Want some pro-life ideas on how to get rid of abortion? Start with quality jobs, educational opportunities, affordable childcare, decent health care...
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!”
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).
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Now I am going to have to back-pocket "Tuchman-style conservatives" as an epithet. :D
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.
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:
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.
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. : ) )
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.
"Start with quality jobs, educational opportunities, affordable childcare, decent health care..."
This is why folks who are pro-life vote for Democratic politicians. Democratic politicians are the only politicians available to pro-lifers who are wiling and able to pass these pro-life things you mention into law.
For reasons unknown to me, some people think that GOP politicians are pro-life, but there is no empirical evidence to support this view. Every time a bill that would help struggling poor women and their families comes anywhere near a Republican politician, they shoot it down so fast it makes voters heads spin. But let Team Red politicians catch a sniff of a punitive abortion bill and they are on that thing like white on rice trying to enact it into law.
The Republican Party is a failed enterprise for those of us committed to the sanctity of human life.
I would love for Democrats to predicate their love of social welfare and charitable institutions on the premise that each and every human person has the basic right to exist.
Unfortunately, we have the realities where (1) we have Democratic policies subsidizing abortion, (2) corporations more than happy to pay for abortions rather than subsidize child care and health care, (3) a rickety social welfare state which views the only means of assistance as government run rather than an orchestration of social, civic, and governmental assistance, (4) a bureaucratic class which views poverty not as a scourge which should be eliminated but an engine and opportunity to huddle 10-15 six figure salaries around the problem.
Of course, we can all immediately appreciate that the free market has lifted more families out of poverty than any government program or institution. Republicans have been consistent on this front; Democrats not so much.
Yet so long as the first solution to social questions is the elimination of the poor, and particularly the minority poor? So long as the first extension of social progress is an abortion? One wonders openly whether an RFK Democrat would survive in today's Democratic Party?
Jack Kemp conservatives, OTOH, most certainly do survive in the Republican Party and do not have to surrender either their pro-life, pro-education, or pro-working class credentials to do so. I doubt very seriously that such a candidate would survive the Democratic gauntlet today.
Originally, the pro-life movement WAS a lefty movement. But that didn't last long. For the last four decades, Democrat politicians have told the truth about being pro-choice, but GOP politicians have told lies about being pro-choice. Right now, Donnie T is in the process of escorting the pro-life movement straight out of US electoral politics by first excising it from the GOP party platform. BUT it sure looks like all the pro-lifers want to send that felon back to the White House even though he's obviously pro-choice and once he's POTUS again, he won't owe' pro-lifers anything. Faustian bargains must be paid.
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.
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.
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!”
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).
Mary’s Shelter.
It is located in downtown Fredericksburg. Please visit!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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. :D
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.
De-Nile is a deep, deep, deep river!
"Start with quality jobs, educational opportunities, affordable childcare, decent health care..."
This is why folks who are pro-life vote for Democratic politicians. Democratic politicians are the only politicians available to pro-lifers who are wiling and able to pass these pro-life things you mention into law.
For reasons unknown to me, some people think that GOP politicians are pro-life, but there is no empirical evidence to support this view. Every time a bill that would help struggling poor women and their families comes anywhere near a Republican politician, they shoot it down so fast it makes voters heads spin. But let Team Red politicians catch a sniff of a punitive abortion bill and they are on that thing like white on rice trying to enact it into law.
The Republican Party is a failed enterprise for those of us committed to the sanctity of human life.
I would love for Democrats to predicate their love of social welfare and charitable institutions on the premise that each and every human person has the basic right to exist.
Unfortunately, we have the realities where (1) we have Democratic policies subsidizing abortion, (2) corporations more than happy to pay for abortions rather than subsidize child care and health care, (3) a rickety social welfare state which views the only means of assistance as government run rather than an orchestration of social, civic, and governmental assistance, (4) a bureaucratic class which views poverty not as a scourge which should be eliminated but an engine and opportunity to huddle 10-15 six figure salaries around the problem.
Of course, we can all immediately appreciate that the free market has lifted more families out of poverty than any government program or institution. Republicans have been consistent on this front; Democrats not so much.
Yet so long as the first solution to social questions is the elimination of the poor, and particularly the minority poor? So long as the first extension of social progress is an abortion? One wonders openly whether an RFK Democrat would survive in today's Democratic Party?
Jack Kemp conservatives, OTOH, most certainly do survive in the Republican Party and do not have to surrender either their pro-life, pro-education, or pro-working class credentials to do so. I doubt very seriously that such a candidate would survive the Democratic gauntlet today.
Originally, the pro-life movement WAS a lefty movement. But that didn't last long. For the last four decades, Democrat politicians have told the truth about being pro-choice, but GOP politicians have told lies about being pro-choice. Right now, Donnie T is in the process of escorting the pro-life movement straight out of US electoral politics by first excising it from the GOP party platform. BUT it sure looks like all the pro-lifers want to send that felon back to the White House even though he's obviously pro-choice and once he's POTUS again, he won't owe' pro-lifers anything. Faustian bargains must be paid.
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.
The Advance should label clear opinion pieces as such.