The Candidates: John Edwards
February 28th, 2007 | by Scott |For the first entry on John McCain and the subsequent discussion click here.
Since last week’s entry the pool of candidates has actually decreased by one. Tom Vilsak, we hardly knew ye.
But, moving over to the other side of the aisle, let’s look at another front-runner who has experience with a presidential campaign, John Edwards.
Edwards intrigued me in 2004 even while I was still dogmatically Republican. Slick, polished and personable he reminded me of another candidate in the non-too distant past. Of course, as the VP candidate to John Kerry’s presidential bid, he came up short. But he emerged from 2004 as a viable candidate in ‘08.
Pros: Has one of the best stump speeches in recent memory, Clinton-esque in demeanor and oratorical skills, willingness to admit he was wrong on the Iraq war, a legitimate plan for universal health care as opposed to just advocating one, tremendous utilization of the web including being the only candidate with a Second Life presence, has made fights against poverty and global warming major components of his campaign platform, and his college for everyone program.
Cons: Last name is not Obama or Clinton, history as a trial lawyer, reversal on previous positions regarding the war, the recent blog fiasco, equivocation on some issues.
Analysis: Edwards is a name to be reckoned with for the Democratic nomination in ‘08. He currently trails the afore-mentioned Obama and Clinton, but could emerge unscathed as those two continue to take shots at each other. He has taken the tactics that made Howard Dean an internet phenomenon in 2004 to the next level with presences on all the Web 2.0 platforms. His wealth and profiting off of huge court cases gives a little pause but I am impressed with his gravitation to a more populist platform. He is my front-runner at the moment.
OK, let me have it.
64 Responses to “The Candidates: John Edwards”
By Politics and Culture on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
He’s the Breck Girl!
The ambulance chasing he did to make his money is a big drawback. He’s got the hypocrisy problem with his big mansion he just built (we know which America he lives in!). And he’s not well-liked in his home state.
Having said that, I think he’s actally more electable than Mrs. Bill Clinton. But I’m not sure he can get the nomination.
Did you know that he’s the son of a millworker? I wasn’t sure if he’d got that message out…
By Scott on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
I was going to put that he was the son of a textile worker, but I figured that had gotten a lot of play.
And you are right: the disconnect between the message is telling. All of the candidates are susceptible to this, it seems. Show me one right now (on either side of the aisle) that isn’t battling hypocrisy issues. Heck, I battle them on my own blog.
And he is more electable than Hillary. It will be interesting to see.
And isn’t it interesting that for both parties, the nominating process can knock out the candidates that America would most likely elect?
By Kevin Bussey on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
I just can’t vote for anyone who is pro-abortion.
By KS on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
Scott: I am not going to be voting for a non-GOP member in the election, but as a republican I’d take Edwards over the other two “favorites” of the Democractic party.
By jasonk on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
I agree with every point you made, Scott. And I think that because his name is NOT Obama or Clinton, he is more electable. If this election cycle is really about change, then America may be tired of the Clintons, Bushes, etc., and ready to move on to someone else. John Edwards is perfectly poised to take the nomination from the Dem frontrunners.
The hypocrisy issue is moot, I think, because as you said, they all have hypocrisy issues. His opponents will certainly remind us that he is a trial lawyer, but Hillary was a shady lawyer too. What did Barack Hussein Obama do before his entry into politics?
And, I think the issue of universal health care will help him get elected, although I think that it is patently unamerican to take money from the people who worked hard to earn it, and put it into the pockets of those who did not. It is for that reason that I do not care for Edwards as a candidate, but as someone else has pointed out, he is better than Hillary R. Clinton and Barack H. Obama. And he is my pick to be the next president.
By len on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
If I could ask Edwards one question it would be why he voted against the bill to outlaw partial birth abortion. Somehow I don’t think the Democrats for Life will be endorsing Edwards since he has a perfect 100% score from NARAL.
By Doug Freeman on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
Scott, I’m not sure about Edwards. He seems to be too smug and arrogant in his speeches. Also, I don’t recall him doing anything when Katrina hit N.O. yet he went to the 9th ward and pretended to be helping and announce his candicacy. Of course this is typical of all the candidates. I resigned last week from our local Republican party but, I am not planning to vote democratic. Maybe I’ll write your name in.
By Belinda on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
At this point in time, Edwards will be my choice. A lot would have to happen to change my mind.
As for the trial-lawyer thing, that really sticks in my crawl. Someone HAS to stand up to these bullying corporations that will wreck havoc on the public if allowed. Have any of you ever watch Erin Brokivich (probably misspelled)?
I don’t understand how anyone can make the broad statement that are not going to vote democrat. Scott, like you, I had almost always voted republican until 2004. I have asked forgiveness for my 2000 vote (GWB).
If someone really listens to what Edwards has to say, he makes A LOT of sense! But there’s the mindset that he’s an ambulance chaser and the really dreaded word, “democrat.” Being affiliated with a particular party doesn’t win any points with me. No, I take that back. After the last few years, I’d vote for Donald Duck before I’d vote for anything resembling the current administration.
By Scott on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
Dad, you quit the GOP party? Wow, that’s big.
Belinda, I really like Edwards. Right now he has my vote. I think he is the best prospect, right now. I’d really like to see an Edwards/Obama ticket.
By len on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
Scott, since you have posted in other places your pro-life stance, can you go into a little detail about Edwards’ abortion record not concerning you enough to prevent you from voting for him? Does his vote on partial-birth abortion concern you any?
By Steve on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
This is off topic a little. What do you guys think it means in Matt 5 where Jesus says “Bless are the poor in spirit?” What does it mean to be poor in spirit?
Thanks
By Scott on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
I only have a minute here but I’ll try to answer this again as succinctly as I can: I don’t believe that abortion is something that can be fixed through legislation. It must come through the church being the church and the moral persuasion that we can wield.
I can’t vote based upon abortion because the GOP has had power in the congress for 12 years and the presidency for 18 of the last 26 years without a threat to Roe V. Wade.
Yes, it’s an important issue for me. A moral absolute, even. But I know that there are good sincere people who disagree with me. There are good, well-intentioned Christians who despise abortion but support the woman’s right to choose. I disagree, but they are still my brothers and sisters.
I have a hard time reducing my vote down to one singular issue. I have a hard time making abortion the one thing that swings my vote no matter what. We have a “pro-life” president but I don’t see that consistency after the birth.
Steve, I view being poor in spirit as the humble realization of your incompleteness and fallenness apart from the saving grace of God.
By len on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
Steve,
One of my all-time favorite books is Dallas Williard’s The Divine Conspiracy. It is, in part anyway, a walkthrough of the sermon on the mount. Here is a quote: “Those poor in spirit are called blessed by Jesus, not because they are in a meritorious condition, but because, precisely in spite of and in the midst of their ever so deplorable condition, the rule of the heavens has moved redemptively upon and through them by the grace of Christ.” HIS take is that the poor in spirit are totally devoid of any merit on their own, and yet, because of God’s grace, the kingdom is still open to them.
By Len on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
Scott, I don’t think that abortion should be the one single issue. And I understand that it is a hot topic issue which we must handle carefully. What I don’t understand, and I mean this sincerely and not argumentatively, is how you can reduce abortion to a non-issue. That is how I see it when it comes to Edwards. No offense, but my question in post 10 had nothing to do with Bush’s policy or the Republican congress. My question is why you don’t show any concern about a man whose voting record is 100% pro-abortion. Again, it is not the only issue with me, but it is an issue. A true pro-life candidate will be consistent. At best, Edwards is as inconsistent in his life ethic as Bush. Partial birth abortion is not about choice, it is about brutality in its most vulgar form.
I agree that legislation is not the answer to abortion. But are we not better served with a leader who is tilted towards life, rather than one who has shown by his record that he will advance the cause of abortion? I don’t think you meant it this way, but by reading your blog, it seems that Edwards “second life” presence is more important to his candidacy than his “life” position. Please help me understand why abortion is apparently such a non-factor for so many on the “Christian left” nowadays. Is it just an aversion to all things Republican or right-wing?
By Jonathan on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
len,
I think Scott communicated rather clearly that, for him, abortion is not a “non-issue.” It is an important issue. As you agreed, it isn’t the only issue. When I vote, the abortion issue is one of many factors that determine my vote. I agree with Scott that respect for life includes much more than simply opposing abortion and that neither of the parties is likely to accomplish the reversal of roe v wade because (in my opinion) that is not what the majority of Americans want (for better or worse).
By scott on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
That’s right. It is an issue for me. Do I like it? No. But it is the reality and nothing has been done to sufficiently overturn Roe V. Wade despite those who claim to be pro-life being in power for so long.
It’s hard for me to label someone as pro-life when they are pro-death penalty and pro-war.
It’s a larger issue for me than just abortion. All life is valuable. If we are going to mandate a pregnant mother giving birth then we must do everything that we can to ensure that they have everything that they can to survive, prosper and care for their newborns. Yet many who are pro-life are opposed to more entitlements for unwed mothers. I fail to see the logic or the consistency.
Unfortunately, the entire topic of abortion is one that, typically, cannot be addressed without sides drawing lines.
But the reality is that abortion is legal. As long as it is, then our efforts must be to reduce the frequency. That is my concern, not legislation.
By Len on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
Scott would you agree with this statement: it is hard for me to label someone pro-life when every political decision they have made has been pro-abortion? I agree with your statement about the death penalty and war.
The death penalty and war can’t be addressed without sides being drawn. Christians shouldn’t allow that to keep us from speaking out on issues. Do we apply the same principle that since we can’t do away with all wars that we at least look for a candidate who will limit the numbers killed in war? Or do we speak out against war? How about the death penalty? Do we seek to abolish or merely limit? Why does the Christian left all of a sudden not want to be offensive when it comes to abortion, but no other issue?
For the time being it still seems to me that Edwards’ abortion record is being treated as a non-issue. If we want a consistent ethic of life does it include the unborn? If it does then Edwards cannot be considered pro-life.
Scott you didn’t mention abortion and Edwards’ voting history at all in your critique. You still haven’t answered my questions about Edwards’ voting record, but have pointed out twice now that the GOP hasn’t overturned RvWade. Isn’t this blog about John Edwards, not the Republicans of the last 2 decades?
By Lane on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
With Obama’s numbers slowing down, and a recent poll stating that just as many people disagree with Clinton as they do support her, this may be the time for Edwards to really step it up and take over. The thing he has going for him is simple old fashioned charisma.
Question though Scott, if one of the GOP candidates runs on a platform saying he’ll challenge Roe V. Wade, would that change your mind on voting for a republican again? Seems like I heard the other day that one of the Republican candidates is considering doing just that.
Also, with such a long time before any elections occur, are there any other strong democratic candidates that could take the primary?
By scott on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
And this isn’t a single issue, how? Len, I have to consider Edwards in comparison to other candidates and the current administration. Sure the post was specifically about Edwards but ultimately it is how stacks up overall against other candidates.
Do I agree with his voting record on abortion? No, I don’t. I am pro-life and would love to see Roe V. Wade overturned. But, here’s the thing: it ain’t going to happen. And if it did we would need to make darn sure that young single mothers have every opportunity to succesfully care for their newborn.
I know that you are anxious to point out my inconsistency here but it’s much more nuanced than that. Abortion is legal and we are not anywhere near moving towards it’s eradication. Therefore, my focus is to make it as rare as possible.
By scott on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
Lane, I don’t see a Republican on the landscape that I would vote for with the very remote possibility of Guiliani.
As for the Democratic ticket, it’s a pretty steep drop-off after the top 3.
By Len on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
Has Edwards ever said anything about reducing the number of abortions in the country?
By Politics and Culture on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
It is simply wrong to say that President Bush has done nothing to overturn Roe v. Wade. He has made significant steps in that direction by appointing true constructionists to the Supreme Court. If he can appoint on more justice to replace one of the liberal ones, there is a high probability that it will be overturned.
It is common to hear those on the Christian left say, “Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.” This is laughable. If the fetus growing in the womb is a human being, then abortion is an atrocity and should be stopped at all cost. If the fetus is nothing but a tissue mass, then there is no reason for abortion to be rare. Let it go on willy-nilly! I mean, why should removal of an unwanted piece of tissue be rare? This argument (safe, legal and rare) is nothing but a way for Christians on the left to assuage their guilt over supporting the practice.
It is interesting to me that so many liberals are pro-abortion but against the death penalty. “Save the guilty, but kill the innocent.”
Having said all that, I actually support a candidate who is “pro-choice” (I hate that phrase). Rudy Guliani. The reason I can support him is that he says he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia, Roberts and Alito. That’s the only way Roe V. Wade will be overturned.
Edwards on the other hand would see to it that all the progess pro-lifers have made in the past few years would be destroyed. He would appoint liberal justices, he would try to reinstate federal funds for abortion, he would see to it that all restrcitions were removed from partial-birth abortion, as far as he could, he would eliminate parental notification laws, and he would overturn all of President Bush’s executive orders concerning abortion.
Sorry this is so long. This is an important issue to my wife and me. And yes, we have supported (with time and money) organizations that help mothers with unplanned pregnancies.
By scott on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
It’ll never happen.
And understand this: I have never said that abortion should be legal. I am a member of Democrats for Life. I strongly believe in reducing, limiting and ultimately eradicating abortion.
By Politics and Culture on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
I think you’re wrong.
If Bork had been confirmed, it would have been overturned back in the early 90’s. You put one more strict constructionist on the court to go along with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito — it will be overturned. Kennedy usually votes with that group, but he can’t always be counted on to do the right thing.
I wish Democrats for Life had more influence on the party. But the Dems won’t even let a pro-lifer speak at the convention. Abortion has become the Holy Sacrament for most in the Democratic Party.
By justin on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
This all goes back to a debate that I think any christian advocating non violence has to consider.
If I believe that killing people is wrong under any circumstance, how can I in good faith vote for anyone who has no choice but to support killing, whether its abortion, the death penalty, war, etc?
I mean, in essence, every aspect of government comes down to force. If I get a speeding ticket, the only teeth that the government has to tell me what to do is threat of force. Sure, they can give me a fine, but what happens if I don’t pay? They arrest me and take me to jail. If I refuse to go to jail, and contine resisting, eventually they will use violence to subdue me.
By Scott on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
I very well could be. I’d love to see it overturned. Because, by and large, I think we are in agreement.
Our differences come as to where we think the best solution lies. I don’t believe it is in legislation.
So, at the end of the day, we must decide to agree to disagree. And hopefully be a safe haven where pregnant mothers can find hope and redemption.
By Jonathan on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
Politics and Culture,
Let me presume to speak for Scott and myself and say that we understand where you’re coming from, we agree with much of what you say, but we come to a different conclusion than you do regarding how our views on abortion (and many other issues) influence our vote. So be it.
I think discussion on this subject can be helpful, but generally it begins to soon feel like banging one’s head against the wall…or creates the impulse to do so.
We’ve already slogged through this at least once before when you weren’t around (but len was, for example): link. Let’s affirm that we have much in common while some disagreement remains. This is not likely to change on the timescale of a blog discussion and endless discussion here will probably not be fruitful. This discussion has an important place here perhaps, but to me at least it’s preferable it not monopolize the discussion at the expense of some of the other important political issues. Not to say that you’re monopolizing, but as I mentioned we have been through this before and so some us may be too weary and lack the desire to engage with you on this subject.
By Politics and Culture on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
Jonathan –
That’s fine. I know my post was lengthy, and I didn’t mean to sidetrack the discussion.
It is my hope that Christians everywhere will have the kind of influence over the end of abortion that they had over the end of slavery. Perhaps we will someday look back on abortion the way we now look back on slavery (remember, some people were “pro-choice” when it came to slavery!).
By len on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
I would like to think that I am a part of the democratic target audience. I am the lifelong republican who is ready to look at other alternatives. Maybe I am 4 years behind a lot on here. Please be patient with me. I will not leave the GOP unless I feel there is a better alternative out there.
I have pointed out my concerns over John Edwards. To me, abortion is an important enough issue that I will make it one of a few major factors in who I vote for. Some other factors are the best way to get us out of Iraq, health care, taxes, just to name a few. I am very concerned about a man whose track record is 100% in favor of protecting abortion rights. Scott, you have said that you don’t agree with his record on abortion, but can you explain why that wouldn’t prevent you from voting for Edwards?
I don’t understand the legislation argument. Ultimately, of course, it is about changing human hearts. But do you want legislation which will bring our troops home and get us out of Iraq? Are you for legislation which will prevent another Katrina fiasco? Are you for legislation which will help protect the environment? Why does legislation on abortion not seem to matter?
By Scott on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
I believe the government needs to be first and foremost concerned with social justice. For years we have decried abortion from the rooftops but we have done a very poor job convincing the populous that it is a sin. Legislation won’t fix that.
And, ultimately, legislation won’t stem the tide of abortion. Look at the stats for the numbers of abortions performed BEFORE Roe V. Wade. And in a culture that has progressed to the point that abortions can be performed via pill or non-invasive medical techniques it seems to me to be a genie that isn’t going back in the bottle.
I believe that abortion is wrong. It is a sin and it is murder. However, I want to bring people to that based upon a moral conviction than through compulsion. Especially when I see the abortion statistics in America tied to other issues such as the staggering costs of having a baby, the lack of true care for young mothers, and the lack of opportunity for single mothers today. Moral compulsion doesn’t work. Hearts have to be changed.
The litany of concerns that you mention fall under a different perception in our society: they all are viewed as having a more global impact. While abortion is viewed by a majority as a personal decision. Legislation is much more affective when it is based upon the impact of society at large. I don’t agree with that contention but that is the way it is.
I agree with the vast majority of Edwards’ positions. Many of them I view as moral issues. If a candidate came along that I fell into alignment on the same scale but had a legitimate program to quell abortions (such as Democrats for Life)I would be all over it. But for it to be successful it must be more comprehensive. I’ll give you an example from Campolo:
A young girl is pregnant (”And don’t tell me she shouldn’t be pregnant in the first place,” he said. “She’s pregnant!”). She lives in inner-city Philadelphia and her family is among the working poor (those who earn enough money to be just above the poverty-line, effectively excluding them from any state assistance). If she has this baby it will cost at least $2000 at the hospital. This is money that her family doesn’t have. In addition, she’ll most likely have to get childcare for the baby, which will cost her at least $10 per day, or $200 per month. Again, this is money the family doesn’t have.
For a family in this situation, the only way to stay afloat financially is to end the pregnancy.
I hate it. It’s wrong. And that is where the church is needed.
By Scott on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
By the way, in the comment count (which is a legitimate predictor of 2008) Edwards is beating McCain by a count of 31–18.
By len on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
Maybe John Edwards needs to use his lawyering skills to make it easier, and less expensive, to adopt a baby in this country. Maybe through legislation we can make more alternatives available. The number of people wanting and willing to adopt is staggering. Let’s take their hurdles away.
Thanks for the reply. That is what I was wanting. My initial thought is that I respectfully disagree with your thinking, but I am going to chew on it awhile. I do have a lot of my old mindset still in me after all.
By Scott on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
That would be a tremendous step.
By Jonathan on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
Politics and Culture,
I didn’t think your post was especially lengthy. I was just foreseeing this thread heading towards a downward spiral of endless back and forth with little or no progress made like the ” The 2008 Presidential Race…” post did with abortion and non-violence. If you haven’t scanned that one for discussion on abortion, you might want to do so. I’m just suggesting that while we’re now just on comment 33 that it might not be worthwhile taking it to 172 comments like last time.
By JTB on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
I agree with Scott that legislation on abortion is not the answer. Why? Because as we all agree, no matter what our stance, this is a life-and-death issue, not a simple right-or-wrong issue, and certainly not simply a legal-or-illegal issue.
What Scott is doing his best to point out, as I see it, is that there are many questions going unasked by most Christian pro-life advocates. Questions like, who is getting abortions, and why are they getting abortions? These questions are relevant, because as Scott has pointed out, many, probably most, women who go through the trauma of ending a pregnancy do so because they are in situations so dire that the only visible way out is the horrible expediency of taking someone’s life. The question of “is it right?” must also be considered in the context of a tragic “is it necessary?” and finally the even more tragic, “why would anyone come to the conclusion that such a thing is necessary?”
Are there any good moral analogies to this situation? The connection to war and the death penalty has already been made in these comments. I’ll simply say that, if you think that justification can be made in other situations for the taking of someone’s life, I don’t see why this situation is off-limits to such moral reasoning. If, for instance, it is morally permissible to take another (mature) human being’s life because of the threat they represent to you physically/economically/ideologically/potentially (I’m thinking of the possible ways that “threat” might be and has been construed in war contexts), then does this not open the door to this same reasoning with regard to abortion, if one is consistent in one’s valuation of human life? Sure, I know that the automatic answer is that babies are innocent and grown men with hypothetical WMDs are not. But that doesn’t take care of it, because the truth being sidestepped by that answer is the fact that the babies in question do represent a threat, in the ways that have already been described in the above comments.
I would probably label myself pro-choosing-life, if I had to choose a label. Why? Because regardless of any case law precedent, women who are forced to consider the possibility of abortions will face making that awful choice no matter what the law says.
I think what I most want to point out is the unspeakable tragedy of these pregnancies being experienced as threat instead of as promise. It breaks my heart to consider it. And it breaks my heart that so many brothers and sisters in Christ consider considering it a sign of moral weakness.
By Belinda on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
Scott, your comments are great! I really appreciate your insight and you have a great gift for using the right words.
We need to remember that abortion was legalized under a republican administration.
Another thing, it’s much easier to decide what’s right and wrong for another person. Do I think abortion is wrong? I do. Would I ever do it? I honestly don’t know. I want to think I wouldn’t, but in a unique situation, I can’t say 100 percent that I wouldn’t do it.
And another correct statement for all of us: if abortion is wrong, why do we have so little respect for human life after it’s born? I know of too many people taking part in all the pro-life rallys that have support the troops signs everywhere and preach war on a daily basis. I don’t get it.
By len on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
Belinda,
I understand exactly what you are saying about the pro-life people who are proponents of war. A lot of my trouble, and the reason I post so much about this, is with those who are against the war, but don’t mind remaining non-committal about abortion. Inconsistencies are on both sides of the aisle.
Why can’t there be a whole pro-life platform where we can speak against war, death penalty, abortion, and be for health care and quality of life? Why is the left so quick to let abortion be the issue to go out of this list? My cynical nature says it is because they don’t want to lose votes. And yes, the same can be said about the right and the war.
By JTB on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
Let me make another try at explaining why I think the legislation issue is beside the point. Scott says in comment 16, “But the reality is that abortion is legal. As long as it is, then our efforts must be to reduce the frequency. That is my concern, not legislation.” Yes, but I would go further: it should be our concern regardless of whether abortion is legal or not. Fussing over legality is a distraction from the real problem. The real problem is that people are killing babies, right? Whether or not that killing is legal doesn’t change the reality that this is what is happening. So what I can’t understand is why the moral battle being fought so energetically is about making abortion illegal. Why don’t we expend that enormous amount of energy in trying to make abortion unnecessary? Do we really think that the women who have abortions would be having them if they didn’t have to? Wouldn’t it make so much more moral sense to care for everyone involved, babies and mothers, by making this kind of tragedy so unnecessary as to be an unthinkable non-option? Why can’t we spend our time considering what we would have to do to make that happen, instead of asking, what button should I push in my voting booth to carry out my moral duty in this matter? Why do we think the voting booth is the prime arena in which to care for mothers and children? Why are our politicians our moral agents and not we ourselves? Why is it that “pro-choice” means “baby-killer” instead of “person who gets the fact that the women involved need moral consideration”?
Okay, end of frustrated tirade. Apologies if it is a little strong, this is early-morning-pre-coffee-Brent-is-gone-welcome-to-temporary-single-motherhood mood comin’ atcha.
By KS on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
Scott in post 30 (of what is heading the way of another 100 post series) you gave a great senario…for adoption. Which is what some Christian groups (Agape) are trying to encourage. Yes we must do more to change hearts, and make it easier for couples to adopt. I work with a man who is now 40 and he and his wife have wanted to adopt for several years (they cannot have children), but couldn’t and didn’t because it was too expensive ($20-30,000).
I also find it ironic that we want legislation to end the “murders” in Iraq, but want to change hearts with abortion. To me you can’t have it both ways. If murder in any form is wrong, then you must oppose it with all you have, ie: Pro life.
BTW: I am glad you are in democrats for life. What issues do they stand for?
By Scott on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
JTB, thanks so much for these comments. Right on. We have to face the fact that by and large our churches have failed to convince people that abortion is not a viable option, nor do we often take into account the plight of the people actually considering the quick end.
Kenny, of course it’s a great scenario for adoption. But try telling that to the girl in that situation that is her only choice with clinical detachment. You can’t. There has to be the moral persuasion to get her to see the advantages of keeping the child over doing the easy thing. You cannot separate the unborn child from the mother. They are a package deal, both before and after delivery.
Your analogy to Iraq doesn’t stand up. It’s my government that has made the decision to launch a pre-emptive war therefore I make my voice heard. I also now that my voice is somewhat muted as a “commoner” so I use the forums I have (this blog and the pulpit) to make my moral cases as to the immorality of war.
The girl wrestling with such a permanent decision is not the government but a flesh and blood person who needs love, compassion and hope. Unless we provide that there is nothing I can preach about abortion that changes her heart.
And another thing is important: just because I don’t view this as the single issue that tips the scale does not mean that I am not pro-life. It’s important to see the nuance in these discussions.
By KS on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
I just found it ironic that “bigger” issues, ie: War on terror, global warming, etc… supercede something like abortion.
Yes we need to love the woman who is cotemplating abortion, but reguardless, abortion is wrong.
And I believe in Roe v Wade, it was your government that decided that abortion was legal.
By len on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
JTB,
Please don’t assume that because I am in favor of legislation against abortion that I don’t get that the women involved need moral consideration. Why can’t we care for the unborn and their mothers both?
In the spirit of this particular thread, my main concern, and I think this is on topic, is with John Edwards voting record on abortion. He voted against the ban on partial birth abortion. He voted against legislation that would make it a crime to harm an unborn baby in a violent act. Those are also flesh and blood issues. And I have a difficulty understanding why Edwards has cast his voice in these directions. His record indicates that he will do nothing to stem the tide of abortion in this country. The fact is that those who are considering backing Edwards have spent more time in this thread bashing the Republicans than giving coherent argument on behalf of Edwards and his decisions.
Here’s a simple solution: show every woman who is considering an abortion an ultrasound. Let them be informed of what they are doing. Let them see what is in their womb. What choice will they make? If we care about the woman, we also don’t want her to live with the guilt that abortion brings. And yes, I have women in my church who are dealing with that today. In my church we are working toward a mindset that abortion is not an option, but that there is help and hope for your situation.
By JTB on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
Caring for the unborn and for the mothers both is exactly what I’m trying to advocate for. Nor do I assume anyone here is unconcerned with this matter. But here is the difference. I don’t think it constitutes “care” for the mother to explain to her why she is wrong. Women who have abortions know exactly what it is they are doing. They know it better than any of us, because they know it from the first person perspective. They don’t need an ultrasound to show them it’s a baby. Their own bodies tell them in a way that it is impossible to appreciate until you experience it. Having my own baby radically changed my thinking on abortion–not in the sense that I “switched sides” but in the sense that I finally understood what it meant to have an abortion. It meant experiencing the anticipation of pregnancy as terror. It meant experiencing the growing life within you with dread. It meant agonizing over the fact that the tiny life completely dependent on you for survival is one whose blind trust is misplaced. It meant knowing in a place far deeper than the brain that the wrongness that marks our world runs so incontrovertibly deep that the possibility of new life is not always a good one. I firmly believe that most women who have abortions do so out of a sense of care for their unborn child–care that emerges in this monstrous and perverted form not because the mother is at fault or is morally deficient or ignorant, but because the world in which we live offers her no options than a choice between horrific evils. Is it caring for a child to bring her into a world where hunger, abuse, neglect are as inevitable as destiny? If you loved the baby in your womb, would you condemn her to that? What about women whose lives are so marginal that they physically cannot adequately nurture a child even in pregnancy? Is it caring to carry that pregnancy to term, knowing that you cannot provide even in the womb what that new life requires in order to flourish? Guilt lies in every direction for these women. Guilt for being pregnant–whether or not it’s their “fault.” Guilt if they birth a child they can’t protect and nurture. Guilt if they don’t. Yes, we don’t want her to live with guilt. So let’s recognize that no matter what the decision, guilt is there to be absolved. And that is certainly our job as the church. But we as the church cannot even begin the task of addressing and absolving this guilt unless we are also doing what is necessary to create a place for women to see beyond these desperate, guilt-inducing options. We have to make it possible for these babies to be born, and not just born, but nurtured and cared for in the same security we seek for our own. And we have to make this not only a fragile possibility but a stable reality that women can count on and expect, so that it is no longer necessary to end a life before it begins out of fear of what that life will mean. That is our real task. Legislation be damned.
By len on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
JTB,
Well said.
Anyone have an idea as to what percentage of abortions would fall into the category she described?
By Tracy on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
JTB, thank you for putting into words feeling that I have not been able to for years. That is powerful.
By Scott on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
Amen to that. There is a perspective to this debate that I just can’t grasp.
By Jonathan on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
Edwards interviewed by David Kuo about his faith: link
By Jonathan on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
Speaking of Second Life, Edwards “Second Life headquarters was defaced with “Marxist/Leninist posters and slogans, a feces spewing obsenity, and a photoshopped picture of John in blackface.”": link
By scott on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply
Jonathan, thanks for the Kuo article.
As for Second Life, I went by the headquarters shortly after it was defaced. They’ve set up a 1 minute refresh to hopefully prevent it happening in the future.
By Jonathan on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply
I wasn’t too impressed with the Kuo interview. I mean, I think he has it right that his faith should affect his decisions, as it inevitably will, but that he/government should be conscientious not to impose faith on others. But I thought he didn’t do the house size question justice. I’m not saying he should have pledged to sell his house tomorrow, but to say the details of the physical structure are completely unimportant doesn’t wash with me. And the references to honesty in the last two answers left a bad taste…as if there would be an expectation of anything other than honesty.
By Scott on Mar 5, 2007 | Reply
Hmm, I didn’t read the last two pages of the interview. I agree there isn’t much defense for the house but the honesty thing didn’t bother me at all. I’ve been known to use the same phrasing in my preaching as more of a device to give me a pause while thinking of what I want to say without doing the whole “um” bit.
He is still my front-runner.
By Jonathan on Mar 5, 2007 | Reply
I probably say it too…but for some reason it jumped out and annoyed me at the end of this interview.
By Scott on Mar 5, 2007 | Reply
I would be interested in the homes of each of the presidential aspirants. Do any of them live simply? Not to defend Edwards in this regard but I doubt any of them do.
By greg on Mar 5, 2007 | Reply
wow, I never realized Edwards was gay…
By greg on Mar 5, 2007 | Reply
do you have an “Ann Coulter” filter?
By Scott on Mar 5, 2007 | Reply
no, did something get blocked? Let me check.
By Scott on Mar 5, 2007 | Reply
I guess the word “gay” was flagged. She isn’t even worth my time to comment on. No one takes her seriously do they?
Her remarks are indefensible.
By greg on Mar 5, 2007 | Reply
Sadly, some do.
By Jonathan on Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
From Slate, John Edwards’ Bad Edit: link
By Scott on Mar 9, 2007 | Reply
That’s funny.
By Robin on Mar 10, 2007 | Reply
Just for grins check out how “green” Bush’s Crawford Texas ranch is. You might be surprised.
By Belinda on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply
a little late but thought this might be worth reading: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/13/politics/printable2564285.shtml
it’s on today’s (3/13/07) CBS News site
By Jonathan on Mar 21, 2007 | Reply
This one’s for P and C:
John Edwards Feeling Pretty: YouTube Link