A few days back, I commented on the fact that both sides in the abortion debate tend to “think the worst” about their adversaries, and that this is counterproductive for those of us who are seeking to dramatically reduce (eventually to zero) the number of abortions performed in the United States and the world. It didn’t take too long, of course, as always happens in this discussion, for the “M” word - murder - to come out.

This is yet another example of what I was saying - rather than respecting the folks who do not agree with us on the issue, both sides tend to label their opponents the most hideous things - in this case, at best enablers of murder, and at worse, murderers themselves.

A commenter mentioned that there was no middle ground in this debate - and, if you call your opponents murderers (or, on the other side, oppressors), he’s right. You have bombed the middle ground into nonexistence.

But I would argue that raising the rhetoric to these levels makes the cause of reducing the number of abortions performed in this country impossible, as it demonizes the half (or more) of the population who support the option of having abortions on some level.

Those of us who are pro-life would be much better served focusing our energies on creating a society where “unplanned” pregnancies occur less frequently and when they do occur are no longer a life sentence to poverty for most single mothers. This is an issue where both pro-choice and pro-life individuals can work together, with the end result being a dramatic reduction in the number of abortions performed each year.

More press conference fun…

The President said today something along the lines of democracy being the world’s best hope for peace.

I won’t even get into the theological problems of this statement coming from the mouth of a professed born again Christian.

But, looking at the history of the United States, his statement simply doesn’t add up. For example, here are some of the wars that the world’s first democracy has engaged in since its birth:

• The Revolutionary War.
• The War of 1812.
• The Mexican-American War.
• The Civil War.
• The Spanish-American War.
• World War I.
• World War II.
• The Korean War.
• The Vietnam War.
• Gulf War I.
• Gulf War II.

This, of course, leaves out the numerous “police actions” we have undertaken in places such as Panama, Grenada, and Kosovo, and the large number of proxy wars we have fought in places such as Central America.

If that’s peace, I’d hate to see his definition of war!

I heard a few minutes of President Bush’s press conference this morning. Apparently, we are on the cusp of armageddon because social security payroll taxes may increase to 18 PERCENT!

Sounds pretty bad, right? Except for the fact that the taxes are currently 12.4 percent, and most likely that 18 percent figure would only occur if we did nothing for 40 years, the trust fund ran out, and we were forced to fully fund social security from payroll taxes alone. Oh, and the fact that it really amounts to an increase of 2.8 percent of income (remember, payroll taxes are split between the employer and the employee, so that 18 percent is really 9). Which amounts to $2500 per year in today’s dollars even if you made enough to hit the cap of $90,000 in income.

So, in other words, if we do absolutely nothing to adjust the system slowly over the course of 40 years, AND the projections which have been consistently pessimistic hold true, we will need to pay an extra 3 percent of our income to make sure everyone can get fully-funded social security benefits.

Some crisis.

Recently, I’ve become more and more aware that folks on both sides of the left-right divide have this terrible habit of assuming the worst of their political opponents (I do it too). While I mostly see this from conservatives (not necessarily because they engage in it more often, but simply because it’s easier to see when it’s directed at yourself and others like you), Kevin Drum fell into that trap today on the subject of abortion:

I’m aware that other groups use these arguments for less savory purposes, and I’m also aware that I’m skipping a bunch of details - including my firm belief that most anti-abortion rhetoric is a demagogic reaction against sexual (and economic) freedom for women, not something based on a genuine desire to save human life. Some other time, perhaps.

This is the flipside of the argument that I frequently hear from radical pro-lifeistas who claim that liberals only really want abortion around because of their gleeful desire to kill babies, their inherent racism in wanting primarily babies of color killed, or any number of other ridiculous assertions that they trot out in their arguments.

Drum is generally quite moderate in his liberalism, but in this case he has bought into the radical pro-choiceista line: that pro-lifers aren’t really interested in stopping abortions, but rather in keeping the woman down.

Which, if you think about it for about five seconds, it patently absurd on its face.

I’m sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Catholic church and large numbers of protestant churches believe that life begins, if not at conception, a long time before birth. And the fact that there are a LOT of people in this country which belong in one of those two groups.

As a pro-life liberal, I’m in the unique position of being able to see both sides of this issue. And I am also in the unique position of being able to understand the motivations of both the pro-life and pro-choice camp (especially since I used to be pro-choice).

So a quick note to those on both sides of this divide:

Pro-lifers really DO believe that embryos and fetuses are human beings, and therefore should be protected from an early end to their lives.

Pro-choicers really DO want to protect the welfare of both mothers and children, and really DO want to ensure that neither has to grow up impoverished.

Pro-lifers are NOT trying to take people’s rights away. Rather, they simply don’t believe that we should choose the rights of one person (the mother) over the rights of another (the child).

Pro-choicers are also NOT trying to take the baby’s rights away. They simply feel that the border between life and non-life is further forward than their pro-life counterparts, and that the government has no business telling people when they may receive a medical procedure when there isn’t another life involved.

Haven’t we had enough of the hate spewing from both sides? Haven’t we had enough of this “think the worst” mentality? We’re long overdue for some real solutions to the crisis of abortion thoughout the world. Solutions which help prevent overpopulation. Solutions which support mothers who are too young to take care of their children. Solutions which ensure that all unwanted children find loving homes. And solutions which dramatically reduce the number of abortions.

You don’t have to be pro-life or pro-choice to want these things. And you certainly don’t have to think the worst of people who don’t agree with your position.

Cooler heads have prevailed in the Senate. The downside, of course, is that we may end up with three truly terrible appeals court justices. But the upside is that we may avoid one or two truly terrible Supreme Court justices.

The looming smackdown, however, between John McCain and the religious right’s candidate of choice in 2008 is starting to heat up!

Ed Brayton has hit the nail on the head:

But they’ve exchanged scripts now, reading the same words they feigned such outrage at a few years ago. And the followers of both parties lap it up without question, their short memories and partisanship-addled brains shrugging off the cognitive dissonance.

Ending filibusters was a bad idea in 1995 when 19 Democrats supported it, and it’s a bad idea in 2005 when 49-51 Republicans support it.

Senator Rick Santorum wins the prize for the Republicans by being the first Senator in the filibuster debate to run afoul of Godwin’s Law:

What the Democrats are doing is “the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, ‘I’m in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It’s mine.’ This is no more the rule of the senate than it was the rule of the senate before not to filibuster.”

Senator Santorum: I recommend you look up the word “equivalent.”

On Kos, they have posted a translation of Bush’s VE day commemoration in the Netherlands. A couple of quotes make me, well, quite uneasy, considering that Mr. Bush repeatedly tells us all how much of a born again Christian he is:

In his speech at Margraten, Bush said Sunday that the most important lesson of World War II is that ‘no power is as strong as the power of freedom. There’s no soldier as strong as one who fights for freedom’.

Actually, I can name one power which is stronger: the Lord our God.

According to Bush, the free Europe after World War II was built on the courage and sacrifices of the soldiers who liberated the continent. The free world that Bush wants to leave as his legacy has been inspired by that. “We are at the service of the truth: freedom is the most important.” In the 21st century, according to Bush, Americans and Europeans work together to bring freedom to Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and the Middle East. “Freedom is the permanent hope of humanity”, said Bush.

Freedom is the permanent hope of humanity? Funny, but my theology teaches me that Jesus Christ is the permanent hope of humanity.

Now, I understand that Mr. Bush cannot, because of his position, preach the gospel, nor would I expect him to (Unlike the Christian right, I believe in the separation of church and state, after all). But that doesn’t mean that he should be uttering things that are completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus - at least if he’s serious about following Him.

The sound you hear is religious conservatives scurrying to install Linux on their PCs…

Really, Chan Chandler says so!

This story has been making the rounds in the liberal blogosphere over the course of the day:

For those that thought that there has not been a full scale war lanched against liberals; for those who didn’t take the radical right’s promise to “eradicate liberals” seriously, I present to you, Exhibit A: East Waynesville Baptist Church has just kicked out all its Democratic members.

In honor of Rev. Chan Chandler, I hereby “excommunicate” all Christians who voted for Bush in the last election. After all, a vote for Bush was a vote against being a peacemaker, in opposition to Jesus’ teachings on the subject. Furthermore, a vote for Bush was a vote for torture, and I don’t know what Bible you’re reading, but mine doesn’t say “blessed are those who torture their perceived enemies.”

And then there are all of those pesky scriptures on wealth that Mr. Bush seems to conveniently forget. I’m guessing that encouraging greed by telling people that tax revenues are “their money” and then giving a disproportionate amount of those revenues to the very rich while the cost of living increases for the poor and middle class might not have been EXACTLY what Jesus was thinking when he said “blessed are the poor.”

So, I guess that, if you add his HIS excommunications, and MY excommunications, well, the only people who have a chance to go to heaven are Nader voters (UPDATE: oh wait, I just reread the story and he said ANYONE who didn’t support Bush - so now, between the two of us, we have everyone covered)!

Maybe we should rethink this whole excommunication thing? I seem to remember that Jesus somewhere mentioned something about not judging lest you be judged…