Want some pro-life ideas on how to get rid of abortion? Start with quality jobs, educational opportunities, affordable childcare, decent health care…
Editor’s Note: We apologize for the late delivery this morning. An editorial oversight created the delay. We apologize for the delay.
There is probably nothing that Virginia Democrats would love more than to hang the last Tuesday’s results on abortion. Of course, standing on a pile of dead babies and scolding the rest of us might seem rather Olympian for that sort of barbarism, but it isn’t the message sent by Virginia voters at all.
Consider the following. Governor Glenn Youngkin did not lose a single seat where he earned 52% of the vote and did not win a single seat where he earned under 50% of the vote in 2021. If the Dobbs decision was that much of a motivator, then where was the bump?
Then there is the obvious dichotomy where Republican Tara Durant ran as a 100% pro-life Catholic mother against Democrat Joel Griffin who supported the Ralph Northam extreme on abortion of 40 weeks and beyond. Yet within Durant’s SD-27, Republican Lee Peters — who echoed the 15-week regulation line — lost to Democrat Joshua Cole in HD-65 whose personal convictions are pro-life yet policy stances hinge on social and economic justice questions to help young mothers and their children.
On Life? Be Honest About What You Intend
The question of abortion seems to be on the lips of every low-IQ wag in Virginia, but the smarter sort has already figured it out. The problem isn’t abortion per se — either 100% pro-lifers or 40-weeks and beyond pro-aborts — but rather the oddity of a 15-week open season on babies being a “pro-life” position. From Thursday’s Richmond Times-Dispatch:
“When you have people say they’re 100% pro-life and then support a 15-week ban, that makes people wonder what you really want … with Youngkin and the Republicans, people were skeptical about what they really wanted,” said Stephen Farnsworth, a political scientist at the University of Mary Washington.
No one wants that.
A 15-week regulation on abortion is akin to Democrats proposing a “ban” on firearms which would only impact 2% of all sales. Farnsworth’s critique is entirely correct here. Voters aren’t stupid and understand precisely what a 15-week regulation on abortion is — a compromise which satisfies neither camp.
For Democrats, any regulation is going to be interpreted as a ban on abortion. For Republicans, regulations are precisely that — regulation and not a clear statement of values. For pro-life voters, why should they settle to become the pro-regulation arm of the abortion industry? Better to stay at home and continue the work most of them already do — supporting mothers, buying diapers and formula, finding jobs and helping families — rather than waste their time and energy on something as sordid as the political.
On Abortion? Be Honest About What We Are Choosing
So much for the idea that abortion drove the elections in Virginia. Redistricting — not abortion — drove the numbers. If one needs a gut check on this, find me the persuadable voter where abortion is their #1 motivator? Either you are in one camp or the other and neither God nor man will move most from their respective rocks.
Yet there is something adult in this wider discussion on two counts. First and foremost, this is not a question of choice, but rather a question of what is being chosen. Second and more radical is whether or not every human person has the basic right to exist. Tangential to this is not just whether every human person has the basic right to exist, but whether they have the right to flourish — to be as successful and happy as their talents and energies allow them to become.
In this, Democrats and Republicans tend to talk past one another. The Guttmacher Institute’s own numbers in 2005 indicate that 3 out of every 4 women who had an abortion did so because they felt they would be unsupported. Nearly half cited relationship concerns or fear of being a single parent. One in six — a number which should repel us all — said that their partner was coercing them to have an abortion.
Another 2017 study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons states that nearly 3 out of every 4 women who had an abortion felt either pressured or coerced into doing so.
In this, Democrats have one heck of a point. Our society may claim to respect the dignity of the human person, but only up to a point. That pro-lifers are more pro-birth than pro-life is a charge that should stick and shame us all. What ever happened to that shining city on a hill which provided decent health care, affordable childcare, excellent jobs and better opportunities? No mother wants an abortion as a first choice. Defending the basic right to exist shouldn’t be a license to starve, but a principled commitment to the dignity of every human person for a fighting chance at life.
Yet the flip side of this argument should horrify us all. Coerced abortions? Unsupported women? Concerns about being able to pursue an education or get a job? That hardly sounds like a free and unfettered choice at all. Abortion is a lot cheaper than health care, childcare, a decent education system, and quality jobs. After all, why should Amazon pay for childcare when they can simply pay for abortions? What sort of dystopian hellscape cloaks that sort of false choice as a positive good?
The Solution Won’t Be Elections
Of course, you don’t have to scratch me too hard to find out what I believe and why I believe it.
In my absolute core, I believe that every human person is an unrepeatable good who deserves not just the basic right to exist, but the full command of our resources and government in order to thrive, prosper, and flourish. Every child has the right to their mother and father, and our laws and what we subsidize should reflect this inherent right. Not just each and every one of us as individuals, and not just all of us together as a society, but families as the basic building block of society.
The moment that society begins to respect this basic and fundamental right to exist, perhaps then we can start addressing how society completely maltreats women by demanding they sacrifice their femininity in order to be productive members of society. Perhaps we can directly tackle the fact that abortion would not be a reality in America if men simply behaved like men for a change rather than spoiled adolescents. Perhaps we could address more broadly the way too many men speak of women by reducing them as objects.
Naturally, I speak of all of this from the pure disadvantage of being a male member of the species homo sapiens — though perhaps we are more homo phronesis than anything else. Yet as men, we should recognize that human biology places us at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to figuring out what matters. I have little truck for the idea that men cannot have an opinion on abortion. More men should, but as men, because men have an overwhelming impact on whether mothers — expectant or unexpectant — really are faced with a supportive and loving choice to bring new human persons into this awesome little world versus presenting them with a cold ultimatum of arranged facts.
In this, men have one choice — to be as maximally supportive of mothers as we can and to take responsibility for the life we help bring into this world. Imagine erasing 3/4ths of all abortions in America overnight… if men would just be men.
In the meantime, we can muddle what we mean and cloak our sentiments in the hopes it might temporarily win an election or two. Yet the idea of life as something inconvenient strikes me as a certain poverty or lack of imagination, that this world we create everyday is somehow unworthy to bring life into. That strikes me as a certain sort of indictment against each and every one of us.
For myself, I refuse to believe that the maximum degree of moral rectitude our society can extend towards women is a $300 abortion. Health care, childcare, better jobs, educational opportunities, stronger families, a general societal intolerance of 35-year old adolescent males — all of these have to be better answers. More to the point, there are needs close to each of us which could use a bit more humanity. Find those and maybe we can talk about what we value and why with a bit more heart and a lot less cold steel.
If it makes me sound like a Democrat, then so be it. Yet I’m not entirely sure that Kennedy Democrats are welcome around here anymore. I’ll stick to being called a Catholic and let other folks figure it out on my behalf.
SHAUN KENNEY is a columnist for the Fredericksburg Advance.
De-Nile is a deep, deep, deep river!
Mr. Kenney, allow me to assure you of the fact you do not sound like a democrat…so you may sleep peacefully tonight having escaped that apparent “offensive term.” Perhaps I will not sound like a democrat either with my opinion here, and that’s okay. I don’t identify my values and beliefs as political and while that very much seems to be “en vogue” currently, it’s a habit we need to break from. More importantly, you very much sound like the “low-IQ wag” you’ve described in your article.
“No mother wants an abortion as a first choice.” You’re not entirely wrong; however, no WOMAN (or as is the case at times) no CHILD wants an abortion as a first choice. You don’t have to be a mother to need an abortion. Menstruating women and children becoming impregnated via abuse/assault are not always already mothers, any many are not prepared to become one: physically, emotionally, or otherwise for a variety of reasons.
Your sense of shock regarding the statistics on women feeling coerced into having an abortion by a partner reflects your obliviousness to violence against women in this country/intimate partner violence/domestic violence. I’d suggest you do some research there. There is no shortage of information on that topic, much like there is no shortage of abusive partners.
“Perhaps then we can start addressing how society completely maltreats women by demanding they sacrifice their femininity in order to be productive members of society.” The term “productive members of society” sounds as if we uterus-owners are inmates being re-released into the wild in hopes of flourishing without recidivism.
I sacrifice nothing of myself to be a “member of society,” let alone any “femininity” you seem to think I do have or should possess. That holds true whether I am a man or a woman. You continue to speak of “life” without recognition of the already-born individuals who are faced with their own decision making process regarding their bodily organs.
I am very cautious and judicious when it comes to my own attempts at understanding the struggles that other people face. I would advise you and others to be prepared to do far more listening than speaking, in order to seek out the lived experiences of those wearing the shoes in which you have not walked, sir.
You’re not wrong in stating the argument about men not having a say in abortion and it’s flaws; however, that’s because no person should be involved in the decision for an abortion outside of the person needing said abortion. I will make an exemption to my personal policy there with regard to my 11-year old daughter: I will have a say and be a supportive and involved parent if my child becomes pregnant though victimization. In most cases though, that decision rests solely with the individual needing said abortion and their healthcare provider.
If you’d like to whine about election results, please find a topic that is not the broken record of “big bad abortion” that has been replayed ad nauseam for the four decades I’ve spent on this earth. While you dig deeper, please also point the pregnant women I may come into contact with toward these pro-life advocates that spend their time buying the formula and diapers you’ve mentioned. I’d love to point them toward these vast resources that “good Catholics” and other conservatives provide. Most I’ve encountered are unhappy to even help contribute toward feeding economically disadvantaged children’s school lunches by way of their tax dollars. Their motto is typically “nothing is free because I’m paying for these (insert any social resource here) with my hard earned money!”
Mary’s Shelter.
It is located in downtown Fredericksburg. Please visit!
I didn’t doubt the existence of these sorts of “homes for unwed mothers,” etc. Certainly they exist. The one you’ve cited is for those who are 18+, willing to receive “counseling” (not just parenting classes or education training), but “counseling”…because they apparently need therapy for having become pregnant? Additionally, it’s for those who are committed to a particular religious regime as the foundation of that program. So if you’re 17 or younger, non-religious, etc. then that particular place is of no use.
Your statement though was, “For pro-life voters, why should they settle to become the pro-regulation arm of the abortion industry? Better to stay at home and continue the work most of them already do — supporting mothers, buying diapers and formula, finding jobs and helping families — rather than waste their time and energy on something as sordid as the political.”
So again, my question was and is where are these pro-lifer, individual people who you are purporting [mostly] “already” sit at home buying diapers, formula and supporting said “mothers,” aka: children and women forced to give birth regardless of their autonomy or ability to decide for themselves what they may do with their own body?
For the record, this question is rhetorical. If you’d like to go back and forth with people, social media and your thanksgiving table can accomplish that. As a journalist, I would assume the comments here are for readers to discuss your “work” as opposed to having argue with you…I assumed this was a professional publication.
So when presented a counterpoint, you are unwilling to even consider it? That strikes most as rather obtuse.
If you’re not willing to accept the existence of places such as Mary’s Shelter, Birthright, and Catholic Charities? I don’t know what evidence would ever suffice (which means it’s not a true objection at all).
First off, I love the Fredericksburg Advance and the fact it publishes various viewpoints. But Mr. Kenney is playing loose with the facts to support his narrative that abortion rights had nothing to do with the election results.
Here is one paragraph that particularly stood out: “Then there is the obvious dichotomy where Republican Tara Durant ran as a 100% pro-life Catholic mother against Democrat Joel Griffin who supported the Ralph Northam extreme on abortion of 40 weeks and beyond. Yet within Durant’s SD-27, Republican Lee Peters — who echoed the 15-week regulation line — lost to Democrat Joshua Cole in HD-65 whose personal convictions are pro-life yet policy stances hinge on social and economic justice questions to help young mothers and their children.”
This is ridiculous–there was no “dichotomy” between these races. Republicans Tara Durant and Lee Peters both publicly supported Youngkin’s 15-week abortion ban. They also both played down the abortion issue. Meanwhile, Democrats Joel Griffin and Joshua Cole backed the existing law, which allows abortions up to 26 weeks of pregnancy. Any abortion after 26 weeks is prohibited unless three physicians certify that “in their medical opinion, based upon their best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.” Both Democrats unequivocally supported maintaining the state’s existing law on abortion rights, which was the focus of their campaigns. Cole has described himself as a “pro-choice pastor” and never once hedged on this issue.
Here’s another thing you fail to mention: Independent Monica Gary, who challenged Durant and Griffin, was arguably the strongest supporter of abortion rights in the local state Senate race. Gary said her own abortions helped her escape abusive relationships. She also supported reducing, from three to two, the number of doctors required to certify that an abortion after 26 weeks is necessary to save a woman’s life. The pro-abortion rights candidates, Griffin and Gary, received more than 50 percent of the vote while Durant received 48 percent of the vote. And the pro-abortion rights candidate in the House of Delegates race, Joshua Cole, won more than 50 percent of the vote.
Mr. Kenney, I agree that this election was far from a
Democratic blowout. However, your characterization of the “dichotomy” between the Fredericksburg-area Senate and House of Delegates races is blatantly false.
I’d submit that cramming facts into a hypothesis is probably not the best approach.
Point to election math. Monica Gary’s campaign — like most 3rd party efforts — either split ticket or sit out. Everything else is the Peter Pan Theory of electioneering… wishing doesn’t make it so.
You’re missing the point: Durant and Peters ran identical campaigns, as did Griffin and Cole. Absolutely no “dichotomy” between the local Senate and House of Delegates campaigns as you stated. But like I said, I appreciate the fact Fredericksburg Advance publishes various viewpoints. We can agree/disagree on abortion, but I thought your summary of local races was grossly misleading.
Just because we disagree with a thing doesn’t make it instantly misleading. Cramming facts into a hypothesis doesn’t make it true, either (nor does it make it disagreement — in fact, it makes it something else).
That’s the point.
That makes perfect sense. Thanks, Shaun.
I also appreciate the Advance. I respect and believe it adds legitimacy to the Advance as a news source that more than one side of topic is presented. However, it appears to me that Mr. Kenney needs some schooling on decorum.
This is an opinion piece, an editorial. Take a look at legitimate news sources and read commentaries and editorials. The authors of the pieces typically do not engage in arguments or discussions in the comment section. That is traditionally left to readers.
I hope Mr. Davis, whose journalistic ethics I have come to respect, either has a frank discussion with Mr. Kenney as to maintaining the Advance as a top-notch, though new, journalistic option for those who are local and beyond, or finds someone else to offer a more conservative voice on topics of interest and significance. It’s not a good look for the Advance.
Translation: We only want to read what agrees with our previously conceived opinions.
William F. Buckley Jr. used to write that liberals often claim to want to hear diverse opinions and viewpoints, only to be shocked and horrified that there are indeed other viewpoints.
One of the great things about the Fredericksburg Advance is that otherwise close-minded individuals will indeed be challenged to consider that their own views are not the only admissible viewpoints. This is the only proper definition of decorum, not the enforced straightjacket of a handful who instinctively know that superior arguments threaten their own weaker alternatives — and then seek to silence thought in turn.
Cheers!
The Advance should label clear opinion pieces as such.
You have ignored my point and proven my assertion. As I stated, I appreciate the fact that Martin Davis publishes differing viewpoints and has writers on his staff who have opposing views along the political spectrum. However, my point is that the comment section is not typically engaged by the writer.
One need look no further than your comments to the others in this thread. Your style seems to be to use your position as staff writer to engage in an arguments coming from what you appear to believe is a place of superiority, inferring those who comment do so at the risk of being attacked by the writer of the piece. This is off-putting and, I maintain, unprofessional on your part.
I’ve had several people comment personally to me that they are considering unsubscribing to the Advance because of your insolence in the comment section. Cheers.
I don’t mind that he comments on posts critical of his editorial. But his stilted, pseudo-intellectual replies are bizarre. It’s impossible to have a debate with a guy who seems to fancy himself a classics scholar. ?
Typically, editorial writers don’t engage commenting on their articles. This is obviously an opinion piece. As stated, I’m glad Martin Davis recognizes there needs to be a broad range from the political spectrum represented. That’s what adds legitimacy to the Advance.
However, if Kenney does choose to engage, he should be respectful. I haven’t seen that from him. His responses appear to be more suited to some social media pages and posts than to a legitimate news source.
Please note that none of my comments in this thread have been directly related to Kenney’s article. My point is not to debate abortion, his opinion of reproductive rights, or my opinion of reproductive rights. I’m strictly responding to what I consider his lack of professionalism.
I also didn’t comment to debate abortion. I just called him out for his laughably false description of the local Senate and House races. I agree Kenney’s replies are condescending, but I actually find them kind of funny. He’s trying so hard portray himself as thjs intellectual conservative thinker. It’s cringeworthy.
…and yet? Here we are debating abortion and being the devil we claim to oppose.
Weird!
It was answered with a counterfactual which disproved what you asserted.
Complaining about that doesn’t improve you opinion one way or the other. Only reinforces the wider point.
Mr. Kenney and his kind have taken a women’s health issue and turned it into a moral litmus test for political gain. Providing an opinion piece that pretends to be informed but then uses tired pro-life imagery such as piles of dead babies and blasts responses as unwilling to engage a discussion is disingenuous. Getting rid of abortion is no more realistic than getting rid of heart surgery. Both are critically important medical procedures. Spare us your moralizing about something that will never be your problem. And quit feeling sorry for yourself.
Looks like many people have covered points I found interesting and appreciate. And did so with more brevity, which I’m sure many appreciated. Especially enjoyed Sarah’s points, as did others. Thank you.
As Jeff mentions, I too do not particularly mind Mr Kenney defending his words. Rather enjoy it, actually. Why put them out there if you’re not willing to defend them?
And IMO, it’s been no secret that his pieces are opinion pieces. It has been mentioned many times by him and others. The idea of better labelling is valid, but I suspect that may be more of an aspect of the limitations of the forum that they are using, rather than any nefarious scheme.
New endeavors and new technologies often have rough edges which need smoothing. Please, provide feedback – but don’t throw out a newborn baby with the bath water. Stay a while longer. We do all value life, right? Isn’t that what this is in a way? Giving life to a new form of community information? One locally owned at a bargain price? It’s good now, and getting better. Let’s have faith and see how the story turns out. That’s my plan, anyway.
Also, as the only self-identified “conservative” who has shown himself willing to discuss/defend many of the “conservative” positions on this forum – I’d say the weakness of his arguments have as much to do with the weakness of his positions, than in deficiency in his character. So please, do what Jesus would do, and hate the sin, and not the sinner. He tries. Bless his heart.
Yes, he does tend to be condescending, defensive – which I realize is more off-putting to others than it is to me. I get that. Honestly, I don’t mind that as much as the weakness of his counter arguments.
When Sarah lucidly makes the point of the lack of societal support for women and children in this country – his counter point is that he knows a place that will help some. When she thoughtfully checks it out, and offers the limitations which exist in the solution he offers – his rebuttal is to keep referring to the original point and then dismiss the quality of her point. That’s pretty weak. And deflated what was actually a fairly informative debate up unto that point.
If Mary’s Shelter were the solution that is posited to the concerns Sarah so eloquently raised, since it already exists – shouldn’t the problem be gone?
Still, let’s be fair.
Mr Kenney’s willingness to acknowledge and distance himself from the hypocrisy of those who are “pro-life” (as they choose to define it, or in Mr Kenney’s case – as religious leader whom he likely has never met defines it, and expects us to do the same in a land built upon religious freedom) – for someone to make that claim and then be so indifferent to the condition of people after their birth is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
And yes, even he recognizes that if he truly wants the solutions that all of us say we want, in that women can feel secure enough in our society that they can give us the gift of children if they CHOOSE is the best solution that we can offer – is certainly more in line with the Democratic positions on the matter than the Republican one. On that we are in total agreement. It is actually the more conservative position, to value and invest in our citizens and their lives same as we would the stock market.
Truly, if running for office – they would label him Republican in name only.
He wants good things. He just still operates under the fantasy that hasn’t worked up to this point that the solution is not in ourselves; working through our constitutional, representative government – that somehow – we’re better off just counting on “people” getting “better” and the care of children should be based on the whims of a non-profit charity – whose supporters are just as likely to donate to the Notre Dame football team as children’s vaccines – rather than working through our representatives to create programs which support our people.
He ever figures out how crazy that sounds, they’ll have to run him out of the Party. I invite him to read “The Distant Mirror” by Barbara Tuchman. Now that he’s figured out how cruel, unwise, and unhealthy, and unworkable current Republican/conservative policies are – maybe he’ll go the extra mile. It would mean we’d have to go out and find someone else trying to defend their actions – but still. We’d all be better off.
His position reminds me of a short story from Asimov that I read years ago. Where a group of robots were delusional, yet still did an excellent job despite their delusions. Their delusions were built around doing the right thing, and they did it. I honestly don’t care about Mr Kenney’s beliefs. If they give him comfort, I’m happy for him. But if they lead him, like those robots – to do the right thing – then I’m happy for all of us.
Where he loses me is in his beliefs that somehow, that our elections do not matter. Or that one lone store operated as a charity is the solution. The very fact it is so little known, and has so little current impact – speaks clearly to how that is certainly not the solution.
It’s not rocket science. Other societies do it. And do it well. Not by incarcerating anyone who pities a woman about to place her life at risk obeying the vagaries of Republican hypocrisies and the ultimate privacy invasions in the land of the free. But by supporting women, children, and really everyone as much as we reasonably can within our means.
Universal healthcare, free vaccinations, pre-natal, education, housing, research, etc. Like Mr Kenney says, Democratic positions. We’ll all be better off.
Final point. (Yay!wooho!does he mean it?!?)
Much is being made about Durant winning a Democratic district. I am in agreement that in this election – she would not have won without the help of Ms Gary. I wonder if that was the point. Which then makes me wonder if the reason was a vanity project, versus a deliberate effort. Conspiracy? Collusion? Questioning minds want to know. But anyway. Either way, I now have little use for the lady.
No, my question has to do with the other part of the equation, which I haven’t heard discussed much.
How much do you reckon Ms Durant’s votes were suppressed by Mr Strickland’s followers either sitting out the election, or doing write-ins for him. Haven’t heard much on that.
The reason I ask, I think the biggest question in the upcoming Presidential election is how is the Republican party and conservatives like Ms Durant and Mr Kenney going to address their MAGA problem?
We’ll see.
Anyway – thanks to all, especially Sarah – for an informative conversation.
To Mr Kenney, keep your chins up!
GTG.
Now I am going to have to back-pocket “Tuchman-style conservatives” as an epithet. 😀
As for Mary’s Shelter, they aren’t alone. Birthright, Catholic Charities, a whole host of sacred and secular run shelters (SARA for instance). Would that we put more energy there than the things that we put our energies into today… and of course, it isn’t a binary either/or solution, but it is most certainly part of the solution.
Your friendly neighborhood RINO,
I don’t know the term “back pocket”. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? About the time I moved out of high school, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth – I gave up on trying to keep up. Happily, we now have something called the Interwebnet, or some such nonsense – so I asked the all-knowing Google, and I now get it.
(Hail Google, knower of all, blessed be thy share price, Amen).
Don’t know why one would consider a Tuchman-style conservative an epithet. One could do worse than emulating those who have respect for knowledge and history.
Still, I don’t bother keeping up with the Kardashians, and only like one song from this year – and it’s performed by a bunch of 70 & 80 y/os (Sweet Sounds of Heaven – Rolling Stones).
To each their own, I always say. But then again – I am a conservative.
If more Republicans were as well, as you’ve astutely noted – we’d all be better off.
But then, as you’ve also noted – they wouldn’t really be Republicans, would they?
And yes, any help is appreciated. Glad to have any and all that exist. But the weakness in your argument is that they are the best solution.
If they were, they’d be working, wouldn’t they?
Yet you don’t sound any more satisfied with the results than I am, or Sarah, or anyone else – posting here. Yet, that is the solution you offer.
While arrogantly and insultingly dismissing anyone who does not accept your assessment.
Yet the true weakness I find in your argument is – even though we are in agreement it is in our society’s best interest to create conditions where a woman, a family, a community would welcome and value a child born into it – and show that valuation by working to care for that child as best it can – based upon it’s means – you want that to be an optional thing.
Based upon the whims of a fickle public. Hardly the things a mother should be expected to base her and her child’s life upon.
Done as it suits the individual contributor. Where all of the prides and prejudices of the donator are in full display. If they’d rather go to the football game that week or buy a new boat rather than make sure the kid’s got a roof or a flu shot – that’s perfectly okay under your system. What if the donor doesn’t like the looks of the kid, where they are from, how they pray? That’s what a mother should depend upon?
Rather than seeing it as a long term investment, by our society as a whole.
We can do better. That investment should be on surer footing. Our government and policies are the best way to make that happen.
BTW – when I’m busting your chops about your desire to define myself and others based upon your religious beliefs; I truly have no problem with you holding those beliefs. I sympathize.
There is much both past and present to admire in the Catholic Church.
The life of Euguerrand de Coucy, the protagonist of Ms Tuchman’s book – was certainly a devout and admirable man. And with Mother Theresa, Desmond Tutu, and Pope Francis – there is much in the present to admire.
Honestly – if I were to be willing to submit to an organized religion, I would consider that Church, based upon Pope Francis alone. I do admire the man.
But it is the man I admire, not the Church. For everyone of him, in every Church – of whatever religion – there are anti-Popes, those who enrich themselves sexually, with power, or just with greed and hate – so I’ll pass.
The next Pope could just as easily be one who looks the other way on genocides and Holocausts, as past Popes have done.
But again, to each their own. Just don’t impose it on me as an American.
Still, y’all (FA staff) ever dig up anyone who actually is willing to defend MAGA policies and the ethics of Donald Trump, which you so astutely or ethically are incapable of doing – I wouldn’t mind hearing their view as well.
Because there is evidently over 50% of the party you purport to represent who feels differently than you do on the matter.
So it is hard to understand how you can consider yourself as representing their views. But I guess you’ll have to do until one comes along….. : )
Still – seriously – in that Senate race, how much (if any) do you think Republican voting was suppressed by the backlash/resentment from Strickland supporters?
Seems like that’s something not being discussed, as we focus on the obvious topics of abortion or Ms. Gary’s vanity campaign.
I suppose “epithet” has a negative connotation nowadays (which I did not intend). A good line, perhaps?
The “arrogance or insultingly dismissing” here — as others have noted — is the Buckley observation of liberals who claim to be tolerant of other viewpoints, yet are shocked and horrified to discover there are indeed other viewpoints. Or demand that the disagreement be sugar coated — which is perhaps the most disrespectful, contemptible, and condescending viewpoint of all. Precisely what we are trying to break with an open public square.
As for the impact of abortion on the elections and as mentioned earlier, you don’t have to be Karl Rove to get to this assessment. Yet it does help when Karl Rove gets there himself:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-believe-the-hype-about-abortion-polling-voters-campaign-elections-1a749b63
As for finding someone who can represent the MAGA viewpoint, believe it or not, it is incredibly difficult to do for a few reasons: (1) populist movements tend to frown on intellectual arguments, (2) populist movements tend to be angry movements, and (3) there is to a certain extent a nihilism involved where “they want what they want” which they believe — rightly or wrongly — to be an expression of how progressives present and achieve their policy viewpoints. Who needs argument when you can resort to force, coercion, condescension, etc? Most of the people who demand civility really mean compliance, comfort, and so forth. What they don’t mean is discussion, being challenged, the discovery that there are rational viewpoints who profoundly disagree (Mr. Davis and I have these discussions all the time, disagree, tell each other how wrong we are, and then order another beer).
As for being a Republican, and as we can see here, it is a lot harder to be a pro-life Democrat than it is to be a Never Trump Republican.
With regard to Strickland, it is another object lesson in write-in campaigns. They never work unless one is a former incumbent in that seat (i.e. Murkowski in Alaska). I do suspect there was some suppression, but not enough that would either (a) influence the outcome of a future campaign or (b) where the tradeoff in populist/nationalist voter support would not have seen conservatives and independents march in droves towards Joel Griffin.
Which brings us to the curious case of Monica Gary. Did she cost Joel Griffin the election? I suspect not… most third party candidates when their electorate is pushed either split down the middle or — if not given their choice of candidate — would not have otherwise voted. One wonders whether a ranked choice method would have narrowed the 1,500 gap between Griffin and Durant. Maybe so… but without any meaningful exit polling, we are left to wonder.
I don’t think there it is much of a secret that the Griffin campaign never quite made up with the Litchfield campaign in SD-27. Republicans fall in line; Democrats fall in love…. and the Dems never quite fell in love with Griffin; Republicans never quite fell in line with Durant.
For as conservative as I seem (or am), I am a staunch defender of Pope Franics, mostly because I have actually read the Second Vatican Council, the work of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, etc. There isn’t any daylight between the three, but then again, most Americans see the world through the political religions and Catholics — for good reason… at least practicing Catholics — don’t neatly fall into either of the dominant secular religions. I prefer a gritty, tactile, poor, realist and personal Catholicism over a pristine, abstract, triumphalist one. Love the aesthetics, but as the Jesuits remind us, you can’t hear the voice of God when your stomach is grumbling, etc.
Thoughtful comment. Con permisso, let me chew on it for a while and I’ll get back to you.
I don’t see where you ever directly answered my most important original question.
In that, how – knowing and being as thoroughly disgusted with the MAGA portion of the Republican party that supports Trump – how, someone like you is willing to look the other way when Trump is your party’s nominee?
Still, interesting to see that you see his cult in much the same light as do I.
Yet, seeing that – how you’re willing to look the other way?
One wonders if there’s any outrage or harm you will not rationalize away, as you fall ever farther down that slope. There hasn’t been one yet. And looking at it from the outside, beyond self-preservation, greed, and ignorance – it seems like the only joy Trump gets is from causing you to jump thru ever more hoops to get what you want from him. In that it provides him feedback into how special he is. Laws are for mere mortals, not the golden toilet calf you raise up for worship. Right?
Yet I think you indirectly answered it with your final point above. The shrugging of the shoulders in a Jesuitic way that you live in the “real” world. You see it. But you’re smarter than everyone else, in our inability to focus on the “big” picture.
I suppose one can forgive themselves any gain they receive, or any harm they cause with such logic. So really, not much different from the Evangelicals. For that insight, however cowardly, self-serving, and gaggingly condescending it may be; I thank you for sharing it.
I’ll address the election results on Mr Davis’s column later. Been meaning to do that and haven’t got around to it yet. Have decided it’s better for me to wait a day or two to allow others their thoughts so that I don’t drown them out with my own voluminousness (is that a word? One wonders, but does not care. : ) )
cont.
Final thought, re: abortion. This just occurred to me the other day. I was reading a piece in the Atlantic talking about the Dred Scot case, and how that legal decision which allowed Southern states to arrest slaves in Free States and return them – seemed like the final catalyst to the Civil War and the end of slavery.
And I’m wondering if, a 100 years from now, if the current over throw of civil liberties for women by zealots such as yourself may not end up being a similar catalyst for the abortion issue.
Which is why Republicans are so busy back-pedaling on outright abortion bans, etc.
Or even so-called “conservatives” such as yourself are willing to look at improving the lot of women having children – rather than just demonizing them as “welfare” moms.
Doubt I’ll live long enough to see it, but someone of your age might. Let me know how it turns out.
When you lock up a doctor for saving a woman’s life. Or a sister for helping her sister who was raped. Likely that people won’t thank you for it as you presume they would.
We’ll see.
Tons of presumption here. How am I “looking away” as you term it vis a vis Trump?
He does not get elected again without the support of the Republican party. He does not rule again, without the complaisance and complicity of the Republican party. Your party. Doesn’t get rid of one Speaker of the House, and exercise veto power on the next.
Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Rob Wittman, et. al, do not look away again without the same. It does not happen without you and others like you.
Glenn Youngkin, Tara Durant.
Because when they, through your and their willingness to rationalize his actions, and put it down to just ugliness of reality – rather than an existential threat to our form of government – he will be the nominee of your avowed party. And possibly end up as President. Same as occurred in 2016, when you not only chose him over Hillary; you as a party chose him over 16 other Republicans who weren’t insane megalomaniacs.
He and his supporters are not counting on me in the primaries, for donations, at the election box, in the opinion polls.To make the rationalizations.
To be those who “prefer a gritty, tactile, poor, realist and personal Catholicism” that allows them to look away; as long as the trains run on time, the corporate tax rate is 15%, and we are “saved” by him from whatever we fear most.
Whether it be the billions or trillions or quadrillions of dead babies that everyone who believes differently than you in the definition of life and the rights of 50% of the population to control their own lives are killing (in your mind at least -(while conveniently ignoring the multitude more children who are not brought into this world thru your own choices)) – or keeping out the right religions, making sure no one interferes with the indoctrination of your children with facts until they are beyond the age of learning, or just good old fashion racism and greed.
So how are you looking away?
Seems like pretty much the same way you as a party did last time.
Republicans lost me when you stood by and accepted him mocking McCain. A good and honorable man who deserved better.
My disgust was further vindicated throughout his Presidency. With the torture of children, racism, etc. Culminating in the insurrection. And vindicated by the evidence shown in the hearings and investigations since.
If you still accept representing a party that is led by such a man – as you yourself saw his deficiencies then, and have seen them since – however you rationalize that action – then yes, that’s looking away.
Have you ever seen Lonesome Dove? IMO – greatest Western ever. And that’s saying something. Your rationalizations remind me of those from Jake, right before they hung him:
Woodrow Call : Didn’t you hear me? I said get your boots off
Dan Suggs : Damned if we will. I said we were horse traders
Gus McCrae : We’re more persuaded by the bodies we just buried. Get your boots off
Dan Suggs : I don’t know what the hell you’re talkin’ about
Gus McCrae : You’re a black liar sir
Dan Suggs : Just ask Jake if we didn’t buy them horses
Woodrow Call : ‘dyou buy them three cowboys you shot? ‘dyou buy them two farmers you burned? Pea, you & Newt get your ropes; tie ’em up
Jake Spoon : Oh you don’t need to tie me up, Newt. Hell I ain’t killed anybody. I just fell in with these boys to get me through the territory; hell I was gonna leave ’em first chance I got
Gus McCrae : I wish you’d taken that chance a little earlier, Jake; a man who’ll go along with five killin’s, takin’ his leave a little slow. Go ahead Newt
Jake Spoon : Pea, you know me; I ain’t no killer. Deets you know it too. Gus I ain’t no criminal; now you know that. It was Dan that killed them two sod-busters. Hell I didn’t kill nobody
Dan Suggs : You shut your damn mouth, Spoon
Woodrow Call : Put ’em on their horses
Roy Suggs : Where’s he goin’?
Gus McCrae : Pick out a tree to hang you from, son
Jake Spoon : Gus, I…
Gus McCrae : You know how it works, Jake: you ride with an outlaw, you die with an outlaw. I’m sorry you crossed the line
Jake Spoon : I didn’t see no line, Gus. I was just tryin’ to get through the territory, without gettin’ scalped; that’s all
Gus McCrae : I’m sure that’s true, Jake.
Rationalizations are funny that way. you can explain them, right up until you see that you can’t.
Anyway. Moving on.
It doesn’t happen without me?
If you’re supporting the Republican party and he is your nominee, why yes. As you said, Dems fall in love – Reps fall in line. Same as last time.
If enough of the minority in this country which uses the vagaries of the Electoral College to win Presidential elections for Trump in 24 as you did in 16, we’re looking at a 2nd term of horror.
If enough of you support the Rob Wittmans and Glenn Youngkins of the state without them disavowing him – we’re right back where we were then. It’s starts with you.
They follow your lead. It’s a vicious circle, downward spiral – I know.
But bottom line – you’re responsible for your own actions. You support those who empower him, then you’re empowering him. You demand they do differently in return for your support – they’ll realize they cannot win without you.
It’s starts with you and those like you. Rather than just shrugging your shoulders and saying “Deus vult” because that’s just the way the world is. Be the better you envision.
Free thought, free will, free choice.
I know it’s harder than counting on others to do your thinking for you, but shoot – give it a shot – with so much depending upon it.
You might like it.
Meanwhile,
Happy T day, and yes, HTTR , er W’s er Commies er Commodes. Whatever they’re calling us this week.
Anyone but Dallas…..could be worse. Snyder could still be the owner. As Saint Richard (Pryor) said in that Oscar-worthy film of the 70’s,
Which Way is Up –
Once you hit rock bottom, ain’t nowhere to go but up…..
Cya.
Rob Wittman is a great man whom you should take a moment to personally get to know. I don’t know much about Glenn Youngkin, truth be told. The man remains an enigma. This might surprise you to learn, but not all Republicans are Trump supporters. Just like not all Democrats are Northam supporters.
This whole idea of “if A then B and then C then *clearly* you must support D!” is guilt by association nonsense. We are adults; we can dispense with such arguments.
HTTR… I guess. Or just root against anyone playing Dallas!
I would be surprised if the majority of people you mention are not, at heart, basically good people. The decency of folks such as them, and more importantly, folks such as yourself who elect them is what I am counting on. Appealing to. Begging for. It’s about the only non-violent hope that I see for our country surviving not only the immediate damages of a Trump 2nd Presidency, but the long-term damage of electing such a demagogue.
Let’s face it. For all of his venality, amorality, etc. – Trump is old. And not particularly bright.
But so many Rubicons of decency and respect have already been crossed and destroyed by his Presidency; even when he leaves – it will be much easier for the next demagogue to follow his path.
Be he Democrat, Republican, or without a party.
Getting civil employees to sign NDA’s, weaponizing federal agencies, destroying or stealing public records, etc.
As much damage as he’s already done, I fear the future without folks such as you accepting your responsibility.
Did Representative Witmman vote to support Trump’s choice for the House? Has he followed the party line in the investigations? Debt ceiling?
I suspect in most things, he has.
It may be that he is a Gosar, Gaetz, Greene, Santos in disguise. Isn’t it more likely though, that he does these things, and goosesteps along with the parade – despite his decency and “great”ness, rather than because of it?
Because he knows what happens to him if he doesn’t. Not from me. From you. And those like you. Ask Liz Cheney, Eric Cantor, Denver Riggleman what happens when they don’t embrace the most extreme lies of your kult. It was all there before Trump ever got there. He merely took it and weaponized it for his own glory and enrichment. I suspect even he didn’t really believe you as a party were so stupid, so craven. A true paper tiger of morality.
Yet here we are.
Your willingness to pretend your acceptance of those outrages, your willingness to rationalize your actions and his is you being smugly realpolitik, rather than a moral failing IS the problem.
Democrats aren’t making you do it. You are making a conscious choice.
You call it nonsense. I call it an accurate accounting of facts, based upon your record.
Cardinal Tutu said it better.
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
Again, you, Wittman, and all Republicans who do not disavow Trump or those who are willing to support Trump, a man who has been ruled in court to have created an insurrection in our country, has over 90 major charges pending, etc – are the problem.
Time to own it. That’s reality. Pretending otherwise is nonsense. Just holding your noses while you reap the benefits of his kult while deploring the excesses is not enough.
Man up.
Normally I welcome reading opinions from others that I don’t normally agree with, as long as everyone stays civil. I had hoped to read Mr. Kenney’s opinion in the same vein. However, when he starts off by insulting anyone who thinks differently than him, i.e. “low-IQ wags”, I instantly consider this a hit piece full of vitriol and little true facts or information, so I stop reading. While as a subscriber I appreciate differing viewpoints, I don’t relish confrontational hit pieces that basically say, it’s obvious this is how it should be and you’re an naive fool for having any differing opinion. This is definitely not his first piece that left me feeling this way. I would ask that if Mr. Kenney can’t state his case without insulting or adopting such a confrontational tone, that Mr. Davis consider someone different to provide the conservative counterpoint.
…and yet in turn, there is nothing worse than being intentionally misread by those who disagree with the premise, then seek the shortest cut to disagreement.
As for the “low-IQ wags” the evidence one week after the fact is overwhelming. One doesn’t have to be Karl Rove in order to read the tea leaves… but it helps if you are indeed Karl Rove:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/dont-believe-the-hype-about-abortion-polling-voters-campaign-elections-1a749b63
As for commenters who demand “civility” yet express none (i.e. “hit pieces” and “confrontational tone” and demanding that differing viewpoints be cancelled) we can all instantly discard such vitriol and narrowness for what it is and hope for improvement. More than half of Americans believe in the dignity of human life and express these sentiments in far more strident language.
This is not high-school debate class; grappling with the core arguments rather than instantly dismissing them is the mark of an education. There is precious little of it out there today… but the good news is that it can indeed be acquired and fashioned in an open public square. What liberals used to believe, anyhow.
Mr. Kenney,
Blah blah blah. If you truly believe that abortion did not play a role in this election, then you are not paying attention. This election and elections all across the country were very much about women’s health and abortion. Instead of framing all your opinions around pro-Catholic rhetoric., you would be better served by really listening to women when they speak about what is important to them.
Your favorite method for dealing with anyone who dares to disagree with your positions is to be insulting and condescending. Instead of thoughtful substance, you fill your opinion pieces and responses with big words and biting sarcasm. Becky Murray has provided readers with the best description of your journalistic style by stating ” you use your position as a staff writer to engage in arguments coming from what you appear to believe is a place of superiority, inferring that those who comment do so at the risk of being attacked by the writer of the piece.”
I have tried to keep an open mind about your positions and have listened to your podcasts and read your opinion pieces. Marty has made a management decision to hire you and I applaud his attempts to hire people from across the political spectrum. I find you arrogant, offensive, sexist and terribly biased. I intend to continue to subscribe to the Advance, but I will no longer listen to your podcasts or read anything you write. Feel free to call me “rather obtuse”, but I am done with your particular brand of journalism.
You are certainly entitled to your own opinions. What you are not entitled to is your own set of facts, much less pad oneself against an objective reality with emotive.
Here’s the good news. I get to have an opinion on your opinions as well. Now we can either just throw rocks at one another, or we can figure out why we believe what we believe and start the conversation from there.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where fanaticism is deemed thought and argument is reduced to the most witty retort.
In this instance, most every political analyst has come down on the side of redistricting and not abortion. One would have to further explain the results in Kentucky and Alabama (of all places) as to how the downballot races outperformed for Republicans so well. Frankly, I’ll put my bets with those who spend the millions of dollars and not the 9% of Americans who really, really, really believe in abortion as a form of birth control and openly hate those who raise questions.
As for “hiring” or anything like that? Not only do I work for free, but I am a donor to publications willing to bring the other 91% of your friends and neighbors to the table to discuss questions as adults rather than middle schoolers. The “magic words” don’t work anymore; the namecalling is old.
Yet until the self-described advocates of democracy and liberalism learn to engage with those with whom they disagree? Well… enjoy the big words and biting sarcasm. I have no problem paying people in their own coin.
Enough already. Your arguments are tired talking points from yesteryear. The old claim that abortion is used as a form of birth control misdirects the discussion away from basic women’s health care. Shame on you and your kind. Your pretense of intellectual rigor is embarrassing and does no justice to what Marti is trying to accomplish.
…and yet, here you are.
The arguments are not tired talking points. They are facts some prefer to ignore. That one would call the act of ripping a baby into six pieces “health care” is frankly barbaric — and certainly worthy of shame.
Now as for what we are trying to accomplish here? No other op-ed has generated the sort of “holy cow, Mr. Kenney has a point” when it comes to how narrow certain leftists actually are considering how more than half of your friends and neighbors agree broadly that abortion on demand should be regulated if not banned outright as a human rights violation.
Yet that’s not something some folks — narrow as they are — are even willing to countenance much less consider a thing on its own arguments and counterarguments. That seems like a particular failure in the way we discuss a thing… and as the Jesuits taught me a long time ago, unless you can explain the opposition’s argument in its best possible light? You really don’t understand your own argument.
I think we have lost that writ large, surrendering discussion to a heckler’s veto. It might work in other places… but it won’t work here.
There it is again. A deliberately inflammatory phrase “abortion on demand” that gets trotted out to garner votes. Zealotry is not useful for a discussion, though, and does little justice to the Jesuits. Don’t think you are generating an exchange of ideas. People have tried to engage, but your response is to insult and belittle. not useful.
Is that not what 40 weeks and beyond is? Abortion on demand?
One would readily agree that zealotry is not useful for discussion. As the last Christopher Hitchens used to say to the perpetually offended, “I’m still waiting to hear what your point is…” beyond the fact that you are, indeed, offended by other opinions.
What is offensive is that the so-called pro-life position removes all discussion of a woman’s rights. Encouraged by a religiously motivated Supreme Court, we are seeing religious zealotry in several states imposing brutal government oversight into women’s healthcare. Government forcing a pregnancy is an unconscionable overreach, yet here you are claiming some moral imperative. The pro-abortion position entails discussion every time there is an issue with a pregnancy, ideally between the woman and whoever she needs to reach out to, whether a doctor or someone else. Your position removes discussion and is akin to mainland China’s past prohibition of second children. A government’s decision to have agency over a woman’s body has gone both ways. My point is that tired slogans to turn a medical decision into a moral issue is a huge patriarchal presumption. Your absolute certainty is breathtakingly obtuse.
Most of us agree that we can have opinions about what other people do to other people. Rape, incest, theft, domestic violence, etc. Each of us have the right to have opinions — strong opinions — where a human rights abuse occurs even if the other party does not believe the act to be moral or consider the object of the moral act a person in the fullest sense of the word.
Consider that only one of us are going to be right on this. Either human persons have the basic right to exist, or the right of personal autonomy is sacrosanct in every instance and in all cases (i.e. no one has the right to the labor of another person; we are all properties unto ourselves).
Yet we know that the right to personal autonomy is not absolute. March into any emergency room and demand to be treated and you will be met with personnel pointing towards other patients. The problem with the libertarian argument? We are not ends unto ourselves, therefore personal autonomy is not the final and highest good. If it were, we would be tearing one another to pieces in the name of personal autonomy (e.g. how would one raise taxes to pay for government if the right of personal autonomy were the highest good?)
So here we are with two competing values. The basic right to exist (which predicates all other rights) vs. the right to personal autonomy. We know the latter gets awfully Orwellian pretty quickly — 70 million dead babies is nothing to celebrate — so we settle on the former in two ways: (1) who decides when a human person exists or ceases to exist? (2) how far do our rights of personal autonomy extend and where do they stop?
I’ll stand firm on this — that both the mother *and* the baby have intrinsic moral worth and rights worth protecting. Two bodies; one choice.
On to your points:
** As evidenced in my op-ed, the pro-life position most certainly does involve a discussion of a woman’s rights *and* the rights of the baby, realizing that neither have absolute rights to personal autonomy. Pregnancy is a natural consequence of the sexual act, and every human person has protectable rights. If not, then where is the delimiting line? 6 weeks? 15 weeks? 40 weeks? Who decides?
** The US Supreme Court is not motivated by (sacred) religious zealotry any more than abortion boosters are motivated by (secular) religious zealotry. Pointing this out doesn’t improve the question by one degree.
** Government isn’t forcing a soul to be pregnant. We are discussing women who are already pregnant with a baby.
** The pro-abortion position is either (1) the assertion of the right to personal autonomy or (2) a gross violation of the basic human right to exist. Or both… would we remove the “discussion” in any other context — murder, rape, theft, forced euthanasia, genocide, the Jewish Holocaust — why not when taking a very young life?
** Government has agency over our bodies already. Men can at any point in time be drafted into our military, given a rifle, and sent to die in a trench in Ukraine, Taiwan, or Syria and there isn’t much I can say about that. Precisely because personal autonomy isn’t an absolute right.
** I am reading a series of tired slogans promoting abortion without any real decision to grapple with the objections. The involvement of doctors does not make what they do a mere “medical decision” (ask people who push the death penalty). The use of the term “patriarchal” we can instantly discard as an attempt to use magic words to avoid consideration and thought — a very Trumpian move, one might add.
** As for the absolute certainty? I am absolutely certain that rape is morally wrong in 100% of all cases. I am equally certain that the intentional murder of an innocent life is 100% wrong in every instance. I am also certain that we can have opinions on human rights abuses even if we ourselves are not personally involved in the act. The Jewish and Armenian Holocausts were intrinsically immoral acts excused by their respective governments, first be dehumanizing and then eliminating their intended targets.
As for the questions raised? (1) Not only do we never have the right to intentionally destroy an innocent human life, this also entails that we have certain duties towards both children **and their mothers** as a society and as a polity, and (2) our rights stop at the very moment where the rights of the other begin — and those rights are ontologically predicated on the basic right to exist as a person first before any other rights — autonomy, speech, religion, etc. — can be extracted or realized.
What you term as presumption, I term as predication — and vitally necessary. If we do not agree on the simple and basic right to exist, addressing the “who decides?” leads us down a dark path and quickly. Such are my thoughts (and not one mention of God or religion — natural law theory at work).
Nice try, Shaun. Until you engage honestly, there is little point in this exchange.
I accept your concession of defeat.