Legalized abortion sewn into the fabric of the Democratic Party
Whether we like it or not, the Democratic Party has made legalized abortion a central tenet of its platform. While such a claim is practically a platitude, it is important to note that the Democratic Party addresses legalized abortion not only as an matter of individual liberty, but also a matter of entrenched partisanship. This is what really makes me sick. Straight out of the The 2004 Democratic National Platform for America:
We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
One wonders whether legalized abortion would even be mentioned in the Platform if not for those “Republican efforts to undermine that right.” In other words, abortion seems to be important largely because it is a political wedge-issue. Now, I have deep respect for groups such as Democrats for Life of America. But I cannot see how they can hope to make serious headway into a Party that explicitly seeks to counteract Republican threats to a woman’s “right” to choice. Not only is the dignity of human life cheapened, but it is cashed out in political, legal terms.
I realize that this issue is not quite as simple as I make it out to be, so I welcome any respectful thoughts.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
I think, Politicraticus, that we as Catholics are called to avoid any sort of total allegiance with another ideological movement: that is to say, while we can agree with Xism some of or even most of the time, we cannot allow Xism’s views on everything to completely shape our outlook. Both this reason and a few others drove me to put “no party” on my voting registration and to attempt to fairly evaluate each candidate.
In examining party platforms, we will find places where the Dems part ways with the Holy See and where the GOP does as well. This ought not be a source of some comment war (perish the thought! :) ) about which party is more “Catholic” but should rather help us understand that the Catholic message challenges American political parties just as it does every part of the temporal order: political, social, interpersonal. We build the city of God not by picking a “Catholic party” but by being relentless in the pursuit of our message.
I appreciate your post, and Chase’s response. Each election presents the quandary of choosing among candidates and parties each of whom promise, in one area or another, to push for legislation or action that seems contrary to Catholic teaching. On the day I cast my vote, having chosen as wisely as possible, I tell myself that I am choosing the greatest good possible.
As I watch elected officials make choices, in many instances it does not matter much whether those I voted for won or lost. The issues on which I hoped for action often move to the back burner once the candidate is in office, while the issues where the candidate parted ways from Catholic teaching seem likely to be carried out – and this is true whether the person I voted for wins or loses!
I am often torn between a desire not to vote – to refuse to participate in supporting policies so contrary to my beliefs – and a sense of responsibility to make the best possible choice. The late U. Utah Phillips, a confirmed anarchist who refused to vote chose, in the 2004 election, to cast a vote in the Presidential race because he was so angered by Bush’s war policy. Even then, he marked his vote “Not That Guy.” In many ways, he captured my sentiments exactly.
Platforms can be changed, though persuasion among other means. Unfortunately, our practice of responding to and discussing the abortion issue in discordant and divisive terms—such as those of the “culture war” metaphor—hinders a lot of persuasion from happening. We sometimes seem more intent on defeating the other than on listening to him or convincing him. I hope our next president, whoever it is, can lead a national discussion on the abortion issue, a discussion marked by respect and hospitality and a turn away from partisanship.
As a staunch Republican, I think it is quite obvious that the GOP is God’s Party. This, of course, means that the Dems are the party of Satan. There is nothing we hold in common other than campaign funding, commitment to capitalism, nationalism, golfing destinations, clothing stores we shop at, schools we attended, and being rich.
Samrocha, if you’re attempting irony or sarcasm, you’ve failed.
ok, blog comments, to be sure, might not be a place to look for good satire. So, that means you really do think I’m a staunch republican?
Policraticus, I am actually trying to get a Dems for Life group started in my State. My way of thinking is that what we have to do is make the party platform irrelevant. All it takes is a minority of pro-life Dems to get elected to get in the way of any pro-abortion agenda.
“My way of thinking is that what we have to do is make the party platform irrelevant. All it takes is a minority of pro-life Dems to get elected to get in the way of any pro-abortion agenda.”
I applaud the efforts, but it strikes me as hopelessly optimistic to think that ‘local’ politics are going to make the national party platform irrelevant, particularly the pro-abortion litmus test for democratic judicial appointments, or even a cessation of the efforts to block pro-life appointments. Support for ‘reproductive rights’ is a core part of the Democratic party platform, and that is not going to change for the foreseeable future.
John B: Is there such a thing as “hopelessly optimistic” for a Christian?
RCM – yes. Christian hope and charity are quite different from optimism. To vote for the Democratic party in national elections (and generally in local elections) is to vote for pro-choice presidents and judges. To hope, as you do, that electing a minority of ‘pro-life’ democrats ‘will get in the way of any pro-abortion agenda’, seems to me to be excessively optimistic about the power of such a minority to frustrate the parties’ platform. I frankly cannot understand how you think that such a minority would 1) demonsrate their ‘pro-life’ credentials in terms of votes, 2) exercise influence to the extent that it would influence judicial appointments or legislation in any significant manner. I hope you are right, but I am not optimistic.
The cae for pro-lifers voting Democrat is that the Democratic party’s better positions on issues other than abortion constitutes the kind of proportionate reason that justifies voting for a pro-abortion candidate despite that candidates position on abortion. Nothing hinges on the Democrats actually being better in some counter intuitive sense on the abortion issue than the Republicans. Lots of pro-life democrats have tried to make that argument, but it is not actually necessary for them to do so
As to the point of actively advocating for the pro-life cause from within the Democratic party, there are lots of ways in which that can be effective despite the party’s pro-abortion position. First, individual candidates and office holders can be pro-life even if the party is not. Second, there is plenty of room for the Democtas to moderate their position on abortion, which would do some good especially when you consider that for the most part small incremental improvements are all that are possible in any case. It is worth noting that as a general rule no national pro-life legislation is likely to pass without Democratic votes.
radicalcatholicmom: What state are you in? Maybe there are some Vox Nova readers from your state who would like to help.