10:29 AM |
Eve, IUDs are just like morning after pills in that they cause fertilized eggs to be aborted, yet I don’t think the large number of women with IUDs have the same psychological issues as women who have an abortion. In Europe abortion is not a hot button issue in most places like here, I suspect it’ll become rarer over time, and thus not as big an issue (it’s virtually absent in this campaign, it seems to me).
And RG, you’re giving your read of the situation and calling it “biological fact.” Others read it differently and say that if it can’t exist without the woman’s body, then it is not yet an independent life. I’ve seen that argument go back and forth in the past. I respect your view, I respect the opposite view, and that’s just a debate I’m not going to get involved in. There obviously is no consensus; should we go with the AMA? (And of course the Catholic church takes it a step farther, arguing that any birth control which prevents a pregancy is equally bad). I don’t think there is or can be an objective answer on this issue. It’s decided by ones’ personal values and cultural norms.
davidrochester // October 27, 2008 at 10:57 AM |
This is a question really unrelated to the original topic of this thread, but it’s something I always wonder about, especially after reading Eve’s comment about children with birth defects who survive abortion, and whose parents were anxious for the children to die.
I wonder what kind of life those children would have had with those parents had they lived. In a perfect world, nobody would ever become pregnant unless the child were wanted, and unless that person had previously thought through all possible ramifications of pregnancy, including deciding and coming to terms with what it might mean to have a child with a serious genetic defect such as Downs or spina bifida. It is far from being a perfect world, of course, and a lot of children who are unwanted are born into lives of horrifying abuse and neglect.
While I agree that the lives of those children are inherently valuable, I wonder where the kindness is in condemning them to hopeless lives. Yes, abortion as a form of afterthought contraception is barbaric. But it’s hard for me to see how a desperate life of being unloved and unwanted is somehow better than not being born.
I guess in an ideal world, there would always be people, or a community of people, who would foster and adopt unloved and unwanted children. But we don’t have that. Many people who adopt (not all, and thank you, Eve, for being one of the exceptions) want a demonstrably healthy baby or child … they don’t want the baby with fetal alcohol syndrome, the child of a drug addict, the toddler who already exhibits symptoms of emotional disturbance from having been ignored and abused by parents who should never have had children.
Even with abortion being legal, there are many children living lives that nobody should have to live. I think that if abortion were illegal, there would probably be more of those children. As I’ve said, the obvious solution to this is for the community to do what the irresponsible parents can’t or won’t do. But we aren’t to that point yet, and in the mean time, it’s the children who suffer, and worse yet, who go on to repeat the same cycle of hopelessness.
I don’t know … I guess sometimes I feel that people who are strongly pro-life should have to live a couple of years as a helpless and unwanted child in a family of substance-using, physically abusive, and emotionally absent “caretakers,” and then decide whether life really is worth having regardless of the quality of that life. Or maybe they should have to live as the severely developmentally delayed child of parents who are ashamed, neglectful, and unloving toward that child … and then they would really know for sure what kind of life on earth those unloved and unwanted children would face. The gift of life may be a precious thing, but when it comes with a massive price tag of suffering … I wonder.
I hope that abortion continues to be legal in certain circumstances, as I think that pregnancy resulting from rape and/or incest is more common than people realize. Women in my family have had abortions for both of those reasons.
The Library in Purgatory // October 27, 2008 at 11:40 AM |
Alida, I didn’t say (or mean to imply) that I though that RG meant for his statement to be objectionable, or even that I found his statement objectionable. You are absolutely correct; the logical conclusion is that gender, race, or religion did not matter if the candidate was pro-life. What is implied though is that it MIGHT matter IF they were instead pro-choice. Is that what he meant and/or was he was aware that that was a likely conclusion? I don’t know which is why I asked.
That aside, most people believe that their beliefs are true or correct (mistaking them for facts) rather than being a way or perspective for representing and navigating the world and their experiences. If some beliefs were true and others not, the world would, in general, largely believe the same things, it being the most expedient and efficient manner for surviving and moving ahead. Most people forget, or are just not aware, that there was a time when they didn’t hold any of the beliefs that they currently do or in fact believe anything. Once again, we are back to developmental levels.
Most people are not even aware of why they believe what they do or the logical implications of their beliefs. I don’t mean to pick on pro-lifer’s here but it is the clearest way to make the point. “Sanctity of life” is the most common answer given when asked why a pro-lifer believes as they do. Yet many (not all) of those same people are proponents of capital punishment, or see nothing wrong with torturing a human being who is already alive, and/or in waging conflicts of aggression which, in the case of Iraq, has left 600,000 to 1 million, mostly innocent civilians, dead.
So, when this hypothetical pro-life individual stated (and believes) that the underpinning foundation for their belief is “the sanctity of life” that’s not what they really mean at all, the underpinning in actuality is that they believe in the sanctity of life for some but not others (based upon their decision or judgment) and may have little thought for the quality of that sacred life (more of a gray area). In this case, if they actually believed in the sanctity of life, they also be against capital punishment and pretty much all war; and there are many who do believe that and do so consciously, but most people’s beliefs happen almost entirely unconsciously, running in the background unseen like the programs on a computer.
I went to a Christian Reform high school and one of the mandatory classes was a Bible class taught by a man who had no teaching credentials but happened to be the pastor of the associated church. I am not Dutch Christian Reform, never have been, and honestly don’t expect to be. That said, one day Rev. R. was droning on about something and mentioned the Antichrist. Ah, something interesting to a 17 year-old mind. I raised my hand and asked innocently enough, what is the Antichrist?
“Ah, the Antichrist is all those who don’t believe that Christ was the messiah and died on the cross for their sins.”
“Oh…so then the Jews, they don’t believe that Christ was the messiah, are they the, or a part of, the Antichrist?”
“Yes. As are the Moonies.”
“So then the Jews are going to hell?”
“Yes, as are the Moonies.”
For some reason the guy just did not like Moonies. I understand, I feel the same way about carnie folk. By this time, I could see the logic where Rev. R. could not and like a shark smelling blood in the water I asked,
“So then, if the Jews are the Antichrist…and that’s not good…wasn’t Hitler doing God’s work by getting rid of them?”
The room fell silent as everyone waited to see what he would say. The Rev. began stammering, immediately backtracked some but was unable to make a coherent statement about any of it and the subject was dropped never to be mentioned again. Here was a man, who I have to assume, had a college degree, had attended Seminary or something similar and, one would like to believe, was given to introspection and a deep understanding of his faith and beliefs who was completely unconscious of his beliefs, why believed them or even what the implications of them were. And when he ran into that contradiction, the cognitive dissonance was almost overwhelming.
Beliefs are how human beings interpret and make sense of their world and experiences, a point of view or perspective; as such, one’s capability to hold different points of view expands as one develops. Also, as one develops there is less of a tendency to mistake beliefs for facts but to see them as different perspectives, all of which are valid but with some being more beneficial or valid than others (moving out of black/white, either/or, us/them and into the more nuanced gray); the capability to hold multiple and even contradictory points of view simultaneously also develops.
Everyone has beliefs; it’s a fact of life. However, to hold beliefs and not understand how or why you do is like owning a Ferrari and only being aware of first gear. It will certainly get you there but you are hardly using (knowing) the machine to its full capabilities and potential.
colleen // October 27, 2008 at 12:04 PM |
DavidRochester:
“Even with abortion being legal, there are many children living lives that nobody should have to live. I think that if abortion were illegal, there would probably be more of those children.”
But see, abortion was supposed to solve that problem. One of the biggest reasons given for its passage was to prevent child abuse. I believe that it leads the way for more abuse because children are seen less as a blessing overall. And then there is the problematic issues of what to do with women who kill their babies at birth (only oxygen in the lungs separates them from abortionist to murderer).
Unfortuantely there are no easy statistics on whether or not child abuse as a percentage has gone down. But one report said it tripled in the ’80s. This study included any spanking as abuse though. If someone had clear statistics (pre vs post RoeVWade) I would love to see them.
In Europe they are no longer tackling the abortion issue. They are now discussing after birth deaths of deformed children. It is all a slippery slope of the value of life and when does a parent get to decide whether or not they want their child to survive and for what reasons.
The Librarian in Purgatory // October 27, 2008 at 1:02 PM |
Eve,
Sarah Palin? I’m confused. Which knee-jerk reaction are you referring to: The one that believes that she’s qualified to be the VP (and possibly Pres) behind a very old McCain because she is a hockey mom, shot a moose once; or the one that said that she’s not qualified to be the VP (and possibly Pres) behind a very old McCain because she is a hockey mom and shot a moose once?
davidrochester // October 27, 2008 at 1:04 PM |
Colleen — I’m sure that child abuse statistics are up and will continue to go up, if only because people are more willing to talk about it, and admit that it exists. Kind of like there used to be no alcoholics, there used to be no abused kids, especially in “normal” families.
I’m not saying that there is or isn’t a correlation between child abuse and availability of abortion — I’m just saying that based on the increasing dialogues and openness about child abuse, statistics are bound to go up.
Scott Erb // October 27, 2008 at 2:18 PM |
One quick thing to point out. 80% of people killed in modern war are civilians, living and born children a large percentage. Even more suffer. A lot of people who oppose abortion do not take a similar view towards war, even wars that are aggressive rather than defensive (e.g., Iraq). The death penalty clearly has killed many innocents. Only the Catholic Church seems to be consistent in treating this as principle, even if Augustine had to fudge to say under certain, very, very particular conditions is a war just (our recent wars don’t fit those conditions). I really respect Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI for standing on that principle across the board, opposing abortion, war, and the death penalty. Agree or disagree, it is a principle based on respect for life and its applied to all life. (Though some in the Church seem to apply the standards differently; even though John Paul noted that the Iraq war is not a just war, they sometimes say politicians who would allow abortion rights should not get communion, while I haven’t heard of anyone being denied for supporting the war.)
Elizabeth // October 27, 2008 at 9:10 PM |
RG I do not need a biology lesson from you. I finished my MS last May with a 4.0 GPA.
I will not argue when life begins because I think it is a moot point.
Any life residing in my body is under my domain. Period. If I want that life to stay, it stays. If I want that life to go, it goes.
Much like the last guest at a cocktail party.
My house. My rules. My body. My choice.
Obviously, my views are not constrained by Christian doctrine.
Moreover, I was an abandoned infant. I have spent nearly 40 years trying to recover from that trauma. Every joy and happiness I have found in life has been a fight and a struggle.
The simple truth is that I would have been spared decades of pain if my mother had had an abortion, instead of abandoning me to strangers.
davidrochester // October 27, 2008 at 9:49 PM |
Elizabeth’s comment above, and my own comment earlier, make me wonder how much of the pro-life/pro-choice stance is determined by how one values one’s own life.
I wouldn’t of course presume to put words into Elizabeth’s mouth, but on my own behalf, I would certainly be quite confident in saying that I truly, truly wish I had never been born, and I have always felt that life is a horrible burden I wish I didn’t have to carry. I hate the idea of children being born into circumstances in which they are likely to end up with the same feelings about their lives that I have. Of course it’s probably pretty delusional to project my own problems onto unborn children, but then again, I know I’m not the only person who feels this way; many people who have circumstances similar to mine end up feeling similarly about their lives. I think I believe that it’s better to choose not to be a parent than to bring a child into the world who doesn’t have the chance to be properly parented.
Either way, it seems to me it’s a moral choice, and either way, it’s not a good choice … end a life, or bring that life into the world knowing full well that it won’t be given what it needs to thrive?
In my opinion, both of those options are criminal. But I’m biased, and I know that.
Frank_Rizzo // October 28, 2008 at 2:22 AM |
Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.
renaissanceguy // October 28, 2008 at 6:44 AM |
Elizabeth and David, I have felt as you have. I have even made one serious attempt at suicide. Therefore, I have a lot of compassion for you and could never, ever presume to judge you.
I will say, though, that I could never feel that any desire on my part not to exist could give me the right to choose that for some other potential person. I have a right to wish that I were never born or even to wish that I would die. But there is no moral framework that I can imagine in which I should make that decision for somebody else.
You are in essence suggesting that because your life has been miserable, it’s okay to deprive somebody else of life, because their life is likely to be miserable. But maybe, if they had been given the chance to live, they would have been thankful for life, despite its misery. I have met such people. I have become such a person.
Had you been aborted, you would not even be here to participate in this discussion, as Frank points out.
I’m sorry for your pain. I really am, and I say that as somebody who understands such pain. I hope that you can find ultimate peace. Elizabeth, I am sorry for my bluntness. I had no idea how much suffering you have endured.
David // October 28, 2008 at 9:31 AM |
You are in essence suggesting that because your life has been miserable, it’s okay to deprive somebody else of life, because their life is likely to be miserable.
That’s not exactly what I’m suggesting, and if I were in a different mood, I’d probably be pretty offended at what I was trying to say being reduced to that. I don’t believe I said I think it’s “okay to deprive someone else of life.” I think what I said is that I have a lot of trouble with the concept of deliberately bringing children into miserable circumstances, because I know what kind of life that can result in, and it’s hard for me to see how that’s a good thing.
As for not being here to participate in this discussion … somehow I doubt that would show up on my list of projected regrets, had I been returned untimely to the Source whence I was generated. But of course I can’t know that for sure.
Eve // October 28, 2008 at 9:56 AM |
Scott and Librarian, you hit on the same point, which is consistency of philosophy. The Librarian wrote:
So, when this hypothetical pro-life individual stated (and believes) that the underpinning foundation for their belief is “the sanctity of life” that’s not what they really mean at all, the underpinning in actuality is that they believe in the sanctity of life for some but not others (based upon their decision or judgment) and may have little thought for the quality of that sacred life (more of a gray area). In this case, if they actually believed in the sanctity of life, they also be against capital punishment and pretty much all war; and there are many who do believe that and do so consciously, but most people’s beliefs happen almost entirely unconsciously, running in the background unseen like the programs on a computer.
This is so beautifully and accurately put from the perspective of depth psychology that it bears repeating.
This morning one of my many brilliant children commented that people who want to save the whales and save the baby seals but who think it’s OK to kill babies are crazy, and if it’s wrong to throw your baby in a dumpster but it’s OK to be a doctor or nurse and put a baby in a closet to die, then our country is crazy.
That was my 11-year-old, and she’s still (developmentally speaking) learning to operate logically.
Well done, fellas. And a tip of the hat to Scott for his respect for the Pope and the doctrine of the Catholic church, which opposes abortion, war, and the death penalty.
Eve // October 28, 2008 at 10:01 AM |
Elizabeth, I find your argument against your own miserable life disingenuous, for you are still alive. Therefore your life must not be as burdensome to you as you say it is. There is much I could say and speculate upon as a psychologist, but I won’t for this isn’t the proper place for that and I don’t think it would do you any good. I don’t think anything, in fact, will do you any good when you’re in this sort of a mindset, because you appear to need and want to reject good entirely at those times. I wonder how you continue to survive with so much anger in you. Isn’t it terribly painful? It is appalling to me when I see you this way, and I pity you. If I didn’t read your blog and know you to be not-always-angry and not-always-bitter, I would feel terrible for you. Really!
[Come here and let me hug you. Let me rock you in front of the fireplace and tell you how precious and loved you are. Come here, little baby, and hush. Hush now, and hush.]
And… You put your attitude out here for others to consider and comment upon, and you seem so very angry and bitter against life itself. How painful this must be for you. Yet I feel also how selfish of you to refuse the beauty in life and in other people and to live your life every day based on one mistake. If you truly believe what you write, you’ve let another human being control your entire life and make you bitter. I’d be miserable, too, if I didn’t run my own life and lived my entire life as a victim. This is how I think and feel when I read your words that are so harsh against yourself.
[In all time and forever, there is only one you. Did I ever tell you how precious you are? How beautiful and how much I needed you to be born? How much we all needed you? How impossibly and irreparably damaged we all would have been without you? Come here, my child, and let me hold you. Hold you, hold you, and gentle you. Come; here's a safe place. Come here, and hush. And breathe peace.]
As RG wrote, I too personally know the pain of rejection early in life. While at times, before I learned my survival and life tools, it seemed like a good excuse for misery. I chose not to live my life based on what others did. Others may have chosen what to do with my helpless life, but I am no longer helpless. If you or I side with death and hatred, then we do to ourselves what others did first. You are, in effect, just exactly like your abandoning mothers. You’re no different from them, for you continue to choose not-life. You rightly hate yourself for that.
[Oh, my child, there was never one more adored and cherished than you. All of creation cries "glory!" over you; we all smile to you and thank you for being here. You are so loved, do you know?]
There’s no need to stay there. I hope you find the courage to choose differently some day. I hope you look for a way out of that dark pain; there is a way, you know.
Eve // October 28, 2008 at 10:10 AM |
David wrote:
I think what I said is that I have a lot of trouble with the concept of deliberately bringing children into miserable circumstances, because I know what kind of life that can result in, and it’s hard for me to see how that’s a good thing.
I see your point. I would prefer to see children spared that. Unfortunately, as we’ve learned after many years of adoption practice, one cannot really tell who will be a “good parent” and whose circumstances are likely to be “miserable.” Yes, poverty and lack of education and addictions are more likely to create a miserable environment for a child than, say, a middle-class income, a college education for parents, and an addiction-free family. But there are no guarantees. And perceiving the misery a child may be subjected to doesn’t give us the right to end that child’s life.
Since I know you know this (we don’t put children to sleep like we do animals, for instance, whent heir quality of life goes downhill), I’m wondering what the underlying feeling or thought was behind this? I intuitively “know,” but I can’t get at it, either. I think we are in part on a similar wavelength on this. I just can’t get to it. Maybe you will sooner or later; if so, let me know.
David also wrote: As for not being here to participate in this discussion … somehow I doubt that would show up on my list of projected regrets, had I been returned untimely to the Source whence I was generated. But of course I can’t know that for sure.
Right, you can’t know that for sure. I was just musing about this the other day, wondering what happens to aborted babies. I was wondering about it in the context of Christian fairy tale type thinking: baby as cherub, flying on gilded wings back to Jesus. I wonder, though… they are not babies forever. I wondered if they, for instance, are like martyrs, who inhabit the very altar of God in the New Jerusalem (or something like that, will have to look that up)? As innocents, are they among some special echelon of ever-living humans who never had the chance to sin?
I imagine that I would not regret having been aborted in one way, the way in which I would so swiftly return to God. But there is still the earth-bound suffering of being so hated and unwanted that one is murdered by one’s own parents, and dies alone. Thrown away as refuse and reduced to non-human status: you are tissue. You are refuse. You are ground in a grinder and washed into the sewer.
In that sense, because human beings are not only sentient but also sapient (hence the term homo sapiens), I think we know it all even in the womb, for we are already known by God, and the Bible clearly teaches that our life is known by God even when hidden in the womb. Therefore an entire life is lost just as when we execute a criminal or kill someone for whatever reason, a life has been snuffed out.
I understand the reasons for abortion. If I ever decide to write about it, I’ll share my own story, for I have some personal experience and once had my doctor recommend I have an abortion because of a life-threatening medical problem I had while pregnant. I know all too well the ethical dilemmas that can occur.
Oh, what a nightmare that was.
But we all lived to praise God. This is why I love Him so. Wherever I’ve gone, there He is.
(Sorry, I went to meandering around, there, instead of actually addressing your points, David… but you already know I do that.)
The Librarian in Purgatory // October 28, 2008 at 11:58 AM |
Ah, smiling, this post, but really the ensuing comments have delighted me to no end the past several days. So illuminating. Although inexact, I am reminded of the story of the three blind men and the elephant. It is as if Eve asked random people to report the number on the back of their computer. Mine has 7 digits, mine has only 5 but 4 letters, and so on and such. Some, whose numbers were closer in matching, felt a kinship while those whose were vastly different were perceived as other— an odd number of numbers or two many odd numbers within the number, or the million and one ways in which we divide and segregate ourselves. The inherent rightness, truth, or correctness of one’s number was assumed, though, for the sake of the point here, the number itself was not understood or really even considered.
Everyone has a number. So what. Some numbers are identical, some are near matches, some aren’t anything alike at all. So what. In the big picture, it doesn’t matter because pretty much the logic of all beliefs leads back to the same illogical point, “I choose to believe.”
While beliefs are used to make distinctions, which are necessary, I think the most misleading thing about unconsciously holding beliefs is that they are mistaken for the Self— people believe that they are their beliefs, or that their beliefs are them. While beliefs are a part of an identity, a persona, they are not the individual Self. As such, speaking psychologically and spiritually here, beliefs such held become false idols, impediments to knowing your Self and/or the Divine.— maya.
Fantastic. Thank you all in helping further my own understanding of stuff.
henitsirk // October 28, 2008 at 12:55 PM |
Eve, I have to say that not all women who choose to abort do so in such a callous manner as those described by the RN. In my personal experience, those who are confronted with an unwanted pregnancy think and feel deeply about their decision, and do not go lightly into it.
I wonder about a parent who could call their aborted baby “it” and wait impatiently for “it” to die. Have they had to divorce themselves so strongly from the baby in order to protect themselves from strong emotions about their decision?
I think that people are concerned about Sarah Palin not simply because she is white and Christian, but rather that the particular Christians she has aligned with are quite intolerant and, for example, have linked people’s voting choices to whether they will go to heaven. People are concerned that these views will unduly influence her decisions, and that therefore she will not truly represent the majority of Americans. Unfortunately she doesn’t have enough political experience to show her decision-making process in relation to her religious beliefs.
I’ll say again — I don’t think, in general, that morality can or should be legislated. Maybe that’s being too simplistic, but it doesn’t feel right. You just can’t force morals onto other people.
I believe that babies are born to particular parents for strong, karmic reasons, and the parents’ decision to abort, abandon, or keep a child has further strong karmic effects. As would being a soldier who kills in war, or being killed or killing via capital punishment. I believe we reincarnate, and we will feel the karmic effects of these kinds of decisions after death and in future lives. That’s the “earth-bound suffering” you mentioned, Eve.
And your and your children’s comments about the sanctity of life and saving the whales — it all comes down to compassion for all living things, doesn’t it? We get so busy rationalizing our moral positions, taking sides so effectively as Scott pointed out, and we forget that it’s really very simple: Love one another. Treat others as you would want to be treated. Compassion for all living things. We have to search in our hearts every time we make a decision about another life: Is putting the old, sick dog to sleep compassionate? What about aborting a malformed baby that most likely would survive only a short time, suffering? Is euthanasia, when a rational adult believes they have suffered enough for one life, a compassionate act of love? Can we ever take life with love? What about food? — everything we eat (barring water and salt) was once alive and was killed for our consumption. Are we building up a cult of avoiding death by saying we value life above all?
Elizabeth // October 28, 2008 at 5:32 PM |
Eve I don’t know how you could say the things you have said here having read my blog. I really thought more of you than that. I’m nearly speechless, but I will try to string some thoughts together.
I said that my joys have been a struggle. I didn’t say I had no joy. I didn’t say my life has been pure 24/7 misery.
I have to “fight” for my joy. (Maybe that is not the best word to use, as I don’t have the gift of writing that you possess.)
No doubt, my childhood was a complete misery. Well 99% of it anyway.
My 20’s were slightly better. My 30’s even more so.
Lately doing yoga and meditation have helped me a great deal, but there are still far too many days when I go numb with the senselessness of my existance.
My point, which perhaps I failed to make, is that the years and decades of pain that I have felt far outweigh the joys I have found. And yes I do see the beauty in life. That is exactly what has kept me going for so long. Those fleeting moments.
I’ll say no more, as you are sure to mis-judge me again.
davidrochester // October 28, 2008 at 9:00 PM |
I’m wondering what the underlying feeling or thought was behind this? I intuitively “know,” but I can’t get at it, either.
I’ve chewed over this for quite some time, and I’m still not sure how to articulate it, or indeed whether it’s even relevant to this post.
Last week I saw Randy Newman in concert. He sang a song of his that I particularly like, in which he contemplates the insularity of Americans and the failure of Marxism. The song ends with these lines:
Karl, the world isn’t fair.
It isn’t, and never will be.
They tried your ideas, and brought misery instead –
If you saw what you caused, you’d be glad you were dead
Just like I’m glad I’m living in the land of the free
Where the rich just get richer
And the poor you don’t ever have to see…
That would depress us, Karl.
Because we care
That the world still isn’t fair.
I think that gets at the heart of my problem with this whole issue. The world isn’t fair, and sometimes I feel that those who argue for fairness don’t really get how unfair it is. Sometimes I think nobody should ever be allowed to have their own children — they should have to adopt one unloved or unwanted or misparented kid before they can have one of their own. But that makes exactly as much sense as legislating how much people should give to charity.
So there’s something that doesn’t make sense to me about valuing life, wanting to value innocent life above everything else, and yet the world is still wired in such a way that the innocent and helpless suffer the most. I feel like we can’t have it both ways. Either we value those lives, or we don’t. We can’t value life with lip service about valuing life.
Maybe I’m saying that people who are pro-life should all put their asses on the line and make it a priority to improve the lives of innocent children who are already here, and deprived, and suffering.
I’m not sure that’s exactly what I’m saying, but it’s close. Closer than I’ve gotten so far, anyway. Maybe I’m saying if someone has a value, and votes for it and fights for it, they should live that value three-dimensionally, and this particular value shouldn’t be about condemning abortion so much as it should be about cherishing life. Which means a lot more than being anti-abortion, and means more than being a good parent to your own kids.
So, yeah. That’s as close as I’m going to get for now, I think.
On a slightly different topic — did you mislabel your comments? I think it was me, rather than Elizabeth, who claimed that my life is a joyless burden that I’d really rather be rid of, and that is indeed how I feel about it, and I’m pretty bitter and pissed off most of the time. That does not, however, prevent me from typing voluminously, as you know.
Amyadoptee // October 28, 2008 at 9:06 PM |
I have been reading a little of Jim Wallis’ work recently. I have heard him mention that we can all work together to reduce abortion numbers. I most definitely agree. The lovely Eve might disagree with me. I feel however that adoption, abortion and sexual recreation has destroyed the family. Let me first say that I am voting for Obama. My husband is voting for McCain. So we get into a heated argument every few days.
Abortion and adoption both have ignored the fathers in our society much like slavery has done the same with the African American fathers. The responsibility has fallen to the women of our country to care for the children. With sexual recreation we must also have sexual responsibility. It falls squarely on both men and women to rectify this situation. Men need to be held accountable for their actions. A woman does not get pregnant on her own. I think in the this day women have to make hard choices with their bodies. I know that I could not take those choices away. I never used those choices personally but I would not want my daughters to have to deal with being trivilized or coerced by someone down the road.
I will admit that I was on the fence with both of them up until a few months ago. A video put on Youtube by a friend who confronted him changed my mind. Then McCain’s pick of Palin as his running mate solidified my position. She has a history of knocking people down who get in her way. I would hate to see McCain have his career destroyed If he had chosen a woman that I could respect such as Kay Bailey Hutchison. Then I might have changed my vote.
My concern right now is with the Colorado bill. It gives the unborn equal rights to the mother at the age of conception. This bill would then outlaw contraception because according to some pro life groups, contraception is even an abortion. I do not think that the government should ever interfere with a woman’s medical decisions. Any of them.
renaissanceguy // October 29, 2008 at 2:24 AM |
David, I apologize to you. For the sake of brevity, I combined a comment to you and to Elizabeth because what you wrote was somewhat similar. I probably should have addressed you separately.
Call me dense, but I cannot actually tell if you are arguing for or against abortion. When you write about “deliberately bringing children into miserable circumstances” I cannot tell if you are advocating contraception or abortion. It seems from your comments here that you are not passionate one way or the other. Am I wrong?
I hope that you will forgive my apparent misunderstanding of what you wrote.
I agree with you completely about people who are pro-life needing to put actions behind their words. Ultimately, however, it is each person’s responsibility to take care of himself or herself and of any offspring that he or she chooses to have. If a man and his wife raise their children and take good care of them, I don’t necessarily think that they are bound–unless you accept Christian ethics–to care for anyone else’s children. I suppose you could say that they are bound to do it by human decency, but I haven’t seen that play out much.
Without giving too many details, I want to tell you that I am doing my part. Eve knows a little about it. I do often feel that I need to do more, and perhaps your comments will propel me to do so.
davidrochester // October 29, 2008 at 10:04 AM |
RG — No apology needed, and no, you’re not entirely wrong. I would describe myself as more pro-choice than pro-life, but what I’m actually more passionate about is the problem of what the heck to do with all the kids already here in the world who aren’t getting what they need from their parents — and I don’t mean in a material sense; I mean who aren’t being parented lovingly and effectively. There are days when I think that if a woman knows she can’t parent a child, if she doesn’t want that child and she dreads having it, if she has no support, then she probably shouldn’t have that child, and if terminating the pregnancy is the only way to do that, then I have a hard time saying she shouldn’t do that. This could perhaps be read as me wanting to deny life to a child because my life has been miserable, and there’s certainly some component of that. But just from a logical standpoint, I have to wonder what can possibly be the point of being forced to have an unwanted child. It’s the child who will bear the brunt of that situation, and the unfairness of it makes me crazy.
Of course I advocate contraception, but sometimes contraception fails, even when it is used correctly. One of the main reasons that I am pro-choice is that making abortion illegal will not stop abortion. It will simply make it incredibly unsafe. There have always been back-alley butchers, and there always will be, when abortion is illegal. I feel about this much as I feel about legalizing drugs; I don’t see the point of making something illegal when people will find a way to do it anyway, and legal condemnation tends to create a criminal class trafficking in the forbidden activity, whether it’s drugs, prostitution, alcohol, abortion, or whatever else. Making abortion illegal might make us feel morally righteous, but it certainly won’t stop abortion; it never has in the past, and it still won’t.
If a man and his wife raise their children and take good care of them, I don’t necessarily think that they are bound–unless you accept Christian ethics–to care for anyone else’s children.
So here’s where I think I’m off the charts as far as how I consider this issue. I think that whether someone is Christian or not, it is vital to the survival of the human race in a literal sense for people to take responsibility for other people’s kids. I guess people are biologically wired to want their own children, and I think that’s a shame, frankly … if someone wants to be a parent, there are so many children already here who could use one, and who don’t have one. I wish more people could bring themselves to look outside the box of their biological wiring, and consider what parenting really means. Even when it’s your own child, that child is a stranger to you. There’s no guarantee of who he or she will be. He could be just like me, or he could be a throwback to Great-Uncle Charley; genes are unpredictable. That being the case … I wish more people would seek to parent children who are not biologically related to them. Those kids are strangers, too, and not much more so than a child of one’s own.
There’s more to this than human decency, though certainly that’s a component. It’s pragmatism, as well. The world will be populated with these emotionally neglected and deprived kids. They will be at higher risk for substance abuse, for self-destructive acts, and for making choices that lead to more unwanted kids. The world is suffering from unconsciousness, and the more we ignore the population never given a chance to attain it, the more we’re all going to pay for that, in my opinion.
I think everyone is capable of making some difference to children who aren’t getting what they need. There’s not one person who couldn’t volunteer with a literacy program, or volunteer as a mentor, or at least contribute financially to support those programs. Not everyone is in a position to adopt or foster a child — I’m not, myself; I’m still a neurotic crazy mess, and completely unsuitable as a full-time guardian. But I do volunteer. And one of my goals, hopefully within the next ten years, is to stabilize my own life sufficiently to allow me to take in at least one foster child. Whether I’ll get there, who knows. But I’d like to.
Eve // October 30, 2008 at 9:53 AM |
Elizabeth, I don’t understand whether you’re sad, angry, or hurt, or some combination of all three. Can you tell me which? And what “things” I said that upset you so?
You write about how “senseless” your existence is and how you would rather have been aborted. Elizabeth, do you hear what that sounds like? If your child said that to you, or your best friend, or your lover… what would you feel, think, and say? These are grim, bleak, and very sad words. These are your words. How else do you expect a feeling human being to respond? I responded as truthfully as I could. And it wasn’t easy.
Again, I’ll ask, “what things”? What things did I say that were so offensive? Was it the choosing not-life? Was it that I said that when you do that you’re like your mothers?
Well, I still think so. I think this is your identification with those who bred self-hatred into you and they were wrong about you. And you’re wrong about you when you agree with them. Because regardless of what I said, you still referred to the “senselessness of my existence” again.
Do you see that? Do you see how attached you are to that idea? And you’re offended because I disagree. I disagree that your existence is senseless. I think your life is meaningful. But of course you’re in favor of abortion, Elizabeth because only a meaningless life deserves to be snuffed out at any time.
But you’re still alive. So a part of you believes in your worth, too.
I have read your blog and this is why I know there’s life in you also. I think you want to be unburdened of this curse of being “meaningless” and unwanted and abandoned. But the two most powerful beings in your life, both mothers, told you that they were right: you’re meaningless and you deserve to suffer if you insist on living. So life must be full of suffering. Not 24/7, not 100%… but full enough so that suffering underscores and supports your existence.
Well, pardon me, but that’s bullshit. I don’t go for it, and even your hurt won’t make me accept it. I believe you can be free and you can live in truth and love, and I am quite sure of that. I have lived with and healed (and been) the walking wounded and I know for a fact love is big enough and reason enough.
I believe you have to fight for your joy now, but I don’t believe you will always have to. I don’t disagree that it’s a fight. I believe that your childhood was 99% misery. And that what you feel now as an adult grows out of your earliest beginnings and your childhood. Your childhood could have healed you, but your parents were not healers. They were evidently assholes.
You wrote, “I’ll say no more, as you are sure to mis-judge me again.” In what way did I mis-judge you, though? By saying that I think you’re identified with your hateful, abandoning mothers? (Let me put it bluntly.) Well, I still think so. This is something you can do something about. I think you’re trying. I think your efforts are heroic. But I also think your bitterness against yourself leaks out into your entire life, and it poisons conversations like this, and now you think I’m wrong and hateful, too, and that I misunderstand you.
I don’t think I do, Elizabeth. I read you and I think I do get it. I think you don’t like the mirror, and I think that part of you that has held sway for all your life is enraged that someone else would side with your life part and say, “Hey! wake up and cut that death stuff out!” because it doesn’t want to be toppled from power, along with your Evil Mother Archetypes. That’s what I think.
I know what it is to feel the pain of self-loathing and absolute loneliness. I really do. I think most of us have felt that to one degree or another at one time or another; but I also think that early abandonment multiplies this human problem to the nth degree, and produces much more pain than necessary. That’s what I’m addressing. I see I didn’t do the best job, but, Elizabeth, I care for you as I know you (from print) and I mean what I say. Your life isn’t senseless; I’ve learned a lot from you, and you write eloquently about your pain and anger. I hope to see you write eloquently about your joy and love some day, the joy and love you have for ELIZABETH.
Eve // October 30, 2008 at 9:57 AM |
The Librarian wrote:
Ah, smiling, this post, but really the ensuing comments have delighted me to no end the past several days. So illuminating. Although inexact, I am reminded of the story of the three blind men and the elephant. It is as if Eve asked random people to report the number on the back of their computer. Mine has 7 digits, mine has only 5 but 4 letters, and so on and such. Some, whose numbers were closer in matching, felt a kinship while those whose were vastly different were perceived as other— an odd number of numbers or two many odd numbers within the number, or the million and one ways in which we divide and segregate ourselves. The inherent rightness, truth, or correctness of one’s number was assumed, though, for the sake of the point here, the number itself was not understood or really even considered.
This was so very interesting. I enjoyed all your comments in this response, but this start was great.
My gut said, “ivory tower,” though. I thought I’d pass that along. Something made you smile, something gave you feeling… but did you go straight to intellectualizing to defend some part?
[I know I'm mean to ask.]
I don’t know why this came up, but it did. And I’m going to venture forth trepidatiously (just made that word up, and I like it) and ask you, because I think I know your energetic and substantial commitment to wholeness to ask publicly and up front, which I wouldn’t do with many. But I think you’re up to it.
So what did you mean by this comment? What did it mean to you personally?
[That's not a therapist question, it just sounds like one.]
Frank_Rizzo // October 31, 2008 at 3:41 AM |
So, Eve
Will there be a watch party at your home this Tuesday. I’ll bring the cigars, I just require Bourbon or Scotch to go with them. If B. Hussein Obama wins I’ll need some 45 proof libation.
languagelover // November 3, 2008 at 3:25 PM |
I cannot possibly contribute anything to the abortion end of this discussion except to say that if all important discussions were discussed this politely, maybe more people would understand each side of the issue. I have never witnessed a debate like this that did not devolve into name-calling or hate.
To answer your original question, though, I look for the smartest candidate. I don’t believe that a President can actually make the decisions, but he, or she, can look at the evidence, listen to the people and try to make the wisest decision possible. Lesser educated, stubborn and closed-minded candidates do not get my vote because they will do whatever they think is right despite what anyone else might say.