Is Chris Dudley pro-choice? No.

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

In his letter to Planned Parenthood, Dudley indicates that he is in favor of rolling back abortion access and supports restrictions to choice that Oregon voters have rejected on the ballot time and time again.

Chris Dudley would have you believe that he's pro-choice. He even deliberately picked a fight with Right to Life to make the point.

But the fact is, as Carla Axtman noted a few weeks ago, Chris Dudley is not pro-choice. He supports parental notification - which Oregon voters rejected at the ballot as recently as 2006. (And here's why.)

But I can't put a finer point on it than Roey Thorpe, from Planned Parenthood, who wrote today in the Oregonian:

In June, Dudley sent a letter to Planned Parenthood Political Action Committee that is very revealing. While he declined to fill out our endorsement questionnaire, Dudley makes his views on abortion clear -- a position that is alarmingly out of sync with the majority of Oregonians. In his letter to Planned Parenthood, Dudley indicates that he is in favor of rolling back abortion access and supports restrictions to choice that Oregon voters have rejected on the ballot time and time again. And he also favors abstinence-only education -- a failed concept that has been proven to be unsuccessful and is only supported by 12% of all Oregonians. This would mean a significant rollback of current state law that already includes abstinence education as part of a comprehensive, age-appropriate program that helps keep our teens safe from STDs and unwanted pregnancy. ...

Dudley has indicated he supports the principles of Roe v. Wade, but that's not all it takes to be a pro-choice candidate. Being a pro-choice candidate means making your positions clear along with a commitment to back up your actions by standing up for Oregon women when they need it the most. ...

Not only is [John] Kitzhaber the only pro-choice candidate in the race, but he has a proven track record as a leader in women's health care and prevention....

Unfortunately, we conclude that Oregonians cannot trust Chris Dudley to stand up for Oregon's long-standing history of protecting personal freedom.

There's going to be plenty of confusion - deliberate confusion - about this in the final stretch of this campaign. Don't assume that your friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers understand the facts. Make sure you spread the word -- Chris Dudley isn't pro-choice. At least, not as Oregonians define it.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    And this federal issue affects Oregon's economy how?

    • (Show?)

      Choice affects the economy of people's personal lives pretty deeply. The cost of having a child is very high, and apparently Chris Dudley thinks we should force more people who do not think that now is the right time for them to have children. Pregnancy alone can be a huge economic issue in the life of the woman who is pregnant.

      • (Show?)

        People do have choice. They can choose not to copulate.

        • (Show?)

          And in the case of a teenage girl raped by her step-dad and being forced by law to have to notify her rapist step-dad that she is seeking an abortion?

          BTW, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

          • (Show?)

            Should one person receive the death penalty for another's crime?

            BTW, people are responsible for their own actions. Consent to sex is accepting responsibility for pregnancy.

            • (Show?)

              A zygote is not a living person.

              But please, let me know when the law is such that I can force you against your will to donate a kidney to me or one of my family members.

              I am unquestionably a living person, and if I need your kidney, you have no legal right to prevent me from the use of it whether you want to or not.

              Right?

              • (Show?)

                A zygote is not a living person? How do you know? What defines a living person? Where do you draw the line?

                Are you really comparing a living person to a kidney.

                Yes, consent to sex is accepting responsibility for pregnancy.

                • (Show?)

                  Correct, a zygote is not a living person. It is a collection of living human cells.

                  Are you really comparing a living person to a kidney.

                  Nope. I am a living person. So are you. If I need your kidney to survive I demand the state to force you to donate the use of your kidney to me, whether you want to or not. Deal?

                  • (Show?)

                    "Living Human Cells" -- life. Abortion ends life right?

                    My kidneys do not have a potential to a life of their own, independent of me do they?

                    • (Show?)

                      You really don't get it.

                      I am a living person. You are a living person. Do I (a living person) have the right to force you (a living person) to donate the use of your kidney to me against your will or consent?

                      Yes or no?

                      Do you think the state should have that power to force you to donate the use of your bodily organs to me against your will or not?

                    • (Show?)

                      weak weak argument... you are trying to equate the states role in outlawing murder and the states potential ability to relieve you of a spare kidney ... not even close

                      • (Show?)

                        First, abortion is not murder. Either morally, ethically, or legally.

                        Second, I notice that neither you nor any of the other anti-abortion agitators, as always, don't dare address the question.

                        If it is such a "weak argument" then answer the question, should the state should have that power to force you to donate the use of your bodily organs to me against your will or not?

                        That said, given your demonstrated retrograde and ignorant views, it is truly mortifying that you claim to be studying to become a medical doctor and may someday be in a position to give medical counsel and advice to women.

                        • (Show?)

                          The answer to your question Mitchell is in the case of a woman who's own lack of responsible judgment has caused her to bcome pregnant then yes the state has an obligation ...legally, morally and ethically to protect that embryo/child/fetus at whatever stage of development you want to talk about from any additional bad choices the woman may be prone to make. Even an irresponsible / semi responsible woman has the opportunity to take protective measures after the she has engaged in the reproductively provocative behavior to ensure she hasn't conceived ... by the time tests are able to detect the presence of hormones suggesting fertilization and cleavage she has had several opportunities to take responsible action

                          • (Show?)

                            You most certainly have not answered, let alone addressed my question.

                            Do you think the state should have that power to force you to donate the use of your bodily organs to me against your will or not?

                            It is also quite revealing that you arrogate and assume that a pregnant woman is irresponsible for getting pregnant and simultaneously is also responsible enough to be forced to be a parent.

                            That you make such sexist, ignorant (not to mention contradictory) assumptions and views only further demonstrate you are grossly unfit to be in a position to give medical advice to women over their reproductive choices and decisions.

                            • (Show?)

                              The good news Mitchell is that testate doesn't have to force anyone to donate their organs to you if you need one. The people have already made that issue moot. We have no serious shortage of kidneys and it would not be appropiate for the state to require someone to give you their heart or liver for obvious reasons...

                              • (Show?)

                                Way to avoid answering the question, again.

                                The question is of course, do you think the state should have that power to force you to donate the use of your bodily organs to me against your will or not?

                                Of course you, like every other anti-choice agitator studiously avoid answering that question. Because it exposes the gaping hole in the entire premise of the anti-choice position.

                                Anti-choice agitators premise their entire argument on the proposition that something which is debatable is even a living person under the law, should have the power of the state and law to force women to donate the use of their bodily organs, blood, heart, liver, basically their entire physiology (not just a kidney) without their consent. Something which even those who indisputably living person, vested with full legal rights do not have (thankfully).

                                This is of course the reason that anti-choice people never address this simple question.

                • (Show?)

                  And I draw the line at what is or isn't a living person at a capacity for cognition. In other words, is there a capacity for brain function or not? It is how we already determine when someone is no longer a living person (i.e. dead).

                  But that said, is still is irrelevant to the underlying principles. Does the state have the right to force you to donate the use of your bodily organs against your will or not?

                  I say the state doesn't have that right, you seem to take the position that it does.

              • (Show?)

                This argument is ridiculous Mitchell. What you are trying to compare isn't even apples and oranges ...

                • (Show?)

                  Not "ridiculous" at all.

                  What you are trying to compare isn't even apples and oranges ...

                  Sure it is.

                  The anti-choice position advocates the principle that the state should be able to force women to allow the use of her body and her organs to something that is not even a living person (and medically speaking is technically a parasite) against her will and consent.

                  • (Show?)

                    Upon conception the fertilized ovum or zygote is very much biologically alive and easily meets the 4 criteria that determines biological life .. it grows, it metabolizes, it reprouces and it responds to outside stimuli. The only person who has caused the woman to share her body with her developing child is the woman ...not the state. I am all about choice Mitchell unfortunately I am only a 1 chance to choose person not a 2 chances to choose person. A responsible woman engaging in reproductively provocative behavior makes her choice when she continues to engage in that behavior knowing that she isn't using any means of birth control and stops the activity long enough to take responsible measures. The irresponsible woman continues what she is doing knowing what the possible outcome will be. It is absolutely ridiculous for the child she knew she could be conceiving to have to pay the price for a womans inability to act responsibly. The idea that the state is forcing her to do anything is absurd. If you want to look at it that way then a better anology would be to compare the acts of an irresponsible female to the acts of a burglar or any other type of person who commits an act which requires the state to hold that person responsible for what they have done. maybe thats going to jail and maybe it's not being able to dispose of an inconvenient life they themselves have created

                    • (Show?)

                      Nobody ever claimed that a zygote was not living human cells. So what? So are sperm cells.

                      The only person who has caused the woman to share her body with her developing child is the woman ...not the state.

                      Really?

                      So it was really Spring Adams fault her step-dad raped her, impregnated her, then murdered her when he found out she sought to get an abortion.

                      Who knew?

                      And even in the more common cases where sex is consensual, consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy.

            • (Show?)

              And no, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

              • (Show?)

                teen aged girls cannot legally give consent for anything but the murder of their own child without her parents being notified. That law is so fundamentally wrong on every level it boggles the mind. An abortion is a significant medical procedure and schools are throwing students out for sharing aspirin with each other

                • (Show?)

                  First of all, teenage girls can give consent to numerous things, including adoption.

                  Odd though that you claim that destroying a zygote is murder. It is not "murder" at all, from either an ethical, moral or legal standpoint.

                  • (Show?)

                    The "zygote" remains a zygote or fertilized ovum for a very very short time...only until cleavage at which point it becomes a blastocyst for a couple of days and finally an embryo. At no time while the fetilized ovum is technically a zygote can pregnancy be detected. So you need to move past the term zygote if you want to use it to make any case for the state forcing a woman to do anything. By the time fetilization or pregnancy can be detected the zygote stage of development has come and gone. Give or take a couple of days the stage where a pregnancy can be readily and easily detected she is carrying a human embryo ..s

                    • (Show?)

                      Yet the anti-choice zealots scream about the use of discarded blastocysts vis-á-vis stem cell research (anti-choice going so far as to refer to them a snow-flake babies), or morning after contraception (which can and does deal with terminating a pregnancy before cellular cleavage may have begun).

                      Not to mention the entire anti-choice argument is predicated that there is a living person with rights from the moment of fertilization.

                      So your protestations over my using the term zygote rings entirely hollow.

                      • (Show?)

                        Your use of the term zygote is simply not accurate Mitchell. I personally have no problem with morning after contraceptive methods, those were the additional opportunities to act responsibly I referred to above. Once cellular cleavage occurs then you are aborting a child. You are free to rationalize anyway you want, you will be in good company with the rest of the minority viewpoints on this issue. I don't even pretend to be the voice of the pro life argument on abortion. The viewpoints I possess on this topic are the viewpoints of a medical professional who has dealt with this issue first hand and who knows much more than you do about it on every level you can think of.

          • (Show?)

            Do you know how many times that exact scenario comes up Mitchell? Let me just say ...buy lottery tickets ... I don't know how we got to parental notification from the idea that women who don't want children have an obligation to be reproductively responsible when they engage in activities where an unwanted pregnancy is not an unlikely result.

            • (Show?)

              The law and policy must be such that it takes such scenarios, which have occurred into account. Which is why mandatory notification is bad law, and bad policy.

              And again, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

            • (Show?)

              I think you meant "people who don't want children". It takes a woman AND a man to conceive a child. Both should take steps to be reproductively responible to protect their own interests. But even with that, birth control can fail.

              • (Show?)

                I agree Mel both SHOULD but reality still says the ONLY WOMEN GET PREGNANT NOT MEN! Birth control taken as prescribed rarely fails but certainly can.

    • (Show?)

      If women can't get legal abortions, they end up with one of two options:

      1. Illegal abortions which often end up with the woman (who frequently doesn't have insurance) in the ER with the botched results, often at taxpayer expense.

      2. Bearing and raising a child they don't want or cannot afford which often leads to using State Resources (funded by taxpayer dollars)to support the parent and child. Not to mention the cost of housing/feeding abusive parents once they come into the prison system and/or the cost of housing/caring for children abandoned or taken by Child Services when the parents are unwilling or unable to care for them.

      And this goes beyond being an economic issue. The social impacts of making abortion illegal would be huge for our society.

    • (Show?)

      You realize that most notification laws are state level not Federal?

      • (Show?)

        I fully understand notification laws

        • (Show?)

          Given that I wasn't addressing a comment by you in the post, why you felt the need to respond to that it is baffling unless you an Kurt Chapman are sockpuppets.

          • (Show?)

            Please don't allow yourself to be too baffled Mitchell because the only other comment you could have been addressing didn't mention notification laws at all leaving me to wonder who exactly you are talking to ...Harvey perhaps?

    • (Show?)

      BTW, we know that tax cheats like Chris Dudley certainly have an impact on the Oregon economy.

  • (Show?)

    First off my name is not pronounced the way it looks. When did Oregon cast all of these votes on abortion? the latest gallup poll says that americans are not pro choice ... furthermore a state's governor has how much impact on the abortion issue for a state? oh that would be close to none right? Is this all the left wingers have left in their quiver to shoot at dudley? if so you are in trouble. I don't see how Kitz is able to square his support for abortion with the principles of being a physician but I will leave that for him to figure out. This is the weakest reason I could imagine anyone using in order to sway voters for a gubenatorial campaign no wonder your condidates didn't fare too well kari

      • (Show?)

        This poll shows that most Americans consider themselves pro-life.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

        Other polls show more of a split on the issue:

        http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

        Take either one, it points to the fact that most Americans are not pro-choice.

        • (Show?)

          Yay. Let's put people's rights up for a popularity vote shall we?

          As I pointed out down thread, vague label polling is particularly useless on this topic.

          • (Show?)

            the poll simply corrects kari's misstatement that we are a pro choice people ...we are not. No one suggested putting anything up to a vote ..which will never happen because the pro choice people know exactly what the results of such an election would be. Just for fun why not state the facts and not make them up as you go.

        • (Show?)

          Okay, let's say that is true. I don't care if I'm the last American in this country to believe in abortion. My ability to have an abortion does not affect YOU. Stay out of my womb. Period.

        • (Show?)

          Pro-Choice, Pro-Life. However you want to label it, those polls you link to show that the majority of American's aren't in favor of draconian abortion policies. In fact, those polls consistently show less than 1/4 of the country to be in favor of making all abortions illegal.

          Seems to me it's split between those that want to have somewhat stricter limits on abortion (end third trimester abortions), and those who want a more progressive approach (what we have now).

    • (Show?)

      <bloockquote>I don't see how Kitz is able to square his support for abortion with the principles of being a physician

      Aside from the fact that many abortions, including every late term abortion, is performed because of a threat to the life and health of the woman, it is fairly obvious how any physician can and should be able to reconcile being a physician with performing an abortion.

      Of course, no doubt in your world view, zygotes should have more rights than actual living persons.

    • (Show?)

      Don't feed the trolls. 14 friends and one "like" (Sean Hannity)? That's a fake FB profile or I'm taller than Chris Dudley.

      • (Show?)

        Women can control there own bodies. They can choose not to copulate. Once they've made the choice to copulate, the individual right to life of the "zygote" or, perhaps you prefer "useless skin surrounding the human life" come in to play. There are options for people that do not want the children they chose to bare -- adoption is huge and many would love raising the life you and yours would forsake.

        • (Show?)

          This is hard to listen to from the gender most likely to be driven by testosterone. You know what I mean, Geoff?

          • (Show?)

            Oh, I see, because I am male I can not possibly understand right and wrong. Are you judging me based upon a physical trait and not the content of my character?

            • (Show?)

              That you arrogate that you can tell a woman that she has to allow the use of her body by something which is not even a living person against her will or consent is a pretty clear indication you don't know right from wrong.

              But please, let me know when the law is such that I can force you against your will to donate a kidney to me or one of my family members.

              I'm sure that will sit well with your so called morality and libertarian ideology, no?

            • (Show?)

              Geoff,

              You keep saying "women can choose not to copulate", but then you also say "should one person receive the death penalty for another's crime?" in defense of restricting abortion even for those who have been raped.

              • (Show?)

                Answer the question.

                "Should one person receive the death penalty for another's crime?"

                • (Show?)

                  A zygote is not a living person.

                  (Show?)

                  A zygote is not a living person.

                  But please, let me know when the law is such that I can force you against your will to donate a kidney to me or one of my family members.

                  I am unquestionably a living person, and if I need your kidney, you have no legal right to prevent me from the use of it whether you want to or not.

                  Right?

                  • (Show?)

                    Weird, I edited that "before" hitting post when reading it after hitting "preview" yet the non-edited version posted instead.

                    Guess you need to hit "preview" again and not just hitting "post" after making edits.

                    Mea culpa.

                  • (Show?)

                    wow, same tired and hopelessly uninformed (but most of all just plain wrong) comment

                    1-10 days - Zygote 10-14 days - blastocyst (no more zygote Mitchell) this is the first possible opportunity for a woman to dwetermine if she is pregnant or not ...at NO TIME is she ever consciously preganant with a Zygote ...EVER! Hope that clears that part up ...a zygote is very much alive 14- ... embryo

                • (Show?)

                  BTW, are you saying that sex is a crime, or that a teenage girl who is raped is the criminal?

                  • (Show?)

                    Mr. Gore,

                    You are deliberately twisting my words, why? What are you afraid of?

                    • (Show?)

                      Hardly afraid of you or your words.

                      • (Show?)

                        I know and yet, you twist. Why?

                        • (Show?)

                          So my asking a question is twisting your words?

                          I also posit that framing this as punishing a zygote as punishing a "person" for someone else's crime is dishonest framing of the issue and is twisting the language, unlike my questioning (i.e. challenging) the framing of your assertion.

                          But it is also worth noting that your reply was to try and twist the situation by trying to imply I was "afraid" of something.

                • (Show?)

                  I don't care if it's a living person or not. If it's in MY body without MY permission, it's history.

                    • (Show?)

                      Yeah, let that sink in Geoff. A person finds it unacceptable to have something put inside their body without consent.

                      So you are ok with something being put inside of someone else's body without their consent?

                      • (Show?)

                        Consent is responsibility Mr. Gore.

                        • (Show?)

                          That is a nonsensical statement in context to the post you are replying too.

                          • (Show?)

                            it is right on the money Mitchell. Mel made the statement that the unborn child she herself conceived through her own actions and of her own free will is in her body without her permission. She put it there ...not some alien force who took her captive and impregated her with some sort of hybrid... Mel if you do the crime then you need to do the time

        • (Show?)

          Oh I see, they can control their own bodies right up to the point where you want the government to take control. Gotcha. Spoken like your typical oppressive male Christian.

          Interesting that you advocate for adoption, i.e., people paying for the food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare of other people's children, but at the same time you campaign against programs/policies/politicians which actually provide food, clothes, shelter, and healthcare to poor families in need. Nothing like faith-based logic.

        • (Show?)

          And as I asked up-thread, that applies in the case of a teenage girl raped by her step-dad and being forced by law to have to notify her rapist step-dad that she is seeking an abortion?

          BTW, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

      • (Show?)

        you must be having a conversation with someone else anonymous facebook user... I may have missed it but so far I havent read anyone thumping a bible or anything close to it.

        I think women have an absolute right and obligation to take control of their own bodies anonymous.. what women REALLY are saying is that they only want to take this control whenever it is necessary to solve the problems they create for themselves during those times when they are NOT in control of their bodies or judgment or actions and that doesn't cut it

    • (Show?)

      "Abortion on demand"... as opposed to "abortions even though you don't want one"...?

  • (Show?)

    I thought progressives looked down at people who voted against their own self interest in favor of social issues.

    If you mock someone who won't vote for a candidate b/c they aren't pro-life enough, what does that say about someone who won't vote for a candidate they are not pro-choice enough?

    • (Show?)

      Don't mean to get off topic here Michael, but you criticized me on an earlier post for advocating that progressives try to spend their money in a way that would advance their own interests, e.g., try not to buy stuff from right-wingers who will fund right-wing campaigns. I then asked you if you actually cared who got your money and how they decide to spend it, but you never got back w/ me on that one. Still wondering. I think it says a little something about someone's character who doesn't give a crap and attacks people who do.

      • (Show?)

        Do you support right-wing groups that boycott retailers who provide benefits to their workers same-sex partners?

        • (Show?)

          Michael:

          I support using all the tools we have to make our home a better place, which includes spending our money in a way that achieves that goal. Our consumer choices that we make every single day matter a lot. They can and do make a difference. Right-wingers/tea-baggers, etc. can and will use every tool they have to advance their agenda, we ought to do the same. If were going to a gunfight, we ought to bring a gun, or we’ll probably lose. Progressives spending their money in a way that will best advance our interests/values is not partisan, it’s smart. Some farms use lots of chemicals to grow their food, which destroys the environment, some don’t. Some businesses pay all of their employees fair wages and provide good benefits, some use sweatshops. Some CEOs fund right-wing campaigns, some don’t. Get on board Michael, don’t fight it brother.

      • (Show?)

        btw, my intent was not to criticize your character. If thats how it came off, I apologize.

        My intent was to criticize the partisanship of your idea. Partisanship is KILLING THIS COUNTRY!!!

        • (Show?)

          So you are johnny-on-the-spot to tell GOPers and Tea Partiers (one and the same) not to be so partisan, right?

          Like pushing back on the 100% fraudulent (and partisan) claims that "Obamacare" is a socialist take-over of health care even though President Obama basically pushed a Federal version of "Romneycare" which was fully supported by the likes of the Heritage Foundation, right?

    • (Show?)

      But therein lies the beauty of voting for John Kitzhaber, we don't have to make that zero sum choice. We can vote for both our economic interest of getting our economy back on track after GOP deregulatory polices drove the entire nations economy into a brick wall, AND protect a woman's rights over her own body.

  • (Show?)

    Joshua: 100% of women are pro choice? Really?

    Funny, Gallup seems to disagree. http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

    • (Show?)

      Rob:

      This is what I said:"100% women and a hell of a lot of men believe that control of ones own body is also sort of important."

      That's quite different than: "100% of women are pro choice?"

      C'mon Rob, use that noggin and read a little more closely please.

  • (Show?)

    This is funny. Dudley is probably more in line with more Oregonians than either pro-choice or pro-life camps would prefer anyone knew. He is somewhere in the middle, which means he struggles with the complexities of this very personal issue like most people do...eventually landing somewhere between the hard extremes. Each camp would like to force candidates into their Procrustean litmus tests to make it easy to defend or castigate candidates. 100%...all or nothing....with us, or against us.

    That's great fodder for an endorsement media release sent to an organization's donors, but it's rarely the way that most Oregonians make a decision, especially on something so deeply personal.

    • (Show?)

      Really?

      He is onboard with "more Oregonians" who think that a teenage girl who faces violence or worse if she has to tell her parents that she was pregnant, even through rape or sexual abuse at the hands of one of them, must be forced by law to have that same parent notified that she is seeking to terminate the unwanted pregnancy?

      So you really think that a pregnant teen must be forced by law to notify the sexually abusive parent who may be violent that she was pregnant form said sexual abuse?

    • (Show?)

      Nice try. Dudley is to the right, he is not a moderate.

  • (Show?)

    Kitz campaign spookin’ Dems

    Can't expect anyone here to mention anything negative about Kitz

  • (Show?)

    OK, I get it now, Joshua. You were saying: "Of the 100% of the women who think control of their own body is important, more than a plurality are also pro-life."

    Very strong point.

    • (Show?)

      There is no "pro-life" position by those claiming such a label. They are anti-choice and wish to confer rights to zygotes which trump the rights of actual living persons.

    • (Show?)

      Rob, are you really pro-life? Did you oppose the Iraq war? The Afghanistan war? The first Iraq war? The war against Central Americans in the 1980s? The Vietnam war?

      Just because you oppose the right to an abortion doesn't mean you're pro-life. I'd say that the Bush and Reagan administrations have two of the most anti-life administrations we've had.

  • (Show?)

    Gotta agree Rob. Absolutely 2006.

    It is totally shocking that Roey Thorpe would keep an eye out to the right on issues of concern to the membership of her organization, and would share her thoughts via an article in the Oregonian. Even more puzzling to think that fellow travellers over here at Blue Oregon would also see this as a matter of interest.

  • (Show?)

    It's pretty consistently shown that about 35-40% of Americans want Abortion laws kept as is. And that about 40-45% want abortion legal with some tighter restrictions, and the rest are anti abortion.

    So if Dudley isn't pro-choice, doesn't that mean neither is America?

    Also, 55-60% of Americans consider themselves pro-choice. Meaning it seems safe to say that that about half, or about 20% of Americans who want "additional restrictions" self identify as pro-choice.

    Here's my question. Do you really want to tell that 20%, who represent the difference between a supporting majority or a significant minority, to go shove it because they're not sufficiently ideologicaly pure for your taste?

    Should they self report to the next pollsters as Anti-Choice?

    • (Show?)

      73.4% of statistics are made up.

      Sources please.

      • (Show?)

        http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

        • (Show?)

          Thanks.

          And just as I thought, vague questions and not specific questions about what the laws actually are or example case situations which can easily change the response.

          Ask how many people answer yes to the question, that a teenage girl who is raped by her step-dad and being forced by law to have to notify her rapist step-dad that she is seeking an abortion?

          vs.

          Should parents be notified that their teenager is seeking an abortion?

          Those are the same issue as it pertains to mandatory parental notification. See how many people you can get to go along with the first question.

          Same thing with any of the issues surrounding abortion. Ask how many people think that abortion should be outlawed even when the life and health of the woman are at risk regardless of trimester. The majority would not support such a law, but that is would negate the support for the fraudulently named "partial birth abortion ban" does.

  • (Show?)

    Dudley is pro-choice. You don't have the right to make up new meanings to terms to fit your political preferences.

    If Democrats keep trying to move the goalposts to redefine pro-choice as meaning you have to oppose any parental notification requirement and any restriction on procedures such as "partial birth abortion" and the like, you will marginalize yourselves.

    One election on one ballot measure doesn't reflect the complex feelings voters have on issues like this. If you doubt me, poll voter sentiment on "Do you support abortion on demand under all circumstances?" and see what you get.

    • (Show?)

      Pro-choice does not entail parental notification requirements due to the possible circumstances that a teenage girl can raped by her step-dad and being forced by law to have to notify her rapist step-dad that she is seeking an abortion?

      BTW, there is no such medical procedure as a "partial birth abortion" which is a fear-slogan made up by anti-choice activists.

      And I love your blathering slogan "abortion on demand".. as opposed to what, "abortion you didn't ask for"...?

      More rhetorical gymnastics. If you poll should women have the right to an abortion if their life and health are in danger during massive complications regardless of trimester, which is what the fraudulent "partial birth abortion" trojan horse laws proscribed, you would find that people don't agree with such bans.

      But you certainly won one through dishonest propaganda I will say.

      • (Show?)

        The medical term for what is referred to as "partial birth abortion" is intact dilation and extraction, and is a procedure that is almost never used. Both pro-life and pro-abortion forces like to use their description of this as a scare tactic to influence voters who otherwise have a more moderate position on this issue.

        On the other hand, you gave your reason for being against parental notification but no explanation for why a person who is pro-choice can't also support parental notification any more than someone who supported prohibition could still support a drinking age.

        And, of course, the "rhetoric" and "propaganda" you complain about was exactly my point. It is simply wrong to assume that everyone can be put into one of two boxes on this issue.

        • (Show?)

          Well aware what the nearest medical procedure fitting the non-medical description of "partial birth abortion" is. ANd yes, thankfully the need for such abortions are rare. However that ban means that more dangerous medical procedures are the only option when a woman's life and health are endangered because of a catastrophic complication late in the pregnancy.

          But this has been the strategy of anti-choice opponents for a decade or more now. Nibble away at a woman's rights. Boil that frog slowly.

    • (Show?)

      No, Jack. Dudley's CAMPAIGN is pro-choice.

      During the primary, I listened to Lars and heard Dudley say very reluctantly that personally he's pro-life.

      This was due to some Lars prodding, and I have a feeling that his campaign team were upset about his out-of-line honesty.

      • (Show?)

        That's not true, Andrew. Chris believes a woman has the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion. That is, by definition, pro-choice. And it includes the right to choose not to have an abortion. It also includes people who believe that abortion is not an appropriate form of birth control as long as you don't impose that belief on others.

        • (Show?)

          Unless of course she is a teenager raped by her step-dad, and then she has to tell her rapist first that she is getting an abortion before she can have one, i.e. Dudley's position.

          • (Show?)

            There is not a parental notification law in the country that requires that and it would be unconstitutional if it did. But I know you aren't even trying to make serious points, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

            • (Show?)

              Really?

              Then explain how mandatory parental notification laws prevent this scenario please.

              Chapter and verse.

              • (Show?)

                Every state with a parental notification law allows for a judicial bypass to handle precisely these kind of situations.

                Most only require on parent to be notified in any event. Step fathers (rather than adoptive fathers) generally don't have to be notified in any event.

                Apparently, your preference is for a minor girl who has been raped and impregnated by her step-father to slip away quietly, have an abortion, and return to the home of her rapist without notifying the authorities.

                There are actually better examples of problems with notification statutes than yours but that woulod require you to think before you post.

                • (Show?)

                  Restrictive notification laws with judicial bypass give judges the power to say no to a teen's private decision to have an abortion based on the judges personal determination alone. Given the views of some judges, such as Roy Moore, that is an unacceptable risk.

                  • (Show?)

                    FYI: Look at this depressing report on the state of reproductive rights over this last year.
                    http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/2010-Highlights-8-27-FIN.pdf

                    Why would Oregonians ever want to risk what they have already? How could standing up for what we have marginalize us or brand us as extremists? No Dudley.

                  • (Show?)

                    Let's be honest, Theresa. You were never going to vote for Dudley in any event. But you have no basis for calling his views "unacceptably patriarchal." Even though I am pro-choice (by my definition, not by many of the posters here), I have met with the board of directors of Oregon Right to Life and I was the only male in the room.
                    The idea that opposition to abortion is a patriarchal effort by men to control women is demeaning to those women for whom this is a core principal. Oregon Right to Life, by its charter, cannot endorse Dudley for governor because it can only endorse pro-life candidates. (This was the same reason they could never endorse me).

                    • (Show?)

                      Let's be honest, Jack. You were never not going to vote for Dudley in any event.

                    • (Show?)

                      You are right, I would never vote for Dudley regardless of his views on reproductive rights. But some moderates could and do. I think that was the point of this post by Kari.

                      The patriarchy does not refer to just men, Jack. It is a system with places for various groups. Saying that a reference to anti-choice people is demeaning to pro-life women is a triangulation. Normally, pro-life women ARE part and parcel of the patriarchy.

                • (Show?)

                  Jack,

                  Yes, I would prefer that the teenage girl raped by her father or step father notify the authorities. But I don't want the law to REQUIRE to.

                  Would you favor laws requiring victims of other crimes to report the crimes to the authorities, with possible criminal sanctions if they don't? Or just these particular victimes of crimes?

                  • (Show?)

                    Michael, as you know, the purpose of the parental notification laws is not for law enforcement. My response was intended to expose some of the fallacies in Mitchell's example.

                    In principle, I believe the majority of people believe parents of a minor child should be notified before she has an abortion (and polls support this). But, as the Oregon vote in 2006 showed, it's often a different matter when it is the government that requires the notification and stipulates the manner in which the notification is given.

                    What most people would like is to return to the days when Dr. Marcus Welby learns that Susie Smith is pregnant and has a sensitive and heartfelt discussion with Mr. and Mrs. Smith after which the family bonds and helps Susie through her crisis. Unfortunately, in the days of pregnancy self-testing and abortion clinics, that isn't the world we live in.

                    By the way, I think a large majority of parents of pregnant teenagers would support her decision to have an abortion, and may even try to peersuade her to have one, rather than try to prevent it.

                    For a lot of us, parental notification is about trying to keep a scared teenage girl from having to go through a traumatic experience alone rather than enlisting the aid of parents to prevent her from having an abortion. But I understand the downsides of compelling notification in dysfunctional family situations.

                    • (Show?)

                      But therein lies the rub Jack. The world is not made up of universally supportive parents helping guide a teenager with an unwanted and unintended pregnancy to the best choice for her.

                      That is why mandatory notification laws are bad law and bad public policy. Because of the unfortunately all-to-often cases where a teen has legitimate reasons where they cannot safely turn to parents for the support I am sure we all agree should be forth coming from a responsible parent. Situations such as a families with substance abuse issues, emotional or physical abuse, or incest. To involve such parents could invite further abuse of the teenager and other family members.

                      The law needs to take into account those far less-than-ideal situations and scenarios, and why mandatory notification laws are bad law, and bad policy.

                      • (Show?)

                        That's where your argument breaks down Mitchell because notification laws do take into consideration situations that are less than ideal. having an abortion is not like catching a cold or even contracting an STD ... it's a significant invasive surgical procedure that has the potential for complications just like all invasive surgical procedures. Not to mention that a 14-16 year old girl whom the law says is not legally competent to give consent to have intercourse in the first place which as we all know is a far cry from the fun of an invasive surgical procedure and of course alot more dangerous as well right? (not) yet the law then recognizes these children as immediately having the compentency to make a life or death decision without her parents involvement...thats the most irresponsible and crazy thinking I could ever imagine being codified in our statutes

                        • (Show?)

                          Your assertion that my argument "breaks down" is not even close to being accurate. First, laws in 46 states and the District of Columbia allow mothers who are under 18 to place their children for adoption without involving their parents, but many of those same states require parental notification or consent before these young women can obtain abortions. This sets up a standard that clearly favors one resolution over another, restricts the reproductive choices of young women, and forces some to bear children that they do not want to bear or resort to unsafe, illegal abortions or try to perform the abortion themselves.

                          Second, going to court can be quite intimidating to even the most sophisticated adult, which i why most generally seek to have an attorney to represent them when they need to go to court for matters beyond traffic violations. For a pregnant teen in less than ideal home situations to use judicial bypass when mandatory notification laws are in effect (the only way in states that have them they can legally avoid mandatory notification) she must not only find a judge, she must work her way through a confusing legal system and face intense, sometimes judgmental, and often traumatic questioning by strangers. And as I noted above, given the views of some judges, such as Roy Moore, that is an unacceptable risk.

        • (Show?)

          I have to say that Jack may have convinced me that it's in all our interests to allow Dudley to define himself as pro-choice. Doing so assertively would no doubt drive the hard-core right wingers to either sit this one out or support a third party candidate, no? ;-)

  • (Show?)

    So what does it make a person who wouldn't personally choose to have an abortion, but who wouldn't try to restrict such choices for others.

    Not a trick question. I am very curious how a person of this mindset would be defined.

    • (Show?)

      Pro-Choice. That is the pro-choice position.

      • (Show?)

        But it sounds like they are personally pro-life. You can understand my confusion, I'm sure. It seems like we are not looking for answers for how people feel personally...but for how they feel publicly. Odd, for a decision that, at its core, is deeply personal.

        If a person said they were personally a racist, but publicly would never do or say anything of the sort...are they a racist or not?

        • (Show?)

          "Pro-life" is a meaningless slogan. Pro-choice is an accurate statement of position.

          The issue is, what is public law and policy?

          If someone is personally a racist, that is a personal ethical failing in my view, but even a racist should have the same rights under the law. It is when a racist seeks to make racist positions public law or policy where the real issue lies.

          Someone who would not ever wish to have an abortion and finds it wholly repugnant personally for themselves, yet doesn't wish their personal views to be made mandatory policy for everyone else, and that others should still have the right to seek an abortion, they are pro-choice.

          • (Show?)

            I don't disagree with your explanation, for the most part. I do, however, find it amusing that the viewpoint you oppose is defined as seemingly empty, meaningless sloganeering, while your viewpoint is an "accurate statement of position."

            • (Show?)

              "Pro-life" is meaningless because it presupposes within its very framing that the opposite position is pro-death or anti-life. Which is patently untrue. ANd being "pro-life" doesn't stop many who claim that label from also being pro-war, pro-death penalty, anti- universal healthcare, etc.

              More directly even within the topic of abortion, it is amazing that more than a few of the self-proclaimed "pro-life" folks propose bans on abortion and refuse to have exceptions for life and health of the woman within them.

              No abortion for a woman who will be rendered wheelchair bound, sterile (or worse) and the real possibility the fetus would not survive.

              Real "pro-life" there, as long as you don't consider the woman's life to be part of the equation.

              But as I posted up-thread in response to Geoff Ludt's postings, the real issue is does the state should have that power to force a person to donate the use of their bodily organs against their will or not?

              The pro-choice position is that the state doesn't and should not have that power. The anti-choice position thinks it should.

              • (Show?)

                I also find it interesting how often the "pro-life" crowd only concerns themselves with fetuses. They are often no so big on the follow-up, providing foster care or adoption to unwanted children, allowing birth control and sex ed so there is less need for abortion and providing a safety net for those who follow the pro-life creed and have children whether they can afford them or not.

                Not all pro-life are life that, but for many, once you clear the birth canal, they really don't give a damn about you--at least not until they need your vote.

              • (Show?)

                When the early termination of a womans pregnancy (attributable to her own irresponsible reproductively provocative actions)ends the life of a human embryo/child at any stage of it's post cleavage development the state should require the mother/host of that child to carry it to term absent any other life or death considerations. At that point the woman has had the opportunity on at least 3 separate occasions to act responsibly and chosen not to do so. Attempting to frame this as though the woman is being forced to "donate the use of her body" is both intellectually dishonest and fails to allow proper consideration to the fact that the woman in question both participated in her own impregnantion and failed to take responsible control of her body during the 3 occasions she could have done so and prevented the pregnancy. We all know how women get pregnant by now and according to Mel they are all insisting on 100% control of their own bodies which I couldn't agree with more. To have that control they must also take on the responsibility that goes with it. Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is not a responsible exercise of that control. She isn't choosing to kill herself ... and when one person engages inh conduct that is harmful to another then that is when the state should step in and protect the intended victim,

                • (Show?)

                  Robert, you seem to concern yourself only with the "irresponsible" actions of women. I don't see anything from you about irresponsible men.

                  Robert, have you ever had sex? Were you prepared to support a child to adulthood each time?

                  If conception is such a magical event, why is it that only about 1/3 of embryos will make it to term?

          • (Show?)

            pro abortion is the correct descriptive term for it Mitchell

            • (Show?)

              Pro-Abortion = Everyone should be forced to have an abortion.

              Pro-Life = No one should be allowed to have an abortion.

              Pro-Choice = Every woman has the right to make her own choice on the matter and believes that access to safe abortions should be legal.

            • (Show?)

              Not even close to accurate. As Mel Harmon pointed out, "pro-abortion" = mandating that abortion is compulsory or favored which is not at all what I, nor almost every pro-choice person advocate for.

              In fact, I want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancy from the outset and thereby reducing the need for abortions. The ideal would be that there is zero need for abortions except in situations where there is a threat to the life and health of the woman, or in cases of rape and incest.

              I advocate strongly for early, and age-appropriate comprehensive sex education and easy access to birth control such as condoms. Which not only reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies but also reduce the spread of STDs.

              Unfortunately many anti-choice agitators also want to eliminate or restrict access to accurate, comprehensive sex education and birth control and push religiously motivated abstinence only education which has demonstrably proven to be less effective.

          • (Show?)

            mitchell, you say the silliest things. LoL

            You: "It is when a racist seeks to make racist positions public law or policy where the real issue lies."

            Like affirmative action?

            Personal ethical failing? In your view?

            As I've ascertained from previous comments and your own responses, you don't have personal ethics and foundational principles you base your lack of ideology on.

            You have said you are a "pragmatic progressive", which to almost everyone means you do not base your views on anything concrete, so by default your view, opinion, or comment holds no value to any reasoned thinking person.

            Unless you want to correct your previous non-position on thinking.

            Do you have kids, mitchell?

            By the way "pragmatic progressivism" is failing EVERYWHERE, exactly because it avoids reasoned thinking, historical data, and real life experience in favor of a false illusory vision of what the world should look like.

            It avoids the question who's vision, and by what justification is it superior to any other?

            Your view on everything lacks any real view on anything, that's why it fails.

            It's also why you do not want to discuss fundamentals, morality, or principles except to personally attack others who do.

    • (Show?)

      thats a libertarian position

  • (Show?)

    Those who want to criminalize abortion and throw women in jail base their policy decision on a straightforward theological assertion, that a fertilized ovum, or zygote is a full fledged human being by virtue of divine ensoulment. Ensoulment in their view happens at the moment of conception. If you follow the logical sequence of thought based on biological science, then approximately 2/3 of all human beings who possess the fullness of human life and dignity and eternal souls are flushed down the toilet. A sublime thought to entertain.

    It is perhaps ironic and paradoxical that the foremost Roman Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, taught that human ensoulment does not happen in the first trimester but sometime later in its development in the womb. For that reason earlier Roman Catholic teaching permitted practices that ended pregnancy. It was not until the pronouncements of Pope Pius IXth in the 19th century that ensoulment happens at the moment of conception that the Roman Church changed its teaching about abortion, a teaching that has influenced not only the Roman Church but also the Evangelical churches to this day. Coincidentally it is also Pope Pius IXth is also the same pope that declared himself and all popes infallible. Such a luxury, to declare yourself infallible....

    • (Show?)

      Just adding to what I just wrote about anti-abortion theological position, many pro-choice are justifiably puzzled about anti-abortion people opposing contraception, since access to contraception is the demonstrably the best way to lower abortions. First, any contraception that inhibits the ability of a fertilized egg to implant is also considered murder, such as an IUD, or the Plan B pill. And some go even further citing a theological position they call natural law, which says that anything that "artificially" prevents conception is wrong. Basically in their mind the only moral purpose for sexual activity is to conceive a child, within the bounds of heterosexual marriage that is blessed and sanctioned by the church. So go figure.. how do people come up with this stuff.

    • (Show?)

      That is 100% NOT correct or accurate Bill.

  • (Show?)

    Carla: I hope you are still reading this thread. Would you like to substitute on my radio show for Marc Abrams this Sunday?

    You abviously like to mix it up. Let's do it on the air. If you are interested, just email me at [email protected]

    If not, I need a liberal for Sunday to have my weekly go-round with. Takers?

  • (Show?)

    So after 101 posts, many by the pontificating and self agrandizing usual suspects the question remains unanswered.

    Once again, And this federal issue affects Oregon's economy, its: huge revenue shortfalls, a state employee wage, benefit and retirement program that is unsustainable, a tax structure that penalizes achievement and makes hig earners pay simly because they can afford it, budget assumptions based on Timothy Leary like acid flashbacks, Trimet run amuck, centralized mandated planning failures and a crumling public education system how?

    Answer = not one damn bit.

    • (Show?)

      I'd say you do more than your share of pontificating and self-aggrandizement, Kurt. The fact is, the abortion issue is not trivial for either side of this question, and many voters on either side may consider it a defining and crucial issue in their decision to support a candidate. So your denigration of those citizens and their values and civil liberties is the height of arrogance.

    • (Show?)

      Kurt, I believe this is the second time you've referred to this as a "federal issue", but parental notification laws, and other laws that make access to abortion more difficult, are typically set at the state level.

    • (Show?)

      Kurt, you might not want to push discussing only the economy as that isn't Dudley's strong suit either.

      But a couple of us DID answer your original question at the top of the queue. Maybe you missed it.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks, Kari - I will definitely keep that in mind. Can you connect with Carla for me? I think she is no longer monitoring this thread and I don't know her email. Thanks.

  • (Show?)

    It would be good if a real dialogue could happen in this country about abortion and contraception that is not controlled by the extreme right or left, or the ecclesiastical authorities. If we examine the biology of birth and gestation through the lens of an informed and maturely formed system of values and ethics, whether they be of a humanistic base or a religious/spiritual base, there is room for a consensus to build around minimizing the incidence of abortion and maximizing access to family planning in this country. To do that we have to get beyond the shouting and slogans, and the extreme positions. The position that the human personhood begins at conception, even before gestation begins is absurd. It proposes a universe in which 2/3 of the human beings who come into being are flushed down the toilet before their life even begins. On the other side it is indefensible to say that the state, representing the larger community, has no interest in protecting the life and well-being of the unborn child when it is clear that there actually is an unborn child at an advanced state of development in the womb. Roe v. Wade was an attempt, a beginning, to try to define the public interest in this arena. But clearly the law, theology, and ethics must continue to dialogue and present a coherent approach to law and public policy that represents our best values.

    • (Show?)

      Curious, what is the "extreme left" position that disrupts dialog on this issue Bill?

      • (Show?)

        I was speaking about the public forum in general, not this list. I would define an "extreme" left position as being one in which there is no room for the state to intervene on behalf of an unborn child prior to the actual birth, when the child has come to full term and is out of the womb. What makes it extreme is that any consideration of rights for protection of unborn at any stage of development are out of bounds and not to be considered within the law at all. The unborn child, even in late stage pregnancy is the exclusive property of the woman carrying the child to dispose of as she wishes. That, for me, is an "extreme" left position.

  • (Show?)

    One of the reasons this post has been so popular is because of its’ relationship to religion.

    The fact that we have to constantly work to protect a woman’s right to control her own body is directly due to religiosity in the United States, i.e., the most religious western democracy. This is clearly a faith-based problem and one of the best examples of what I call faith-based lunacy. Opposition to things like, stem-cell research, equal marriage rights, sex education, are nearly impossible w/ out faith…in a nation which values science and evidence instead of mythology. The groups/orgs/individuals that continually fight to oppress women in this way are almost always religious. The war against non-heterosexuals, like the war on women’s reproductive freedoms simply wouldn’t exist if it were not for popular superstition, i.e., religion.

    As I have posted here on more than one occasion, the least religious democracies have created the healthiest and happiest societies on Earth. (Society w/ Out God by Phil Zuckerman.) This is not a coincidence. Irreligious Nations like Denmark and Sweden dominate categories that matter most like low violent crime, universal healthcare, gender equity, low poverty, social justice, infant mortality, education etc.

    One of the most significant obstructions to getting past unjustified and unsupported ideologies, and moving towards a more fair and just civilization, is the undemocratic protection given to faith-based ideologies. In the U.S. like many religious countries, religion is treated as if it is a biological characteristic, and criticism of it is often times treated like bigotry and shunned. Religion is shielded/given safe-haven from the same scrutiny other ideas must and should undergo. This is a problem and progressives must work to change this undemocratic and destructive cultural norm.

    Freedom of religion certainly provides Americans the right to believe whatever nonsense they choose to, pray, and go to church, but it should not provide your faith-based ideology w/ protection from critical analysis as it does now in most places in the U.S. As long as religion is given shelter from criticism a sit is now, it will be extremely difficult to achieve the goals all progressives work for.

    I highly recommend Sam Harris’ “End of Faith” or “Letter to a Christian Nation.” Most of us grow up never hearing a bad word about religion. Sam Harris provides a brilliant and spot-on critique of religion. He connects the dots between many of our society’s/the world’s problems and the faith-based moral systems/ideologies that help create them and perpetuate them.

    Trying to understand the world through superstition is a very stupid strategy.

    • (Show?)

      Joshua, I would not take issue with your assertion that religiously determined beliefs ought to be be subjected to rational and scientific scrutiny when applied to a discussion of policy and law. I say that as a religious person myself who finds many if not most of my progressive values arise from religion. That said it is a grave and self-defeating mistake politically to denigrate religion in perhaps the most churched country in the Western world. What you are insisting on is that political culture be rationally based. A worthy goal, no doubt, one which I hope for but which cannot be imposed through secular forms of self righteousness.

      Too often secularist progressives turn themselves into religion haters who are the mirror image of the fundamentalists they oppose. In truth we have a hugely varied religious culture in America, which is becoming increasingly diverse. In my own family there are Buddhists, Christians of every stripe, and atheists. So go figure. In the major cities of Oregon there are huge differences across the spectrum of religious communities. To simply denounce religion as a factor in political culture is itself irrational. Too often secularist progressives find themselves narrowly defining Christianity by the fundamentalist bible thumpers who are the religious right. In the vast expanse of Christianity the particular version we have in America of so-called biblical "literalists" are a recent creation coming from the late 19th century, early 20th century. One of the great mystics and scientists of recent history and the discoverer of Peking Man was Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priests. A pioneer of the East-West religious dialogue was a contemplative and mystic monk named Thomas Merton, a good friend of the Dalai Lama. And to this day many progressive activists on all fronts of political change and social justice are progressive Christians. The Beguine movement in Medieval Europe of women in independent communities of prayer and community service remains a feminist inspiration in the present day both in terms of social justice, women's liberation, and in mystic literature. And Dorothy Day, the founder of the Catholic Worker's Movement is an inspiration for social service workers and social justice and peace activists, who was herself persecuted and called a communist by the right wing in this country. The Buddhist Peace and Justice Movement is a powerful voice for progressive change.

      If progressives want to apply the rules of rationality, apply them first to oneself and stop demonizing everything religious and everything Christian.

      • (Show?)

        Bill:

        You are one of my favorite posters here but I think we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

        You, like many religious people, believe religion is a good idea, or I’m guessing you wouldn’t be religious. I think it’s a bad idea, a very bad one. It’s not hard to make my case. It’s a fairly simple idea: we should use evidence, not superstition, to understand the world and to help build our moral foundations. Christianity means something different to every Christian because it can, because it’s a faith-based idea…you can make it whatever you want I to be. We unfortunately often end up debating what is or isn’t Christian in this county as opposed to what’s right or what’s wrong because of the rampant religiosity. His is big fuc#ing problem…in my humble opinion.

        Now let me try to address some of your assertions. “That said it is a grave and self-defeating mistake politically to denigrate religion in perhaps the most churched country in the Western world. What you are insisting on is that political culture be rationally based. A worthy goal, no doubt, one which I hope for but which cannot be imposed through secular forms of self righteousness.”

        That’s like saying to people who want democracy in a communist country, not to ever denigrate communism. I’m fully aware that it’s not smart political strategy to straight-up denigrate religion. After all, if you don’t claim to believe in imaginary people, you don’t have much of a chance of getting elected in this country. However for those of us who believe that religion is a bad idea, we have to begin by trying to at least make it possible to allow religious ideologies to open to scrutiny. And that process involves pointing out the problem of these ideas given protection from scrutiny. You seem to be a fairly confident person when your telling all of us what’s right and wrong, (which I agree w/ 99% of the time.) I would avoid lecturing me or anyone else on “self-righteousness.”

        SEE NEXT POST

      • (Show?)

        Part 2

        “Too often secularist progressives turn themselves into religion haters who are the mirror image of the fundamentalists they oppose.”

        When I look at the world Bill, It seems pretty clear to me that religion is a very bad idea and I’m not afraid to say it loudly and clearly, as you have done about conservative ideas on this blog….you conservative-hater you. Comparing me to religious fundamentalists is outright inaccurate and kind of dumb. “Moderate” religious folk love to do this w/ “non-believers,” those of us who actually have the courage to communicate how they feel.

        “If progressives want to apply the rules of rationality, apply them first to oneself and stop demonizing everything religious and everything Christian”

        Now this is just disappointing Bill. You have seemed to put word in my mouth. There are l;ots of wonderful religious people/institutions/orgs etc. but that doesn’t mean that religuon is a a good thing. I attempt to make criticize carefully I order to avoid the same response you and many others come up w/ when I make the case I have.

        I doubt there’s much good in continuing a debate, I’m sure we could go on for days. One thing I hope we could agree on is that ideas, no matter how popular, should not be shielded from criticism and should not be treated like a biological characteristic, as it is now throughout the U.S. and much of the world for that matter. Let’s not have a double-standard for powerful unsupported faith-based ideologies. It’s not exactly good for democracy.

        If you haven’t read Sam Harris already (fellow self-righteous Christian-hater) I urge you to do so. This issue is so heavy that it’s impossible to get anywhere ion a blog post…especially if you have a three year old and a one year old running around. Harris is brilliant and progressive.

  • (Show?)

    What routinely amazes me about posts on specific social issues is they routinely get 30+ comments, while the pocketbook issues struggle to get more than 20 issues.

    I understand why. The debate over abortion is really a debate over civil rights. It is not about dead fetuses whom some consider living things. Fetuses cannot live on their own. Abortion is a civil rights issue where the debate breaks down to one side saying that each and every woman when they reach a certain age should be able to decide what they can do with their own body; others believe women should not be able to decide what they cannot do with their own body because they consider hour old human embryos as an individual who deserves the protection of society and all the rights enumerated in the US Constitution.

    Personally, I think this is a non-issue for the majority of voters come November 2010. The economy is the most pressing issue, while side issues such as abortion are just political fodder used to differentiate one candidate from the other.

    I doubt with 100% certainty, Kitzhaber or Dudley's position on abortion will put Oregonians to work and improve the national economy. Abortion matters, but it really does not considering it is pretty much a settled issue amongst the electorate. If a woman's God given right to decide what to do with her own body, embryos and fetuses included, was ever threatened or infringed upon, the pro-life movement would have a hard time arguing and convincing people that a fetus who depends on a mother for life is a human being whom Benjamin Franklin and the Founding Fathers thought of as an individual with constitutionally protected rights. Back in Franklin's day, women who did not want the baby drank a lot of pennyroyal tea to have an abortion.

  • (Show?)

    Ryan,

    On just about all the social issues that are up for discussion, the debate has gone on for years and the lines are drawn.

    To some extent, it SHOULD be the same with economic discussion - at least in terms of general philosophy - but it's not. And the discussion regarding specific solutions leaves even more folk along the sidelines scratchin' their heads.

    But the broad message on the economy should be so much clearer than it is, because in reality, the philosophy advocates on either side are distinct and easily described:

    On one front, advocates for big Industry and wealth INSIST that a continuation of tax cutting policies for those upper-enders will serve the purpose of revitalizing the economy.

    On the other side, progressives (should loudly and constantly) point out that 2 generations of shaving taxes for the richest has produced jobs all right - in 3rd world countries.

    If the right wing policy - which EVERY GOP candidate is currently advocating thru the worn out mantra of "cut taxes...." - works so damn well, where the hell ARE the JOBs, and why did the economy collapse under this very same policy under GOP watch?!

    Doing it all again is going to produce results?

    I call BS, and every other Dem and progressive should being doing so every day until the election.

    • (Show?)

      Carla, you can call whatever you want, it doesn't make you right.

      Are you blaming the Bush tax cuts for the recession? Seriously? LoL

      Are you ignoring the Reagan tax cuts and subsequent 25 plus years of economic expansion and prosperity, and all historical data that shows taxes hurt growth?

      Who's suffering during an economic downturn, anyways? the government? So the government needs more of our money, not us?

      You are correct to ask where are the jobs, especially after over nearly a trillion dollars in wasteful greasy "stimulus" the last 2 years that stimulated nothing, but your weak attempts to blame it on Bush in some lame liberal mantra that all polls show America has grown very weary of instead of taking responsibility, is the exact reason the democrats will lose big in the upcoming mid-term elections.

      Class warfare rhetoric is tired and old. You might want to come up with something new, as it will be the downfall of the democrats for a very long time. Attacking Americans and calling them greedy or bigots or whatever, doesn't sit well with the vast majority of us.

      So you know it is a statistical fallacy to group Americans into poor or rich by income. These groups are not static. Americans are socially mobile, due to what's left of our capitalistic economic system. The poor are statistically made up of the very young & therefore inexperienced, who over time move out of that category. Every 20-30 years nearly 80% of those earlier classified as poor no longer are. Most individual Americans take an arc over their life from lower income to higher income and then back down, entering into higher income for only a period of their lives.

      Class warfare rhetoric attempts to treat the rich and poor as static groups. They are not. We are a upwardly mobile largely classless society. Opportunity and economic freedom are what allows this. Those are acquired by a business environment that is competitive on a world stage. That means low regulation, low taxes, protected property rights, economic policy stability and government transparency. They want Expectations of future growth, low taxation & low debt, a stable currency. Predictability.

      Nothing coming out of the Democratic Party or the White House lends itself to any of the above.

      Taxing, wasteful spending, regulating, uncertainty, unsustainable debt, and blame is not leadership, and do not make for growth, prosperity, jobs, or a future.

      Progressivism has failed.

      Vilifying large groups of Americans will not change this. Reality trumps political tactics and rhetoric.

      All polls show Americans want limited government & lower taxes, and they'll take less services & less government intrusion to achieve it. They don't want class warfare or race-baiting, they don't want blame and division.

      America calls B.S.

  • (Show?)

    And by the way, Bush was a progressive, he just wasn't your progressive. Americans don't want big government "progress" of any kind.

    They want private sector progress where real jobs, growth, and prosperity comes from.

    They don't want to go back to Bush progressivism, or double down with progressive Democrats.

    They want Chris Christie's hard nosed honesty.

    They want our problems addressed, not finger pointing & blame.

    The answer seems repeatedly to be........Less government, more for America, it's children, and it's future.

    The left seems to be increasingly at odds with our future, our children as they steal from them, and Americans in general.

    You're not against the children, the people and our future are you?

    Stop taking(unless it's responsibility) and blaming, taxing, spending, and indebting.

    It's not progress.

connect with blueoregon