How should we understand all this 'no comment' stuff, Sarah?

So basically they have nothing of value to offer except their self-righteous posturing? Good to know.

How is trying to civilize the abortion discussion and working to reduce the number of abortions "self-righteous posturing"? I think most people agree that abortion it not a good thing and would prefer to reduce rather than increase the number of abortions. I think it's easy to criticize ideas to reduce abortion, but it can be very difficult to produce an effective solution that induces any sort of consensus on such a sensitive topic. Also, I think the only meant by "not commenting" on the issue of contraception is, again, that it is a sensitive subject, especially in the religious community and a Christian organization like Sojourners must be very careful about what it publicly endorses. But those are just my thoughts...

I think most people agree that abortion it not a good thing and would prefer to reduce rather than increase the number of abortions.

The salient points are 1) this has already been the Democratic platform for a long time now- "safe, legal and rare", and 2) the only real way to accomplish it is by expanding access to effective contraception- which pro-lifers, including Wallis and his acolytes, either actively oppose or don't want to talk about. Hence the obvious conclusion that they're hypocrites who are really motivated by a desire to control women's sexuality.

I understand that Dems have had that as their platform, but they don't emphasize the RARE part very often, which is why I think Jim Wallis isn't trying to push a new platform as much as try to encourage a bigger push toward abortion reduction. I also think it's unfair to lump Jim Wallis in with every other pro-lifer because he has said often that you don't have to criminalize abortion in order to make policy that respects life. "There's common ground in supporting aid to low-income women, preventing unwanted pregnancies, reforming adoption to make it easier. All of that would dramatically reduce abortion. Most people who have different views on Roe v. Wade can agree on these things. ... I don't expect, nor am I calling on, the Democrats to criminalize abortion. They can hold to their pro-choice principles and still commit to abortion reduction."

I also think it's a little disingenuous to make the claim that all of these people are "really motivated by a desire to control women's sexuality." That may be true for a limited few, but I think the claim is just about as valid as saying that pro-choicers are really motivated by the desire to kill babies. To quote Jim Wallis one last time: "One side shouts 'baby killer,' the other side yells 'misogynist.' That's not helping very much."

That may be true for a limited few, but I think the claim is just about as valid as saying that pro-choicers are really motivated by the desire to kill babies.

Then you're not thinking very hard or very well. This is a totally phony symmetry, and I will point out yet again that opposition to or queasiness about contraception- the only proven effective way to prevent abortions- among almost all anti-choicers is a dead giveaway. As is their absolute refusal to deal with the health risks of pregnancy and the immorality of trying to force them on women who wish to terminate their pregnancies.

I am thinking hard, and I'd like to think I'm thinking well... I was not attempting to make a phony symmetry and I apologize if my anaology was overstated (I was just trying to use remarks typical of this debate). My point is that you are ascribing false motives to someone else which polarizes the issue and this is not helpful to a productive debate.

I still maintain that the queasiness in talking about contraception is, in many ways, a result of the sensitivity of the subject. I agree with you that it is an effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and my own opinion is that contraceptives should be more widely available. Many people, however, see the emphasis on contraceptives being a way in which people can avoid the responsibility for their actions and it undermines the sanctity of sex and marriage. While it is not fair to force these ideas of morality onto other people, I can understand the person who finds it difficult to support such an agenda. That is also why even a moderately progressive Christian group like Sojourners would be likely to avoid the topic because they typically stick to supporting positions that they can support with Biblical arguments.

That may be true for a limited few, but I think the claim is just about as valid as saying that pro-choicers are really motivated by the desire to kill babies.

A statement which differs only in politeness from my way of putting it- that they want to control women's bodies.

And this is more than "not fair"- it's completely out of bounds in a secular polity. The intelligent- indeed, only- way for Wallisites to find common ground on reducing abortion rates with those who don't share their theological preconceptions would be, to be boringly repetitious, to work with us to expand access to family planning services. Wake me up when they finally figure this out. I'm not impressed with the excuses.

Sorry, I meant to blockquote this:

Many people, however, see the emphasis on contraceptives being a way in which people can avoid the responsibility for their actions and it undermines the sanctity of sex and marriage.

And by the way, the states with the highest divorce rates are the ones with the most evangelicals, and Baptists have the highest divorce rate of any denomination. (Atheists and agnostics have a substantially lover rate than Christians.) The "sanctity of marriage" rhetoric is quite transparently just another smokescreen, for misogyny or homophobia depending on the context.

"absolute refusal to deal with the health risks of pregnancy and the immorality of trying to force them on women who wish to terminate their pregnancies. "

I think it is a bit of a stretch to make this a moral issue. No one is forcing the pregnancy on anyone (except, of course, in the case of rape). Pregnancy is the result of (in most cases) a choice on the part of two people to engage in sexual activity. I feel like if a person is not willing to take responsibility for the potential consequences, maybe they should not have sex (because you never know if any contraceptive will be 100% effective). As to the health risks, it's not exactly like pregnancy is a disease. Pregnant women taking their babies to term deal with the health risks of pregnancy every day. It's not like we're trying to "cure" them of their pregnancy. Again, though, it's a complicated issue and I think many people could understand abortion in a case where the mother's life is at risk. So to what other health risks are you referring?

Do your own research- Google is only a click away. Pregnancy may not be a "disease", but it is a risky business. The rest of your comments are frank;y misogynistic as well as insufferably self-righteous. Didn't Jesus say something about motes and beams? He didn't like Pharisees much, as I recall.

Look, here's the deal. You can only work with people where your interests and goals intersect with theirs. If you sincerely want to work with the Democratic mainstream to reduce the incidence of abortion, I've already told you several times how to do this. If you, and Wallis, just want to posture, knock yourselves out- but expect to be ignored.

Oh well. I suppose one has to pick one's battles. Christians never claim to be perfect. In fact, most of them claim quite the opposite. I think it's unfortunate that you seem bent on mischaracterizing motives. I've seen the hatred and the ugliness of many Christian views in the way that they are often expressed and I can completely understand your frustration. I would like to think for the most part, though, that true Christians really are motivated by what they say are their motivations and maybe it's not really just "rhetoric"... at least not for the lay man. I'm just thankful that Sen Obama expresses more respect for the religious than you do. God Bless...

I really don't know what more I can do to meet you halfway than to show you where lies the common ground on which Christians and secularists can meet to reduce the rate of abortion. It's common ground with which many if not most Christians (even Catholics, few of whom give a fig for their church's official teachings on contraception) actually have no problem, which makes Wallis's refusal to address it even more peculiar.

I understand. I would just reiterate that Christian organizations could not support contraceptives proposals using the Bible, which is likely the primary reason they stay publically silent.

Eventually, even the most putatively reasonable pro-lifer lets loose that pregnancy is the punishment for not being a good girl.

Contraception lets girls be bad without punishment. That's why the good boys like Rev. Wallis and Brian find it to be such a "sensitive" topic. Their plan is to reinvent the 1950s, or something.

Hi Steve:

It seems to me your analysis is all wrong. I personally believe that contraception ought to be widely available. I also think abortion ought to be legal, which makes me a Christian who disagrees with Jim Wallis about abortion. But your argument that because Wallis refuses to endorse contraception he is therefore dishonestly hiding his true desire to control women is fallacious. There is no reason to dismiss the possibility that Wallis is trying to in effect broker a deal between anti-choice and pro-choice advocates so to reduce the number of abortions. Some of the parties of the debate are religiously opposed to contraception--this doesn't imply any greedy desire for power over women, it's just a religious belief they hold that you and I don't agree with. Since some of the folks involved in the search for common ground on the whole reducing abortions oppose contraception, it is quite proper that Wallis' organization--an organization that is trying to find COMMON ground, not trying to fight on one side or the other--stay neutral on that specific issue.

Your objection only makes sense if you are not INTERESTED in finding common ground, and your tone seems to me to only make sense if you are intent on seeing those who disagree with you as villainous. That is of course the attitude that Wallis is trying to avoid.

Keith

There is no reason to dismiss the possibility that Wallis is trying to in effect broker a deal between anti-choice and pro-choice advocates so to reduce the number of abortions.

A deal at the expense of women, that is. What a guy.

Family planning IS the only possible common ground here, whether you (or Wallis) want to acknowledge that or not; if you want secular pro-choice Democrats to work with you, it's the only game in town, because we are not going to endorse principles that we abhor any more than I would expect you to. Since the Wallisites are not going to succeed in dragging the Democratic Party closer to their position, if they don't want to operate on that ground, they're just posturing. Which is basically what a lot of people have been pointing out here.

I am going to try this one last time... then I will likely be misconstrued again and will finally give up for real.

I never said that pregnancy is a punishment and I do not believe that it is. Nor do I believe that anyone "deserves" to get pregnant for making the decision to have sex. Contraception is not a sensitive topic to me. I said that I support the availability and teaching about contraceptives. Maybe Jim Wallis also personally supports this idea, who know? But for a Christian organization, it is difficult to find Biblical support for emphasis on contraceptives. The best they can really do is remain silent and not push an agenda of abstinence-only sex education, which is OBVIOUSLY a terrible idea. What Christian organizations can support, however, are programs that deal with the social conditions that lead to abortion and work to give women a real, informed choice WITHOUT criminalizing it and providing child services that would allow them to support the baby if they choose to keep it, because I think there should be more options than just abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. Understanding the concerns, I think a concerted effort should be made to ensure that any programs should not be used to covertly deny women the right to make their own decision. If there is no common ground, then secular pro-choicers can work on expanded family planning while non-secular pro-choice/lifers can work on their programs and we will all be working to reduce abortions together.

Brian, I have no patience with the kinds of organizations you describe. Are they bad or wrong to support pregnant women? No, of course not, but it might surprise many to know that women who get abortions just DON'T TO BE PREGNANT. The problem with these kinds of Christian support organizations is that their support is as much about them -- their needs, their beliefs, their desires -- as it is about helping women in need. If they really want to help women, they should swallow hard and try to see the world from the view of women -- and acknowledge the kind of help that women want to receive because it gives them a greater say in their own lives.

"I still maintain that the queasiness in talking about contraception is, in many ways, a result of the sensitivity of the subject."

It's also a political problem. Too much liberal screeching on this centers on "sex education" in state sponsored schools, to younger and younger kids. Soccer moms simply don't want Steve LaBonne in their kids' drawers, and certain religions see sex entangled in their moral codes--which the state is not supposed to dictate either.

I don't see what's so hard to get about that. You need to get out of the sex business. It's not a national political issue.

Submit Link:
InvitationToVisit:

http://christian-birthcontrol.angelcities.com/index.html

Online examination of a Christian's God-given family-planning right (Christians have a right to use birth control).

Your article is write very well, I like it very much.We sell all shoes of Air Jordan Shoes series,both for men and women,you can buy any Air Jordans and Jordan Shoes here.Get your own nike air Now!