Like gay marriage, this is an example of wedge issues at their finest. Speaking of which - those that are truly serious about the "Defense of Marriage" should start by outlawing adultery. No extra credit for guessing why few congressmen would be found endorsing any such law!

We are not God to decide when life begins.  How does anyone know.  Are you God???  Even scientist don't have a clue when life begins.  Is it when there is a functioning brain?  Is it when there is a functioning heart?  I don't consider a blob as a human being.

"I do believe that life begins at conception."

Here in Colorado it will be on the ballot to shove that belief (and hey you're entitled to your beliefs) down our throats..

The GOP hoped this would be an issue to help McCain.
However, Physiology/Reproduction is required in all Colorado High Schools so this crap is doomed.
(well Maybe not in Colorado Springs)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201615. html

I should add this is just another bullshit attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade

The problem with the abortion debate is that the politics of it require zero nuance, when of course it is an issue that can't be discussed without nuance.

The debate is dominated by two factions that are absolutist in their positions.  One says that we are talking about the wholesale murder of human beings.  One says that we are talking about the human rights of women.  The reason there's no middle ground is that those two sides are fundamentally not talking about the same thing.

Unfortunately for we who love nuance--and I include Obama in this--is that being nuanced on abortion just pisses everybody else off.  It's wishy-washy, or 'squishy' as the right calls it, and most attempts to fisk the bipolar debate just come across weak and unprincipled.  The only way to gain votes from either side on abortion is to be uncompromising and absolutist.  Abortion is murder.  Abortion is a human right.

BTW, Sumo, love your stuff--consistently thoughtful and well-written.  Look forward to more.

Firstly, Sumo, you get kudos from me for even bringing up the abortion issue.  It's an emotionally charged issue, and one that most people have spent a lot of time thinking about personally.  In addition, it hurts most people to even consider the issues involved.

Since abortion is a great issue for pissing off everyone, even when you have only the best of intentions, I'm going to add my two cents as well.  Like Sumo, I also have a nuanced view.

Love, sex, and reproduction are a cutthroat game.  Just take a look at our divorce and family court systems and my meaning becomes obvious. It's not for the weak or faint of heart.

People have been killing and abandoning their kids for all of human history.  It's easy to say it's a painful choice, carry it out, and get on with life.  It's part of human nature that that which makes us evil also makes us good.

The courts have ruled that if a woman wants to have her unborn children shredded and sucked up into a vacuum cleaner, then it's nobody's business but her own.  The courts have also ruled that if a man wants to sell all his shit on E-Bay, vanish like a fart in the wind, and abandon his unborn child(ren) to a life of poverty and bastardy, then it's nobody's business but his own.

Well, hell, fuckin' fine.  I don't think highly of either choice.  I think it represents a level of poverty (financial and otherwise) that I cannot even pretend to respect.  But the courts have ruled that it's not my business, and I can oblige them by choosing not to give a mad fuck about the choices some people make.

There's one other dimension to the issue that eludes my comprehension.  With all the folks out there who are willing to pay six figures plus for a baby of their own, I don't know why any reasonably healthy woman would have an abortion.  Just fly down to Argentina, give birth there, sell the baby on the black market and have a nice chunk of money in an offshore account.  Are there moral consequences?  Sure.  But I can get over an awful lot for $100K.  It seems to me most women can as well.

My final comment here is that Obama has to sidestep the abortion issue.  As a legislator he opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which puts him in an ideological position that most Americans would find unconscionable.  If you read the conservative press or blogs, you know they've been hammering on this for weeks.  It was enough to solidify social conservatives for McCain like Gay Marriage never could.

It sounds nice to try to finesse the abortion issue to Christian conservatives, but there is more than one constituency that you're definitely not going to convince.  

Religious groups with hierachical structures, like the Catholic church, are not going to be convinced by our rhetoric or by Biblical exegesis.  If the Pope says abortion is bad, contraception is bad, etc, then it's bad--or else you are at odds with your religious leader & in a state of sin.  A lot of people seem to settle this conflict in an odd way-they vote for anti-abortion politicians and get abortions and use contraception themselves.  This somehow assuages their conscience.  I don't understand it, but then I don't belong to that type of religion.

For older people, not just women, the reproductive rights debate is not about rights of fetuses or rights of women.  It's about dead women vs. live unwanted babies.  It's all well & good to think there are thousands of people just begging for infants to adopt--when abortion is illegal, supply exceeds demand, and the country will be back in the orphanage business, and worse in the business of warehousing many more babies/children/adults who are so deformed or damaged that they can't be cared for at home.

Oddly enough, I had a discussion about this last night with a totally right wing 81 year old medical doctor.  After listening to him run down every Democratic politician we have, my husband ventured to say that the government did not belong making decisions about women's bodies.

I expected a huge outburst.  On the contrary.  This doctor was old enough to recall his residency in the 50's in Boston when 3 or 4 women would die every weekend from septic abortions.  He wanted abortion legal.  He couldn't forget all the needless deaths.

A reasonable argument, though not one I feel I can endorse. Here's why.

To begin with, religious organizations must draw lines in the sand when it comes to the definitions of right vs wrong, or over what constitutes a sin. Don't expect nuanced verbage to appear in these. However, moral guidance - as disseminated through sermons or homilies - can, and do, bring a more holistic view to the picture. Hence the frequent exhortations to "hate the sin, but love the sinner".

The diary doesn't get into what is or isn't a sin. It rather addresses the more practical aspects of how this situation is best remedied, and demonstrates how the tactics adopted by the right are not supported by scripture. You are correct in that not all constituencies will readily embrace the views expressed here. Regardless, any inroads made would be an improvement over '04.