Progressives on Christian Radio

There's been growing momentum over the past few years behind an
alternative approach to the abortion issue, an effort some people
refer to as "abortion reduction."
.
WTF? What do you think "Planned Parenthood" means?

a neat approach, ppl from any political persuation should be able to take up. I hope it catches on and Obama can foward policies to help this along. Itll be a good talking point in future races for democrats in more conservative states.

It's true that I've sometimes been irked by NARAL and other advocacy groups not making it clearer that the anti-choice forces don't really care about reducing the abortion rate, but the goal of everyone who advocates in favor of women making their own reproductive choices is that all pregnancies be welcome. Calling this a growing "alternative approach" is ridiculous.

They can call it whatever they want Jay - as long as it is effective in lowering the number of abortions, it will be progress on this issue. And in a way that doesn't infringe on rights or dictate laws based on a faith.

.
Amy Sullivan: There's been growing momentum over the past few years behind an alternative approach to the abortion issue, an effort some people refer to as "abortion reduction."

Wow. And here I thought the phrase, "safe, legal, and rare" went back at least a decade...

...But there is even more that happened this past year that we can celebrate. Because after years of moving in the wrong direction, we are finally seeing teen pregnancies and teen sexual activity going down. Unintended pregnancies are down. Abortions are down by a full 12 percent. And all of this happened under a pro-choice president who has refused to back down in his support of a woman's right to choose. A pro-choice president who respects the strongly held views of those who act in good faith, hold a different view. And who has worked to make good on the promise he made seven years ago to work to make abortion safe, legal and rare.

'Abortion reduction' isn't exactly a new idea, Amy.
.
The economy is already trumping social issues for many moderate-to-conservative religious voters.
.
Hard to spread the Word on an empty stomach.
.
(And hello, Daniel Eisenberg - feel free to introduce yourself!)

offTopic::
.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111619/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Maintains-Edge-Over-McCain.aspx
.

I really don't think Catholics advocating the violation of Church teaching is really going to fly for very long. They'll be disavowed by the leadership.
.
What this will do if the mainline protestant groups do support these kinds of sensible initiatives is make it very clear that this is not, and has never been, about preventing abortion.
.
But I don't think it will get traction until politicians start working on effective ways to highlight the lying hypocrisy that characterizes the "pro-life" movement. Focus on the Family is not going to favor wider access to contraception for teens. Tony Perkins is not going to step up support for encouraging women to keep a morning after pill in their medicine cabinets, nor making the provision of same part of medicaid and CHIPs gynecological encounters.
.
This is not, and never has been, about abortion.

Ooh. Apparently my on-topic post got caught up in the mod filter...

Prolly the word 's-e-x' in the quote. Bad modbot, Bad!

I've been reluctant to posting here at this thread today. You aren't going to change the views at the extremes of each position. As a non-Christian, I don't see anyone reaching common ground here. I don't see the hardliners having any interest in doing so.
.
I suppose that means you should at least try. So try...I've got really low expectations, here.

Calling this a growing "alternative approach" is ridiculous.
-
True.
-
As with the "old McCain/new McCain" business, it's factually inaccurate, but it can become the Official Narrative. The media is far too invested in the "both sides are too extreme!" falsehood for an honest assessment of the rhetoric and actions of the two parties to heighten tension vs. promote options for women contemplating abortion. So if this is what the media feels like running with, well, I'll live with it.

Ugh, in moderation, dunno if it'll ever be liberated, lemme try again.
-
Jay, you're right that the premise is false. (Both sides are not, in reality, too extreme). But it does have the advantage of being a narrative that the media will be willing to publish. So, I'll live with it.

Eric--
.
By calling this an alternative approach Amy is not reporting accurately. She is also ignoring forty years of work by organizations that have been hampered in their attempts to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
.
I suppose one could argue that we should all just be quiet, in the hopes that they will think this is their shiny new idea, and perhaps allow the majority view of Americans to have greater weight. That's the job of an advocate, not a reporter, however.
.

Common sense in the abortion debate? I'll believe it when I see it.

You aren't going to change the views at the extremes of each position. As a non-Christian, I don't see anyone reaching common ground here. I don't see the hardliners having any interest in doing so.
.
First, there is nobody with "extreme" views on the choice side. The idea that reproductive decisions should be up to the individual and not the state is not in the least bit extreme. The extreme view is that the government should decide whether or not a woman can use a contraceptive.
.
Second, this really is not about abortion. Abortion is a trick. It's the element of reproductive decision making that people are least comfortable with. It raises difficult ethical questions. They focus on this not because they really care about it. If they did, there'd be condoms in every evangelical church pew. But using a condom doesn't have a big ick factor, nor does it raises any difficult ethical issues. So they don't focus on that. But they also don't want people to have access to condoms. The Church expressly forbids it. But the Church doesn't excommunicate druggists who sell condoms, because they'd look like idiots.
.
Initiatives like this one are good because they expose this trick. But they won't get traction with the religious right, because abortion really isn't the issue.

I really don't think Catholics advocating the violation of Church teaching is really going to fly for very long. They'll be disavowed by the leadership.

Do you mean by voting for pro choice candidates? Commonweal has written a lot on this topic and Catholics should take the totality of a candidates positions into account. War. Care for the poor. Capital Punishment. Etc.

Sorry, I meant to say that an extreme view would be compulsory abortions for some group of people.

No I mean they will disavow Catholics United as a Catholic organization if they advocate the use of contraception.

But, NNTO, I do agree that the Church's official position has the virtue of being reasonably coherent, in contrast to the American evangelical positions.

I stand corrected.

Thanks for the clarification jay.

Everyone seems to be missing the point. While Amy utterly fails to make it clear, the movement she is referring to IS new IF you confine your attention to Evangelicals and Catholics!

Of course a quick review of the landscape makes clear that a large percentage of the people who oppose abortion aren't doing so out of concern for the children but out of their contempt for the mothers. If this weren't the case, then the pro-life movement would be among the most ardent supporters of Planned Parenthood and of Sex-Ed in the schools.

As long as we recognize that none of the controversy is about unborn children but ALL about sex unimpaired by guilt or worry and the people who hate that, then everything comes into sharper focus and begins to make sense.

The idea is that whether they're
pro-choice or pro-life, most people agree that it would be a good
thing if the abortion rate could be lowered--whether through
preventing unplanned pregnancies or by providing economic and social
supports for women who would like to carry their pregnancies to term.
.
You realize, right, that this means things like teaching about s3x in schools? And providing contraceptives? And not pretending that women should be punished for the Original Sin?
As jayackroyd has pointed out, this won't sit well with a lot of religious folk.
(And sorry for the euphemism, but the Moderatron is fresh out of the Victorian Era, when everyone pretended that their junk didn't exist.)

They're also anticipating that Catholic voters will value the opinion of an advocacy group over the teachings of their priest and the pope. This seems, unfortunately, like a long shot.

So this as a new(not so much) approach that could bring people together, isn't going to work because the dogma religious conservative's doesn't allow them to support policies that would better reflect thier beliefs.

Bypassing the filter:

http://politicallagoon.blogspot.com/2008/10/posted-on-amy-sullivan-thread.html