Politics 2008 – Gender, Abortion, and Justice
We have finally reached Super Tuesday – time for more political ranting. Since I live in Illinois, this is the day to do something official with my opinion. So today I will cast my vote for Obama. Do I think he is the perfect candidate? No. Do I agree with everything he says and believes? No. Do I think any candidate will ever meet either of those criteria? No. That said, he still gets my vote – and it’s a supporting vote, not the lesser of two evils vote I’ve become accustomed to casting for my entire voting career. My apologies to my international readers, but it’s hard not to talk about politics right now. While there are any number of specific issues I could discuss in relation to politics these days, there are three meta-issues that have dominated my thinking during this particular election season – gender, abortion, and justice. Of course all three are related, but all have (often indirectly) been the focus of my recent political interactions. I’ve written much recently on the gender and politics issue, so today I’ll just address the other two.
Abortion
Okay so I haven’t so much discussed the actually issue itself in the spirit of the typical high school pro/con paper assignment, but more dealt with it as a symbol. Many (on both sides of the political spectrum) are still single-issue voters – and their single issue is abortion. So in discussions with anyone with that mindset, it’s near impossible to avoid the topic. For the record I oppose abortion. I think life, all life, is sacred and deserves love. I am pro-life in the sense that I support a consistent ethic of life. I oppose abortion, I also oppose the death penalty, war, and torture. I support universal heath care, I support fair labor practices, I support increasing the minimum wage, and I support adoption reform. If life is sacred it had better be treated as such at every stage no matter one’s race, socio-economic status, nationality, or lifestyle choices. So given those opinions, there are a couple of things in political dialogue that get thrown at me that really tick me off.
First – that by voting for a candidate that supports safe and legal abortions I must be a baby-killer. I of course always want to answer right back how many babies (and children) their vote has killed in Iraq, but that usually just confuses them. Like I said I don’t always agree on every issue with all the candidates I vote for. That said I am also opposed to anyone wishing to take current legal steps to ban abortion. Even if a ban happened somehow to pass, I think the result would actually be higher abortion rates and a more dichotomized nation. Such a move would ignore the reasons why people get abortions in the first place, in essence telling those women that their feelings, struggles, and issues mean nothing. There are far better ways to approach the issue that doesn’t polarized people and that might actually lead to a reduction in the number of abortions. While I don’t see those candidates who ideologically oppose abortion ever effectively making any changes (have they yet???), I do see a number of those who ideologically support it actively working to make the reductions of abortions possible. So in practical outcomes, the typical “pro-choice” candidate does the most to make “pro-life” (in all aspects of the word) a reality. (making my response (in my head of course) to my accusers- “I’m not as stupid and misguided as you think I am, so shut-up”)
Secondly – that by opposing abortion in statements like the one above I am anti-woman. This one galls me the most because I am sick of the message of the small but very vocal feminists that spread the idea that for a women not to choose abortion undermines everything feminism stands for (and of the ignorant anti-feminists who equate feminism solely with abortion rights). So I get sick of women’s magazines opposing post-abortion counseling because it potentially undermines the right to choose (as in why would a woman be so stupid as to choose something she needs counseling for, abortion is just a procedure…). I am sick of hearing that whenever a unwed mother in a movie or TV show decides to have their baby (Juno, Knocked-up) Hollywood must be going pro-life and denying women the right to choose. I am sick of it because the message that gets sent is that a woman’s only “choice” is abortion. And women believe it. Every woman I know who has had an abortion has told me that she felt like she didn’t have any other choice. Family, boyfriend, husband, and even the church forced them to get an abortion. That isn’t choice. That isn’t respect for women or our freedom. That is pure manipulation. I don’t condemn or think less of women because they have had abortions, but I am sick of being told I don’t support women because of my personal opinions. I support better lives for all – women and babies – and want to do what I can to make that happen.
Justice
My county currently is having to spend over a million dollars (which I am sure the schools and roads had no need of whatsoever) to pay for Dennis Hastert’s early retirement by holding a special election for our congressional representative that seems to have brought out the worst elements in a few of the candidates. In a series of some of the most racist and unloving ads and mailings I have ever seen, the candidates have made immigration the main issue in the election (even as property taxes and foreclosures rates skyrocket). Like we have done before in our county we tried to host another Faith and Politics forum with the candidates on the topic of “faith and immigration” but had no luck. The declining response from the candidates was along the lines of – “what does faith have to do with immigration? I might be interested if the topics were abortion or homosexuality.” If they don’t see how their racism could be a faith issue, I seriously question the sincerity of the faith commitment they parade about the campaign trail like a cute puppy.
One candidate in particular, whose local dairy line I refuse to support anymore, has taken hatred of others to a whole new level as he has spent millions of his own money to buy himself the position. In addition to very racist statements, he sees the poor as people to be used for his monetary gain. When recently confronted about the injustices of certain factories he owns in China, his response was to recommend investing in his endeavors because there is good money to be had there. Um, does he even get the concept of human rights? Not the sort of voice I want representing me in Congress. My vote instead is going to John Laesch – a local carpenter who grew up as an MK and served in Navy intelligence. He has made social justice, especially trade reform, one of his main platforms. I like the idea of government officials caring for people around the world and seeking ways to improve their lives (as opposed to seeking how they can be exploited). I don’t think that’s too much to ask from a public servant, but maybe that’s just me.
Sorry for the long rambling political rant. It is strange how certain issues end up defining these very broad topics. For me these are all faith issues, but honestly what isn’t? I can’t remove what I believe from the rest of my life so of course it informs how I vote. So there’s my vaguely coherent $.02 for Super Tuesday…
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
I love the way you make the issues here 3 dimensional. Why is it an if….then kind of thing?
I agree wholeheartedly that all life matters – unborn babies, immigrants, and even the lives of hyper-conservative bullies.
The topics are broad as you say – but people are too afraid to think – and so they settle for the quick, easy pat answer.
Ugh – and I loathe the old boys network.
Yeah – um – I think I meant the “good ole boys” network!
I actually agree with a lot of what you say Julie. I’m for a “consistently pro-life” ethic myself, although in many cases I think reasonable minds can differ regarding which particular policies most respect and lend dignity to the lives of the poor and marginalized.
One statement jumped out at me though:
“That said I am also opposed to anyone wishing to take current legal steps to ban abortion.”
Would you also oppose anyone wishing to take “current legal steps to ban” workplace discrimination or industrial pollution – because an immediate ban of those things would ignore the underlying factors causing them to exist in the first place and because of course polluters will ignore the law and continue to pollute, and employers will continue to discrminate, just more covertly? If something is wrong and destructive of life, it shouldn’t be allowed and if it’s going on, it should be stopped. Whether it’s killing an unborn child or harrassing a female employee or participating in an unjust war.
Karl – to answer your specific questions –
Workplace discrimination – no, industrial pollution – yes. While both are different than abortion in that hardly anyone sees either as a completely harmless act. While you and I might believe abortion is bad, others don’t which causes a lot more division and pain as part of the discussion. I would push for bans on workplace discrimination because there won’t be a nationwide backlash by men insisting on their right to hurt women. It may still occur, but the ban will be most effective in place. And although I am also opposed to industrial pollution a complete ban would destroy our economy and hurt many many people. Taking measures to reduce the pollution and ensuring that said reduction is even possible would be effective.
So I am in favor of policies that will effectively reduce abortions and not ploys to ban it which will cause greater pain and put up more roadblocks in the way of actual progress being made.
good to see you giving it lots of thought. my wife is voting and following today.
“So I am in favor of policies that will effectively reduce abortions and not ploys to ban it which will cause greater pain and put up more roadblocks in the way of actual progress being made.”
Does it have to be an either-or? Either ban abortion, or put in policies that reduce the “felt need” for abortions, but not both?
If you believe abortion is a moral wrong – and not just a minor moral wrong but the unjustifiable (no matter how wrenching the situation) intentional taking of a human life – then why not ban it AND work on the policies that would improve the lot of women faced with undesired pregnancies? Because some people don’t think it’s a moral wrong and you’d upset them? The fact that some people might get upset doesn’t stop Iraq war opponents from saying they believe the war is morally wrong and should stop, regardless of the division and pain they cause by so saying. They believe they see a great moral wrong, and they want it to stop. They don’t usually suggest that wars continue unabated, while we work at implementing policies that will reduce the number of wars in the future.
I agree that a legislative ban on abortion is highly unlikely (not to mention currently unconstitutional), and therefore a poor reason to vote for a given candidate. I’d be willing to vote for a pro-choice candidate who lined up with me on most other issues, over a pro-life candidate who didn’t. But that’s different from saying a ban would be a bad idea. The “dreaded Frederica Matthews-Green” is right IMO when she says the main reason people don’t want to ban abortion is that with over a million abortions per year in the US, we’ve become so dependent on it, that we can’t imagine functioning as a society without it. I’m not sure that’s a good reason for continuing to take 1 million+ lives (or potential lives if you want to debate when life begins) per year.
Karl – good question. No it doesn’t have to be an either/or. But that is how it is generally conceived and presented. Most pro-lifers support a ban, and not only do they not work for systems to reduce abortions they often actively oppose those systems. Similarly when a ban is the first or only thing pro-choicers hear, that generally signals the end of conversation. Little progress can be made in working for mutual understanding or systems to actually help the women when the options presented are of the all or nothing variety. Generally just talking about a ban shuts down conversation and prevents any progress toward the goal of actually reducing abortions leaving us at an impasse. Like I said, I’d rather work for progress.
And from the people I know, they do talk about ways to “reduce war” and prevent further conflicts. Peace isn’t just an ideology divorced from reality, but something that takes planning and action steps.
When I voted for GWB in 2004, it was a vote for the unborn. When I voted for Obama today, it was a vote for the born.
Obama ‘08!
Bah – so the evil super-rich dairy guy took the nomination. I just hope that is as close as he gets to Congress…
You know… it would be okay to use the evil super-rich dairy guy’s name.
People should know to now buy Oberweis dairy products.
dave – I try to avoid using the names of those I don’t want to promote. People who get so much attention that I don’t want their google/technorati rank to increase. Anyone who cared or wants to keep putting money in his pockets would already know.
Julie, I wanted to add my own comment to yours, in regards to being ‘pro-life’, and voting for a candidate who is ‘pro-choice’ (please pardon the political labels). I am in complete agreement. I also am vehemently opposed to abortion, but would like to see candidates first help the women who feel that they have no other options. Why do they feel like that? Why aren’t the father’s of the babies held more accountable for their children’s futures? Why don’t women feel like they have a choice? Let’s get these questions answered, and get assistance and support for the women and babies who are out there, and I think you will find the abortion problem will begin to resolve itself. I think abortion may be a way women try to escape a trap, and we need to address the trap, not the escape route.
Great rant, Julie!
I homeschool and just got my buttons and t-shirt for Obama. I’m planning on starting to wear them, knowing that most everyone in the group is talking down about Obama and how he is Muslim… ignorance runs rampant in these parts!!
I’m brusing up on my Obama homework… and this post really helped!!
Bravo Julie!
I feel almost exactly the same way about abortion. People seem to think abortion came about with Roe. V. Wade, having never been an issue. Abortions were out of control long before Roe V. Wade, and women were dying from botched underground abortions at an alarming rate. While I’d like to see abortion made illegal, I would FIRST like to see the reasons women get abortions tended to by working toward poverty reduction, job security, fair wages, educational opportunities, community support, and adequate housing, childcare, and healthcare. All these things need to be part of the pro-life movement or we will only accomplish condemning abortion, instead of eradicating abortion.
Excellent point Tia! How cool would it be if pro-lifers actually did make these things part of their agenda? How much more effective would they be? It would be revolutionary!