Twitter Updates

There have been others who survived abortion consideration. There have been others who have survived the abortion attempt. I can not imagine what it must be like to come to realize your mother tried to kill you….

I think the charge against Obama is accurate. He voted against the bill in committee to protect children who had survived an abortion attempt. He has a consistent record in voting for abortion and against the lives of the yet to be born babies. He has consistently voted to protect a woman’s right to choose to murder her baby. Yet, he claims he is against abortion. He says he wants better for his daughters. That is like saying, “I am against murder, but go ahead and murder someone if you want to, just not me.” Its insanity.

Imagine how well off this country would be with 40 million more people – at least 1/2 of which would be on the tax roles. Imagine what life would have been like with so many more doctors and policemen and fathers and mothers and engineers and scientists…. Imagine what diseases we might have cured with that many more minds to address the problems…. Imagine the art we have missed out on because of the lack of life…. Imagine the peace that might have been brokered worldwide, but for the loss of one person who never had a chance to breathe air… Imagine the energy crisis never existing because some unborn child grew and discovered an economic alternative energy solution… Imagine the music that we’re poorer for never having heard composed and played – all because of the lack of a desire to accept consequence and seeking the easy way out… Imagine the love a mother and father have missed out on…. Imagine how much fewer people would be damaged by the psychological and physical ramifications abortion holds for those girls and women who kill their babies….

God knew us before He formed us in our mother’s wombs…. Would He have wanted that woman you heard to never live? Would God have been pleased? Would you?

what more to the story do you mean? The difference between infanticide and abortion is simply the location of the baby, so its a distinction with out a difference. But yeah, he voted against the born alive infant protection act (or some such named thing) so that’s where people are talking about.

I’m just plain sick and tired of hearing, “What, as society, could we have benefited from with all those abortions that weren’t abortions?” That is not only an illogical argument because of the fact that it has future ramifications that can’t be reasoned out, or shouldn’t be used as arguments, because let’s face it, the chances of one of those aborted lives changing the world, is slight to none, but it is also just simply incorrect. More people doesn’t automatically equal, solution to the world’s problems, heck it could be argued the opposite. We’re at almost 7 billion people inhabiting this world, and your makeshift solution is to have more people come into this world? Third world countries are the way they are because the immense increasing population is too taxing on their country.

Let’s just say that China is committing a crime as well, by charging money to have more than one child, all those children that are unborn could solve their population problem. That’s almost like saying, putting more gas guzzling cars on the road will solve the climate/global warming problem. The carbon molecules will cancel out each other, some innane reasoning like that could do the trick.

If you are anti-abortion, pro-life, fine, but please, please for the sake of all that is good and reasonable, don’t argue to some future pretences that have very slim chance of happening. And don’t hint at the idea of trying to imaginarily solve problems when the solution to that is adding to a real problem.

oh puh-lease! If you want to support the murder of children, why stop at the unborn? Why not go for the elderly and the sick and depressed and the lame and people who do not fit the qualifications to be part of the perfect race? Oh wait! Someone already did that – Hitler, et al.

The idea that our population worldwide is anywhere near being unsustainable is ridiculous. The problem is not with the numbers of people, but with selfishness and other morals.

Any moral person who loves would want to protect people who need it. Who needs it more than the unborn? They feel pain, they eat, they move, they are alive. What makes it possible to stop their life? What makes it possible for you to kill or to approve someone killing a child? And is it any better to kill a child in the womb than outside it? If so, what makes it more palatable?

One person DOES change the world, for you, your friend, your wife. You just don’t know which person that will be. You have no idea if someone would have already cured AIDS because someone was aborted. Yes, there is the very real argument that we do not know who the people we allow to be murdered would have been. Because we do not know them, we do not live the lives we might have.

If you do not like the argument of who might have been born, help stop abortion, don’t support abortion and you wont have to read it.

You’re third paragraph is a better argument, and that’s when only views and assumptions of where life begins separate. When it gets down to that, then it’s a legitimate argument. Then you go back to your previous argument in paragraph four.

Anyway, I’m not pro-life. I just have a different assumption on where life begins. Besides, the whole point right now is whether Obama is pro-abortion and he clearly admits that it isn’t, he’s pro-choice. But, like most things words don’t matter, and that’s where the pinnical argument lies.

He can see a cross where there is an agreement between pro-lifers and pro-choosers. They both would like to see less abortions period. Under Bush and his pro-life philosophy hasn’t helped matters in the number of abortions that have happened on a yearly basis. They are still as high as under the Clinton administration. What Obama hopes to do is to decrease the number of abortions by giving suitable and readily available means to those who may not be able to support another human being.

It’s not about being pro-life and pro-choice and always having to stick to your guns. It’s about seeing where those lines cross and actually make a difference, and that is what I believe Obama will do.

If we cant decide “what life is,” then why should we debate and argue on what sustains it?

Wayne I think many people see abortion not just as one issue among many, but as a prime issue and a fundamental human rights issue on par with slavery. Viewed in that way, it cannot be compromised and must trump questions of economics.

Put another way (using the argument of strong pro-life people) would it be permissible to vote for a candidate who supported the unequivocal right of a person to own a slave even if they thought slavery was a bad idea but had no track record of voting against anti-slavery initiatives and indeed voted for the expansion of slavery rights? Can you see the point of why someone would vote against what might seem to be their economic better interests because of how fundamentally wrong slavery is?

This is how people see it. Abortion is not just a one issue among several; it is an issue of much greater import than say economic policy, especially in a nation as wealthy as our where it is very unlikely that bad economic policy would result in people starving. They are not equivalent issues.

And I would argue that we can say certain platforms are indeed more ethical from a Christian point of view than others.

I would agree with elderj’s perspective on this to an extent, particularly with regard to the comparison to slavery. Indeed, I see it in much the same way. But, I also understand your perspective. Too often, I think Christians sign their souls over to the Republic party in an unequal yoking. There is too much evil in the Republican party too align oneself too closely with it if you’re a Christian. That doesn’t mean to not vote Republican, but the Republican Party has some hideous evil in its ranks. The Democratic party has its own brand of evil and abortion is murder, a horrible human rights violation. Maybe a third way is needed?

Paul, my whole argument is valid. You just don’t like it. This does not invalidate it.

I agree with elderj, but I would add that neither the republican party nor the democractic party are very ethical in my opinion. So it looks like I agree with JO also.

Unfortunately, there is no viable third option. Yes, there are other parties, but none of them viable options for getting someone elected. I have no desire to throw my vote away. So I vote for the lesser of two evils. And its a sad state of affairs when that is the case, but its been like that for as long as I can remember.

I’m glad to see such a passionate dicussion about this.

I’m pro life.

for me however, the problem is not that the Supreme Court banned states from deciding to criminalize abortions. Its that our society, including our familes and churches 1)have a deep disconnect with the value of human life and therefore often paint the picture that abortion is a positive option AND 2) we have often neglected or ignored the contributing factors to women deciding to end pregnancies–things like poverty, inequitable education, depression, hopelessness, and addiction. I seriously doubt that overturning Roe vs Wade will have citizens valuing the miracle of life more. Our government is powerful, but not that powerful.

We are in crisis. our economy, prison systems, education, wealth gap, health care, international relationships and broken governments reflect the people of the society. We cannot bring a Blessed Community about just by voting for the GOP or the Dems, or anyone else for that matter. If all the pro-lifers commited to model the sanctity of life and sacrificed to do all we can to create for our neighbors the environment where deciding what to do about unwanted pregnancies is as supportive and loving as possible, I think we’d get farther than the supreme court can.

One problem is that voting Republican will not necessarily change anything with regard to the legality of abortion. There is a good chance that having a sitting Republican president for 8 more years (or 16 or 24) won’t result in Roe v. Wade being overturned, nor will it necessarily result in a ban on abortion.

Also, is voting Republican voting for the lesser evil? Much as I hate abortion, and I must say when the topic turned to Roe v. Wade in the last debate I felt sick when hearing Obama’s comments on it, I am not convinced that the Republican Party is the lesser evil. Please note that I did vote Republican in 2004 primarily because of the abortion issue. Since then, though, my support for this political party has waned. While they oppose abortion and gay marriage, say, what about other matters of mercy and compassion? At the very least, I think a good argument can be made that the Republican Party is not the lesser evil.

Now, I must say that one of the things I struggled with in making a voting decision is, no matter whether I agree with Democrats (or, at least, with Obama) on all other points, can I vote for him if he supports abortion? Say I lived back in the early 1800′s and opposed slavery, would I be able to support a candidate with whom I agreed on all other issues, but who supported slavery. What if the opposing candidate supported something else truly awful, such as the mass deportation of Native Americans? Could I vote for either? If not, then what else would I do?

More questions. Many Christians have opposed abortion, but has it made an impact. The voice of Christians in this country is often loud, but is it powerful? Or, are we like the pastors Wayne mentioned (I think) in Bellingham back during the race riots 100(?) years ago-opposed to a gross ethical violation, but ineffective? If the voice of Christians is ineffective-and in some places ‘Christian’ has become a byword, why is that so?

In the end, I voted for Obama (my ballot has been cast already), but I can only justify this decision because I know that God is not limited by man (or by political party). Does not the Bible say that God holds the heart of the king in His hand? Is God not still potent to change no matter who’s in power?

JO — yes, the impact of Christians on the issue of abortion has been profound. Working within the limits of current law, abortion restrictions have been put in place against opposition. And of course there are the questions of the judiciary.

The irony of your example re: the early 1800′s is that the Democratic Party of its day supported both slavery AND the mass deportation of Native Americans. As for being one issue voters, the Republican Party started primarily as a one issue party – the anti slavery party.

I think we are naive to believe that a candidate will not act to implement his party platform, which in the case of the Democratic Party including tax funded access to abortion throughout pregnancy. So when we vote for Obama, that is what we are voting in support of, and we should not deceive ourselves that it is otherwise.

As for questions of mercy and compassion, the fundamental question to be asked is not whether a party believes in mercy or compassion, but whether or not the policies they espouse lead to a more merciful society. The foundational principles of modern day liberalism is that the state is the best instrument for bringing about justice and mercy. Such idea leads invariably to totalitarianism as in communist Russia, which in 1936 had the most liberal constitution of any government in the world. (I’m not saying that Democrats are communists). My point is that implementing virtuous ideas through the instrument of state power concedes power to the state that can be used as much for ill as for good.

Those are good arguments, elderj. Of course, the 1800s situation I described was meant as a hypothetical one, not a historical one. In other words, I was not trying to sort out Republican and Democratic policies at the time, just throwing out some issues of the day and saying if one did this, and the other did that, then who to vote for?

A few months ago, I would have voted Republican even over any disagreements on economic and other issues. Yet, something about the Republican Convention and the way the Republican Party has handled this campaign profoundly disturbed me. I seriously considered not casting a vote for President at all, but opted to go for Obama for a variety of reasons. My vote would not automatically go to the Democratic Party-I would not have voted for Hillary Clinton if she had gotten the nomination, for example-and I may be wrong in voting for Obama, but I have voted the way I voted.

Anyway, regarding mercy and compassion, I’m not certain that the policies Republicans espouse lead to a more merciful society. A hands-off sort of government, which is what Republicans supposedly want-does not necessarily give way to a merciful society. Yes, power in the hands of government (federal, stae, local) can be used for good and evil, but so can power in the hands of citizens.

Incidentally, I do realize that even though I may vote for Obama over McCain and say I’m not completely voting for the Democratic Party, a vote for Obama is still a vote for the Democrats, as you say. Yet, that argument goes both ways. There are elements in the Republican Party that are truly evil, I would say. Do I want to support that?

Yes, the evils of the Democratic party are more tangible and “obvious”. It is harder, perhaps, to describe the evils of the Republicans, but I have a few in mind. I’ll have to return to this post, though, because I want to choose my words carefully without engaging in hyperbole.

I think it is important to distinguish between moral wrongs or evils that explicitly supported and written into a party’s platform (i.e. unlimited support for abortion on demand) from those moral wrongs or evils that are only incidental or consequential (i.e. tax policy that indirectly leads to an unjust wealth disparity) because those which are incidental are by definition unintentional, and not even necessarily inherent, whereas those those which are explicit really do have a certain morally abhorrent intention in mind.

For example a party may include support for completely color blind meritocracy in their platform which might reasonably lead to fewer ethnic minorities in places of power, but that isn’t the intention and would not necessarily lead to that end. Another party might include support for explicit race based quotas in employment which would lead necessarily to overt legal racial discrimination, which would be the intention. We can easily in this case see difference between possible versus intended outcomes. What we can’t see, and what people too often get into, is the motivations for people’s support of a particular stance. It may well be that a person is absolutely racist and therefore wants absolute color blind meritocracy because they think it will lead to fewer minorities being in power. Of course it may also be that someone is tremendously tolerant and believes the best way to have a just and fair society is to really disregard racial background as much as possible. Since we can’t know that, and because mixed motives exist all around, we cannot judge based on that.

Again, great points, elderj, but just because something may be “unintentional”, does not mean that those who commit “unintentional sins”, as it were, are absolved of responsibility for those sins. In the Old Testament, the unintentional sin received less severe punishment than the intentional sin, but it received punishment just the same.

You’re right that motives are difficult to judge and that they are mixed all around, but there are a few things I can point out with regard to the Republican platform that disturb me and that I think are clearly wrong. For example, Christians are often vociferously opposed to the teaching of evolution and natural selection, regarding this as a a false theory of the development of man.

Yet, if one examines free market ideology, it seems clear that the unseen market hand is essentially natural selection at work in the daily working of the business world, weeding out bad businesses, rewarding strong ones, and correcting itself with the process of increased growth in mind. I’m neither an expert in econonmics, nor an expert in science, but I concentrated heavily on Biology in college, read Darwin’s original works, and read The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith in my early 20′s and I do think the comparison is valid.

However, while I was a more or less fervent supporter of both evolutionary theory and the free market through much of my early adult life, an examination of the Bible convinced me that the process common to both is not the way God works. God lifts up and supports the poor and oppressed, the fatherless and the widow, chooses the weak to shame the strong, and generally works in a way that is often directly contradictory to either free market ideology or natural selection.

The Republican platform, then, insofar as it supports free market ideology, natural selection in the business world, is opposed to Christ. I’m not saying that the Democratic position is right, for abortion is clearly anti-Christ, and promotion of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle is also opposed to God and Christ, yet consider this. The Republican campaign recently recently conducted itself such that it led to rallies where cries of “He’s a terrorist! Kill him!” were heard. While McCain rightly defended Obama at one point in the midst of this rage, that does not absolve him or the Republican party of responsibility for the climate they created. This is a fruit of the Republican campaign. Is this fruit in keeping with Christ?

Yes, again, it is hard to judge motives, but perhaps we can see fruit. I do think that when Christ warned against leading these little ones to sin, I think he was referring to more than any direct enticement to sin, but to the climate or fruit that you produce. After all, some of Christ’s harshest criticism was directed at the Pharisees, yet it is hard to imagine the Pharisees directly enticing people to the more obvious sorts of sins. They did, however, produce a certain fruit or yeast that Christ condemned. So it is, I think, with the Republican Party. Not that the Republicans are Pharisees, or that anyone who supports them is a Pharisee, but I don’t see the Republican Party right now producing great fruit.

Sorry for turning the topic away from abortion, but I don’t vote democrat because while they care about the poor, I think they care about the poor in a pretty unbiblical way.

I’m a registered independant because I want to think independantly. I admit that I tend to vote republican because of abortion and gay marriage, but not only because of that. I don’t think the government should tax more heavily in order to create social programs for the poor. The can create laws that prevent the poor from being harmed, but taxing the rich to feed the poor crosses the line.

Freely you have received, freely give. God loves a cheerful giver. A theme that rings throughout the bible is that those who give are more blessed than those who receive. By taxing people (50% for a lot of people in Canada and Europe) in order to create programs for the poor destroys the role of charities. It robs people of one of the greatest blessings, giving.

Obama has a good heart. He cares for the poor. But God cares about the heart of the giver even more than he does the stomach of the poor. I don’t think Obama realizes that point.

Yeah, Obama is not a socialist.

Socialism is where the government controls the major means of production such as large factories, banks, farms etc. Obama is closer to socialism than I am, but he’s not socialist. We’re against socialism mainly because it doesn’t work and undermines hardwork values. USSR was socialist and so is China. China had to move away from socialism in order for the people not to starve.

Socialism is an economic system whereas communism is a political ideal, but they are related concepts. Socialism is generally more acceptable than communism but both are Marxist ideas. That’s my understanding at least.

I guess the word “unbiblical” is too charged to use here. Maybe “does not reflect ideal biblical values?” I don’t know. Not saying that government programs for the poor is sin. Just saying that it doesn’t capture the complete heart of God I think.

JO – comparing free market economics with evolution is a stretch at best and though there are parallels, it is certainly not an inherent evil (like aborting babies). Besides, both Dems and Reps support free market economics (though in different ways).

Socialism is roughly as rand has described it, though I think it is fair to say that means of production need not be owned outright in order for socialistic practices to be in place. The problem with socialism particularly though is not that it doesn’t work, but that it lends itself to dictatorship and works contra human flourishing by stifling innovation and devaluing work. In some ways it is a secular effort to create the kingdom of God without any recognition of human depravity.