The biggest may be the brevity and apparent lack of concern with which you address the scale issue between abortion and war. While you say that 90,000 civilians have been confirmed killed in Iraq since 2003, the statistics show that 2005 was the lowest year for abortions since 1976, only 1.2 million were performed (all this during the reign of a republican lead white house). (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603624.html ) By pure utilitarian means (which are among the lowest methods of measuring ethics in existence, hence the ideals which we should be advocating must not just take into account utilitarian standards, but put them to shame…) such statistics should confound anyone who uses the “bombs vs babies” mindset that seems to be advocated here. We’re talking millions killed in our life time…

This is a very good point. I was struggling with this problem while writing it. The best answer I can give is that the issue of war may have a less direct bodycount but has bigger long-term implications. The war in Iraq is only one example that comes to mind and is representative of a much larger issue: our entire take on foreign policy. I find the Democratic take on foreign policy (from the issue of war to foreign aid to diplomacy) to be much more in line with promoting life around the world. With the longer-term implications this has for future wars (not only with the United States, but in or between other countries), immigration, poverty relief, etc., the utilitarian means may judge the situation differently.

Secondly, when you say that some reference to McCain is necessary for purposes of positioning, you were certainly right. I wish you would have positioned yourself a little bit more thoughtfully in regards to this issue. Because of McCain/Palin’s stance on torture AND abortion, you probably need to interact more with this fact: 2 of the areas you addressed are flagship goals of the Republican presidential ticket: to challenge abortion AND torture.

This is true, and I may try to address it more in the future. But it ignores the other issues of life (poverty, healthcare, capital punishment) that I believe the Democratic side gets correct. Perhaps my arguments were too much waited towards the issue of torture and not enough towards these other policies. While McCain may oppose both of these issues, I don’t feel that this necessarily outweights the other issues.

You have also come short of demonstrating how an Obama lead white house will effectually cause more respect for human rights in the wake of mis managed Iraq. As Obama continues to push his ideas for withdrawal further and further towards the horizon (let alone his original ideas of withdrawal starting next year), the idea that significant troop reductions will bring about more respect for human life in Iraq is TOTAL SPECULATION (let alone his bright idea to bomb Pakistan which actually caused riots in Pakistan in which people were injured in Spring 2007http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801), and leaders owe it to the people they represent, if not the rest of the world, to go by what they know, not by speculaiton.

If our conduct in war, capital punishment, abortion and torture are how we measure the protection and assertion of the ideals we hold so true, it seems that McCain could make more of an argument for these ideals than Obama, because not only does he oppose torture and (in a Republican mindset of course, yay surge!) advocate a militarily supported mindset of fighting to win which means using what we’ve learned from our mistakes to fight to stem conflict in Iraq (including ethnic conflict), he is also on a strongly pro-life presidential ticket…

I think this is the weakest counterargument. For one, I don’t believe I suggested that troop reductions would produce respect for human rights. The troop reductions themselves are part of a different conversation, one about Iraq. (And as far as Pakistan, I didn’t like Obama’s comments on that from the first. But seeing recent events, I’m not entirely sure it’s a purely Democratic problem.) Second, the disrespect for human rights, including torture, occured because of our actions in Iraq, completely seperate from withdrawing from it. Finally, leaders do act on what they know, but they also have to act on what they predict. No one, even the President, knows the future and we can’t expect them true. We can expect them to make the best decision, and while Obama may have opposed the surge, he also opposed the war in the first place. If there was no war, then the question of the surge would be a moot point.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, I truly appreciate them. Hopefully I’ve done something to address the issues, though probably not as well as you had hoped.

Your points are well made, and I’d love to address them sometime. Unfortunately I don’t have the time to give it the thought it deserves right now, so I’ll try to get to it in October. I’ll post a link when I’ve done so.

Unless, of course, anyone else cares to chime in.

Well done! I really like the clear cut and easy to understand examples/arguments that you have chosen to use in this posting.

As my friend Jeremy once remarked regarding issues of life and American politics, “you either have to choose between killing babies or dropping bombs…”

I really appreciate the distinction you made between why you support Obama (VS why NOT to support McCain). So many people abandon ideals for the dichotomies our political system forces…luckily for you there is at least one candidate who you feel is in line with your ideals…

Still, if I might “play the part” of a Republican who is able to stem knee jerk reactions for long enough to have a good thought about your post (grey areas just make ‘em squirm, eh?), I feel that you’re arguments are weak in several areas.

The biggest may be the brevity and apparent lack of concern with which you address the scale issue between abortion and war. While you say that 90,000 civilians have been confirmed killed in Iraq since 2003, the statistics show that 2005 was the lowest year for abortions since 1976, only 1.2 million were performed (all this during the reign of a republican lead white house).( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603624.html ) By pure utilitarian means (which are among the lowest methods of measuring ethics in existence, hence the ideals which we should be advocating must not just take into account utilitarian standards, but put them to shame…) such statistics should confound anyone who uses the “bombs vs babies” mindset that seems to be advocated here. We’re talking millions killed in our life time…

Secondly, when you say that some reference to McCain is necessary for purposes of positioning, you were certainly right. I wish you would have positioned yourself a little bit more thoughtfully in regards to this issue. Because of McCain/Palin’s stance on torture AND abortion, you probably need to interact more with this fact: 2 of the areas you addressed are flagship goals of the Republican presidential ticket: to challenge abortion AND torture.

You have also come short of demonstrating how an Obama lead white house will effectually cause more respect for human rights in the wake of mis managed Iraq. As Obama continues to push his ideas for withdrawal further and further towards the horizon (let alone his original ideas of withdrawal starting next year), the idea that significant troop reductions will bring about more respect for human life in Iraq is TOTAL SPECULATION (let alone his bright idea to bomb Pakistan which actually caused riots in Pakistan in which people were injured in Spring 2007 http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801), and leaders owe it to the people they represent, if not the rest of the world, to go by what they know, not by speculaiton.

If our conduct in war, capital punishment, abortion and torture are how we measure the protection and assertion of the ideals we hold so true, it seems that McCain could make more of an argument for these ideals than Obama, because not only does he oppose torture and (in a Republican mindset of course, yay surge!) advocate a militarily supported mindset of fighting to win which means using what we’ve learned from our mistakes to fight to stem conflict in Iraq (including ethnic conflict), he is also on a strongly pro-life presidential ticket…

Anyway Jim, I loved your post, but I feel like if I were a republican who was able to get through the entire thing not burning with some sort of ‘righteous anger’ that completely ruined any means to have a some what rational conversation, that is what I would be thinking… I’d love you to straighten some of this out, especially for the Republicans reading this.

Personally, I am Pro-Life in my ideals EXACTLY as you are, and voters who turn campaigns into one issue platforms are unreasonable at best. I especially like the risk-management wisdom you employ in identifying the future hazards to life that the Republican war mismanagement and established precedents therein pose… Aren’t these exactly what McCain is boasting to address? Unlike you in this election, I am a swing voter for sure…no one is clearly the right choice for me right now…

From An Evangelical for Obama: Abortion, 2008/09/15 at 4:10 AM

From An Evangelical for Obama: Abortion, 2008/09/15 at 4:21 AM