“I should start by saying that I don’t endorse candiates…but John McCain is awesome”

Well done Tom. Way to use yesterday’s Phyllis Schlafly’s hateful sound bite to illustrate the point.

Several guests have asserted that anyone who is pro-choice believes all unwanted pregnancies should be aborted. This is a gross distortion – preserving the right to have an abortion is not the same as advocating abortion as the best or only option. Pro-choice groups are some of the largest supporters of birth control, sex education and many other programs aimed at reducing unwanted pregnancies.

In 1956, my father — a lifelong Republican and a Lutheran minister who never voted for a Republican president after 1972 through his death in 2001 — and my mother — a lifelong Democrat who was raised in the Baptist church — chose not to abort a child even though my mother had been diagnosed with breast cancer.

That cancer ultimately killed my mother in 1958.

Some Democrats will choose their own deaths over aborting a child.

Not only did Phyllis Schafly talk about Democrats aborting Down’s Syndrome children, she also said that she and women like Palin are going to “Lead” John McCain by holding him to the platform, not of which he was interested in forming and some of which is directly opposed to his stated positions. Phyllis sounded as if she and Palin were going to rule the country. ( You also have that on tape.)

To describe having a child as a Pro-Life decision is an over-simplification. Pro-choice does not mean that abortion is the first choice or an easy one at that. Rather, it places the choice in the hands of the parents. It places faith in the family. Many parents choose to give birth to children with down-syndrome because they are their kin and will bring joy to their lives, not because they prescribe to a pro-life mentality.

I find it offensive the Christian right states Democrats are pro-abortion and not pro-life. I am not pro-abortion — I am pro-choice. Do you know me? Do you know my situation? Have you walked a mile in my shoes? No, I didn’t think so, so how can you make this decision for me?

Also, if the Christian right are pro-life how can they keep sending soldiers to a conflict that has no merit – Iraq? Where is the call for life now?!

I just don’t understand how it’s the “right” of these right wing religious fundamentalists to dictate what someone can and cannot do!

Do they perhaps not understand that people who are pro-choice are not advocating women to have abortions, but instead are advocating governmental regulation and structure for these services. It’s up to the person to –choose– whether it’s a right decision. It’s the governments responsibility to help provide services for its citizens.

Apparently that’s where the disconnect comes between religious fundamentalists and everyone else.

Would someone please point out that Pro Choice does not mean pro-abortion? It means that the individual has the ability to make the decision and not the government. Sarah Palin herself said she was proud that her daughter “made the decision” (choice) to have the baby. What would she have said in a pro-life world — her daughter (and she) did not have a decision to make; it was made for them.

Hello, I just wanted to say that it is wrong to assume that if a Democratic VP candidate’s 17-yr-old daughter were pregnant, that the child would be aborted. Many people who are pro-choice, may not believe in abortion as an option for themselves, but believe that choice lies with the individual. I usually vote Republican, but McCain just lost me.

I am appalled by Phyllis Schlafley’s comment that Democrats would choose to abort a fetus with Down Syndrome. What a self-serving, revolting comment! There are millions of Democrats who are pro-life – from being anti-abortion and anti-death penalty, to being for sound ecological policies and anti-war. This is what the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin called a CONSISTENT ETHIC OF LIFE.

My sister, Ellen, has Down’s Syndrome. My mother is a life-long Democrat. I am disgusted by Schlafley’s comment.

Anna Floerke Scheid
Assistant Professor of Theology
Duquesne University

Is War not an issue with these so-called pro-lifers?
I haven’t heard War mentioned.
Civilian deaths since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003: between 86,000 and 94,000.
Gun death?
29,569 people were killed by firearms in the US in 2004.
Death penalty?
There were 42 inmates put to death in the US in 2007.

I’m just saying….

Richard Land essentially echoed Phyllis Schlafly’s comment from yesterday, stating that Sarah Palin’s fifth child would not have been born to a pro-choice family. Substitute “Democratic” for “pro-choice” and you have Schlafly’s comment, almost verbatim. This is a despicable tactic, pretending to know what goes on in the minds of one’s political enemies and then asserting categorically how they would react to a difficult situation, citing no statistical evidence to back the claim.

The notion that pro-choice families always choose to abort is repugnant (and uninformed), and I think reveals a great deal about the character of a man who is attempting to portray himself as being above the political fray– in the end, politics evidently trumps decency for people like Mr. Land.

As a registered Republican (but now a conservative libertarian), and as a born-again Christian, I am tired of being held hostage by the social issues of abortion, gay marriage and the like.

One of the recent callers finally mentioned the most important factor: your views on abortion/life do not directly impact your ability to govern or your philosophy of government. I can learn what kind of person you are and how your beliefs practically effect your private life, but I am much more interested in how big a role government should play in my private life, your philosophy of war, your economic strategy, etc.

Folks, No one has talked about Zero Population Growth, and how Pro-Life will reproduce us out of a planet. When you have more than two children per couple, you are adding to an already over crowded planet. We are killing thousands over the limited resources already. The planet is being polluted at an over whelming rate and our consumption is outstripping the planets’ ability to recover. The fisheries are dying, our land is being spoiled and fresh water is running out. If we do not lead the way towards responsible reproduction who will? Or do we doomed to continue to wage war fighting over these resources?

Wow, that was a wonderful call: How can the religious right be pro life yet pro war?

I found the answer less than convincing.

Frustrating that the GOP bashed single mothers with Dan Quayles attack on the fictional Murphy Brown but now it’s OK- in fact they’re all saying how proud they are that she’s having this baby; and the attack on homosexuality by the GOP when the current VP has a lesbian daughter and Karl Rove has an out of the closet gay father. The GOP is the definition of hypocrisy.

I’m not sure anyone in this discussion is getting the point of this whole topic.

What I see, above, in this thread are a bunch of outraged, nearly apoplectic, pro-choice advocates complaining that Christian conservatives have no right to impose their received wisdom on others, or pointing out the internal inconsistencies of their arguments.

But so what? The bottom line is that in diverse democracies where there is no strong consensus on a variety of topics, so elections are close-run things, it is often the case that relatively small but well-organized and enthusiastic movements and parties can tip the balance and thus get their their issues and causes advanced.

This is essentially a political science problem! It has to do with the way you structure a democracy, hold elections, count votes, etc. Should we use a proportional voting system, should we use weighted-choice votes, etc? These are methods that other countries use to avoid tail-wagging-the-dog political situations.

Political science is a technical and dry topic, but ultimately if you don’t want small minority religious views to be foisted on the majority then that’s the level at which you have to try to address this. Debating abortion will get you precisely NOWHERE. But it’s typical of American voters, including, apparently, NPR listeners, that they go for the emotional reaction to some detail of story (abortion and trisomy 21, for instance) instead of focussing on the more important issues.

I applaud Tom Ashbrooke for apologizing for slipping up in his duty as a host yesterday regarding the Phyllis Schlafly remark. Though I do welcome her self vilification.

EVANGELISM IS A SIDE-EFFECT OF CULTURAL STAGNATION.

A

EVANGELISM IS A SIDE-EFFECT OF CULTURAL STAGNATION.

As the hoards travelled westward, homesteaders stopped and stagnated in pools of humanity.

EVANGELISM IS A SIDE-EFFECT OF CULTURAL STAGNATION.

As the hoards travelled westward, homesteaders stopped and stagnated in pools of humanity.

Frederic, I like to write poetry, too, and I’ve managed to get some of it published, but I’m not sure that comments such as the above are really advancing the topic.

These are difficult, complex subjects and we will only gain control of them through some degree of intellectual rigor, and not bumper-sticker poetry or, as in the case of some other posters, emotional histrionics.

I just listened to that segment of the show, and was struck at how closely tied the politics of the GOP and religion are tied. I was so happy to hear the guest bring up the idea of other talking points that the GOP has to present its case on (the environment, poverty, social issues), but I’m absolutely disgusted with the hijacking of the GOP by the religious people of this country. It’s what turns this Independent towards the Democratic ticket, and until the religious right keeps its nose out of politics, it’s what will always make me pull the lever for the Donkey Party.

I’ll grant that Schlafly’s comment was an oversimplification.

However, I don’t understand why pro-choice folks (Democrats or otherwise) take offense at the suggestion that a pro-choice Democrat would abort a fetus, or at least consider it.

After all, if there’s nothing wrong with it, there’s nothing wrong with it. And if a person believes abortion is ok, then how could one who believes that possibly be ‘offended’ by it.

This inconsistency came through loud and clear from both host and callers.

BTW, This is the most un-objective I’ve ever heard Mr. Ashbrook.

Speech is not free; you must say more with less.

We’re fighting a cultural war of attrition.

There may be a silver lining for all of us in McCain’s VP gambit. As McCain &t al. fire up the “grass roots,” with the choice of Sarah Palin, some republicans may become more receptive to McCain’s more moderate views, and others will back themselves into a corner defending his (first) choice.

I say first parenthetically because I doubt that she is his first choice and think that he will drop her now that she has served her purpose in exciting the ho hum and anti-McCain Republicans. Sure, he is taking a hit now and will again when he drops her, but his next choice may light a fire and rectify those negatives leaving McCain with a net gain.

Matthew, your comments suggesting that democrats feel there is “nothing wrong with abortion” indicate a deep lack of understanding about the pro-choice position. Please read some of the comments above your own.

As far as Mr. Ashbrook’s objectivity, though I feel his questioning was as tough and reasonable as we’ve come to love and expect, I have to agree that Ms. Schlafly being allowed any media attention is something only a liberal could be pleased with. Mr. Ashbrook should next talk to Michael Moore to return balance to the show.

As a former registered Republican, now Independant, I am appalled at how the religious right continues to hyjack the Republican party. Who are these people who have been allowed, no, encouraged to insinuate their imprimatur on a major party platform with their santimonious prosletizing, defending their radically right of center positions with such self satisfied moral righteousness. Who are they to define morality, what is good and just, who is right and who is wrong? Their’s is certainly not a “live and let live” philosophy. Jesus Christ would be appalled at how his message of peace, love, hope, faith and harmony has been distorted and manipulated by many of his purported followers.
Once again we are being forced to determine the eligibility and capability of our nation’s president based upon the litmus test of Roe v Wade. There are so many more compelling issues and problems to be addressed in this challenging, troubled time, why does this one note song always seem to drown out the chorus of our national political debate?
I voted Democratic last election for many reasons (and not because I liked John Kerry) but partly because of George Bush’s blatant solicitation of the Evangelical, Christian fundamentalist vote by promoting their narrow minded right wing agenda (including, alarmingly and with long term consequences, his court appointments). I have great admiration for John McCain on many levels, I am a fiscal conservative who believes in small government and I support many of his policies. I strongly considered voting for him until his choice of running mate flushed the righteous, often hypocritical, judgemental, visceral, polarizing, right wing nut cases out of the wood work vigorously waving the Republican flag. Why did he need to pander to this loud, fear mongering, resolutely polarized fringe constituency? Once again this election will hinge on one issue politics instead of focusing on a measured, balanced approach to the myriad problems confronting our nation and the world. Whatever happened to common sense? I intend to vote for Barrack Obama, his message is intelligent, nuanced, measured, pluralistic and thoughtful.

just listened to that segment of the show, and was struck at how closely tied the politics of the GOP and religion are tied.

I’m reporting you to the Department of Redundancy Department.

“I was so happy to hear the guest bring up the idea of other talking points that the GOP has to present its case on (the environment, poverty, social issues), but I’m absolutely disgusted with the hijacking of the GOP by the religious people of this country.”

I thought I explained above why “disgust” is not a very useful reaction. As I said, it is often the case in diverse democracies where elections are close-run things, that small, minority interests can gain greater influence by their ability to mobilize a tie-breaking or deal-making group of committed voters.

That the religious right in the US has so much sway over the GOP makes perfect sense from a political science standpoint.

“until the religious right keeps its nose out of politics, “

Why should the religious right keep its nose out of politics? People have a right to form their political views however they wish, and sertainly many people’s value systems are informed by their religious beliefs. The Abolitionist movement and the Civil Rights movement were both heavily promoted by religious leaders.

The challange is not to force religious people out of our democracy, but to ensure that their power does not exceed their numbers. The emotional reaction here, to what is essentially a dry, technical political science problem fascinates me.

I want your guests to know that I am a Democrat and pro-choice……that does NOT mean I would automatically get an abortion. I have been in that situation, and did not abort. I want to make that choice myself, not for some religious zealot to make it for me. I want them to keep their religion out of MY LIFE and not shove it down my throat.

Former POW attended the Naval Academy with John McCain and was held in the same POW facility. Hear what Butler has to say about McCain’s uncharacteristic “conversion” to religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KjsEs46C70

Paul thanks for that link. Very informative.

John McCain graduated at the bottom 1/4 of his class,

Philip Butler graduated at the top 1/4 of his class.

I want them to keep their religion out of MY LIFE and not shove it down my throat.

I’m pro-choice, but I’m still fascinated by the primitive, highly emotional responses that this topic seems to generate.

Unless you’re a strict libertarian, you presumably have to regard every law government makes as being “shoved down your throat”. But you don’t usually see that response to other topics – people don’t usually complain about the federal highway gas tax or the Americans for Disability Act or lack of national health insurance as being “shoved down their throats”.

The fact is that in a democratic system of government the government can pretty much shove anything they want down your throat, subject to Constitutional limits.

And of course, the anti-choice crowd (why let them hijack the term “pro life”?) thinks that abortion is murder. It’s intellectually dishonest of the pro-choice side to not acknowledge what that belief implies. Since the question hinges purely on definitionalism, neither side can “prove” that the other one is wrong, so logically it will come down to what you can achieve through democracy.

Outrageously one-sided conversation. Letting the “war is justified if we are killing those evil-doers and protecting (not terrorizing) the innocent” was offensive to my senses. Nice goin Tom. What a pro.

These people use the Bible and your show to justify war crimes. Disgusting, just disgusting.

Romans chapter 13 my ass!

I am fervently pro-choice. I am also the mother of a two-year-old daughter who has Down syndrome. Pro-choice does not mean, “automatically reject any fetus that is not typical or that is inconvenient.” It means having the freedom to make a CHOICE. I am pro-choice and I CHOSE to bring my baby to term.

I am a Christian and I am troubled. I love John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin: she’s exactly the kind of leader this society needs. But I’m hearing over and over that McCain’s first choice, the choice he had his heart set on, was Joe Lieberman. If this is true, how can I, in my heart of hearts, trust that John McCain will truly listen to her, take her counsel, and not just send her off to attend funerals once the election is over? If in his heart he wanted Joe Lieberman, how can I know what else is really in his heart, and how can I trust him?

Robert

I REPEAT

CAMPAIGN AUTO-DESTRUCT SEQUENCE INITIATED.

PLEASE EVACUATE CAMPAIGN IMMEDIATELY.

WALK DON’T RUN TO THE NEAREST SECESSIONIST LEANING STATE (TEXAS)

CORE PHILOSOPHY MELTDOWN IMMINENT!

CORE PHILOSOPHY MELTDOWN IMMINENT!

CORE PHILOSOPHY MELTDOWN IMMINENT!

I’m not a Christian and I’m troubled. Alas for different reasons. We have a separation of Church and state for a reason in this country, read some Thomas Jefferson.

We do not live in a theocracy, I fear however that is the path the religious right want this country to go down.

Religion should be a private matter held in your house or place of worship. Not in the houses of state.

I’m so tired of this line of argument: “I like Sarah Palin because she’s a real person” “I recognize her type from the PTA” “She’s from a small town just like me”

I’ve heard it over and over this past week.

Is that what people really want in a vice-potentially-President? Someone they know from PTA and can “talk to in the supermarket”? “Someone who’s just like me”?

I couldn’t be president. I know that. I don’t want someone just like me to be in charge of our country. That’s terrifying, in fact.

What’s wrong with wanting a president who is on the smarter side of the population? When did that become perceived as a negative?

See no inconsistancy with being pro-birth and calling it pro-life WHILE CUTTING FUNDING FOR CLINICS BECAUSE THEY GO BEYOND “ABSTINENCE” WHILE HELPING WOMEN – - Claim to be pro-life but support a planned war that the US was LIED into accepting, and Deja Vu, don’t fund the needed services!!! What do I mean? —>

McCain voted against our troops MANY times in the senate.
John McCain voted AGAINST 20 million dollars for veteran care facilities.
John McCain voted AGAINST $322 million for safety equipment for our troops in Iraq.
John McCain voted AGAINST $1 billion dollars in new equipment for the National Guard.
John McCain voted AGAINST $430 million for veterans outpatient care.

Barack voted FOR all of these troop support initiatives.

They deserve better than McCain.
We deserve better than McCain.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS AND VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT

Great show today, Tom. I liked the way you revisited yesterday’s show and got the response of your panel.

I also enjoyed hearing from the panel itself today. Not all conservatives are incapable of civil discourse.

Today’s program identified what I think is a core issue for those of us in the middle who are pro choice, but who would still like to see less abortions. The biggest problem with the pro life movement in the past has not been its position on abortion as much as its concern with life being limited to birth and death. To me, being pro-life should be about life in all its aspects. God teaches us to care about others. Not just the unborn. We should care about the world we live in and the quality of life of the people in it.

I think that many who are pro-life are starting to come around to that opinion as well and if so then perhaps we can have a new definition of pro-life that we can all support.

“The biggest problem with the pro life movement in the past has not been its position on abortion as much as its concern with life being limited to birth and death. To me, being pro-life should be about life in all its aspects. God teaches us to care about others. Not just the unborn. We should care about the world we live in and the quality of life of the people in it.”

An approach like that is too obvious to appeal to the religious zealots who comprise the “Christian” right.

Over 90% of trisomy-21 fetuses are aborted. A major reason for that is the huge emotional and financial burden or raising a Down’s child and supporting it into adulthood. Obviously if someone really cared about reducing the rate of abortions they would adbvocate a generous support program for the victims of such circumstances.

Likewise a huge cause of other abortions is young or poor women finding themselves pregnant and looking forward to a life of impoverishment trying to raise a child, often alone. But we as a society have already made it clear we don’t want “welfare mothers”.

So there we are.

I find it really interesting that about ten minutes into the program, the guest is gushing about the Alaska governor about her “decision” to have a down’s syndrome child. I find it really strange that republicans are highlighting her decision when she Sarah Palin herself is advocating for taking that decision away from others. I find it to be somewhat ironic for republicans to be using this language of the pro-choice crowd when in Sarah Palin’s world there would never be a choice.