A friend of mine from my days at Milligan College 20 years ago (or so) and I recently got back in touch via Facebook. While we shared a passion for music, working on a number of small projects together, we disagreed (sometimes vehemently) on the subject of politics, with me swinging to the (hard) right and him to the center-left.
Over the years, I think we’ve both moderated a bit (which age does tend to do), and I’ve come to respect a number of points he used to make (regarding social justice). Recently, he recommended a link to an article from the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, NJ, called (link fixed) When is it Acceptable for a ”Pro-Life” Voter to Vote for a ”Pro-Choice” Candidate?, subtitled “The Golden Rule should serve as a guide to those weighing a vote for “pro-choice” politicians.”
As he said in recommending the article, it contained a good deal of food for thought. The author, Gerard V. Bradley, first academically dissects many of the terms used in the debate of abortion, choice and life. He then does a careful job of providing ethical parallels, to help guide those who are struggling with their decisions on whom to vote for (if you choose to do so):
This question about the fairness of lethal side-effects is in the news almost every day now. Not because of abortion, but because of U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost every day there is news of an American air attack or ground operation which results in a substantial number of non-combatants’ deaths, or there is news about a post-mortem analysis of an earlier deadly attack. (Some days there are both.) The basic scenario and the recurring moral question are always along these lines: suppose that there is a wedding feast in Northwest Pakistan. Among the 100 guests are two high level Al-Qaeda operatives. The military reality is that any attack intended to kill those two puts everyone present at grave risk of being killed. Would it be morally right to launch the airstrike, thus endangering 98 innocents to get two who are not?
I do not know for sure whether, all things considered, the strike should be ordered. I do know, however, that any right answer to the question must go through the Golden Rule, precisely so that we do not unfairly off-load fatal effects upon people who are not like us. Precisely to avoid that form of unjust partiality towards ourselves and those like us, we must ask: would we order the airstrike if the feast were in Zurich? Or in Dublin? Or if the feast were taking place in South Bend, Indiana (or your home town)? If the answer to any of these questions is “no” then it is pretty clear that, if we nonetheless order the strike in Pakistan, we would not be acting in accordance with the truth that every innocent has an equal right not be killed. We would not be acting in accord with the Golden Rule.
We need to apply the Golden Rule in a very similar way to the question: when is it morally right to vote for a “pro-choice” candidate. I propose to do so by testing the three best arguments that “pro-life” voters voting for “pro-choice” candidates have made to justify their decision.
He then goes through the three key arguments in weighing this decision – Attacking the Root Cause of Abortion, Weighing the Balance of a Candidate’s Issues, and Women’s Equality – many things we’ve discussed here in the past.
All in all, this article is a very good read, which avoids the overuse of religious jargon and emotional appeal, rather dissecting the issue from an ethical, logical manner.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
171 Comments(+Add)
Abortion has become a non-issue, even among evangelicals. Millions of “pro-life” people will vote for Obama this year, which means either they do not understand abortion or they are pro-life in words only.
It seems to be a minor issue with the candidates as well. And on November 4th millions will walk into a building used for worship and cast their vote for infanticide. I would use the anthropomorphic term “anger” to describe God’s view of it all.
First off, I’d like to say that we’re not at war with anyone in Zurich, Dublin or even anybody in Indiana. That logic eluded me.
I’ve said it elsewhere maybe here…..I am pro-life and I’ve come to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter if I vote for a pro-life candidate or a pro-choicer. And that has nothing to do with what the pro-choicers views are or not are. The fact is that many have voted hard line pro-life and many have won elections with that stance so, with that in mind, has there been any significant changes? I think not. The horse is out of the barn, it not going to change from what it is now. At this time in history it’s a waste of time to use the pro-life/pro-choice as a litmus test for candidate anymore. Or a litmus test with any judicial appointmens. I don’t see Roe v Wade ever coming before the courts again, even if it is bad law.
From my line of sight, the politicians that claim a pro-life stance only pay it lip service also. Especially when it has to do with a presidential candidate. Even if a pro-life president has the nerve(which I have yet to see out of any of the pro-life presidents we‘ve had) to try effect any type of change, what power does he/or she really have? None from what I can see, even more so without a majority in either houses and I don’t see that happening. What difference is it going to make? I wish someone would tell me.
With that being said, I have yet to see a pro-choice candidate that I would vote for. Mostly because of the baggage I perceive that comes with that stance. It seems to be and always will be attached with a liberal stance that goes with the rest of the politics that goes along the pro-choice stand. Don’t misunderstand me I’m not the “hardcore” conservative I once was, like you Chris I’ve mellowed a bit with age also……..
Using that same logic, sorry Rick but, I would say that NOT voting would be doing the same thing! It would reflect a vote that the other side is NOT getting……
Scotty – I agree with your overall point, however my point was that the church building should not be used for political purposes, much of which is antichrist.
I agree with you Scotty.
Even if Roe V. Wade was overturned all that would mean is the states would have jurisdiction. If you want an abortion you would just go to the state that allows it.
I am pro-life but voting for Obama. There are other pro-life issues as well. War, care for the poor, universal health care – these are all pro-life issues. It is ironic that the people who make abortion the litmus test for a candidate also support war and guns.
If the church would be greater advocates for life (and by this I mean proclaiming life even beyond the womb) we might not seem so schizophrenic to the world and could actually help in decreasing the number of abortions.
Chad,
I agree that there are other pro-life issues. The thing I struggle with with Obama is the fact that he admits his plan is socialism. Of course, neither socialism nor capitalism are anymore biblical than the other… I just prefer the latter.
Neil
Rick,
….yet, the government also does the work of God.
God weaves everything into His work, but He doesn’t command us to be a part of it either.
Nor does he prohibit it either…
Actually, if you go to pre-1973 statistics, you’ll find that, while this did happen, there were a rather large number of abortions which did not occur because of the inconvenience of travel…
The other issues are truly side-issues, though, Chad.
I support war and guns for the purpose of self-defense (which is a Biblical position, BtW).
Care for the poor is not “pro-life”, but is in line with Jesus’ teaching (though expecting the government to be the care provider is not a Biblical position, as the only biblically supported purposes of government are to provide physical protection for its people and to provide an impartial judicial system) – the care of the poor is the responsibility of the church and society, not the government. Trying to shift that responsibility is a cop-out which robs the church of one of its purposes, giving glory for compassion to the rule of men, and not to God.
Health care a “pro-life” issue? Again – not the province of the government. While I might support means-tested support from the government (which is where Medicare and Medicaid fill the gap), again, the biblical purpose of the government isn’t to try and guarantee some sort of “right” to healthcare with funds extorted from its people.
Maybe there’s a reason that abortion has become a litmus test – maybe that’s because government condoning of infanticide is something that has historically really pissed God off, and it’s something He’s been crystal-clear on, with Israel’s banishment as a direct result if the sacrifice of children to Molech in the Hinnom Valley (you know, gahenna)… While Fundamentalist Christianity is wrong on quite a number of social issues, this isn’t one of them.
That may be the case, but wouldn’t you agree that travel before 1973 was not as convenient as it is today?
This is not an easy issue. This is the first time in my life that I am voting for someone who is not a Republican and not staunchly pro-life. I did not come to this decision easily or without a lot of reflection. Don Miller has a pretty good explanation for his reasoning for supporting Obama while being pro-life on his blog. It is worth the read.
peace.
One more thought about the travel thingy. If I were a business man I would be loving a state run law on this. Imagine if Nevada were the one state that allowed abortions. Can you imagine the new business that would spring up to make it convenient for people to get there? I can see Southwest commercials running new “Abortion Flight” ads with cheap roundtrip fares for pregnant women. It would become all the more convenient for a person who really wants one to get one. And if it is difficult? They will get it illegally and dangerously.
Chad is a prime example of how politics compromises almost evryone. The murder of an unborn child trumps every other political issue, even if the pro-life candidate is legislatively impotent to ban it. It is ma matter of principle, not pragmatism.
We will be held accountable as to who we supported, not how we reasoned away our pro-murder vote. In the end, believers in the Lord Jesus and the sacredness of His human creation have a calling to be faithful to what should be the pinnacle of moral issues.
Even if we could have done nothing to stop the Nazi’s from murdering Jews, we still should operate by principle, not just surrender to inevitability. Gad hates murder, and especially the murder of the unborn, and our calling is not pragmatic, it is spiritual.
We should not be ugly and abrasive, but we should be firm and loving. To vote for someone who will continue the infanticide is not who Jesus would have a believer support. At the least, don’t vote.
And my comment was not meant to slander Chad, it was meant to slander politics.
Your only option then, Rick, is to never, ever vote or take part in civil affairs. No Empire is going to be God’s will on earth. Period.
However, Jesus did not condemn even giving back to Caesar what is Caesar’s (the poll tax) and we could argue that Rome was the biggest perpetrator of infanticide in our history. In fact, one of the ways Romans knew who was Jewish vs. who was Roman was the number of children they had.
Your logic would implicate Jesus as one who supported such atrocities. Yet that cannot be the case.
Politics compromises those who partake in the theater of it all. Pro-life or pro-choice both are impotent to do anything about it. Not because they can’t but rather because they recognize it is just a mechanism to get votes.
Show me a politician who was not cherry picked, groomed, and handled to get there and I’ll show you an honest politician. Only problem is that ALL politicians are part of a system that thrives on nepotism, money, and prideful ambition.
Well, in a way, Jesus was sort of offering a pretty harsh critique of the Jews becoming intertwined with the empire. The fact that Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees were in possession of a coin stamped with Caesar’s image wasn’t just a rhetorical device. It was in fact another way in which some Pharisees were being hypocritical. Some prominent Pharisee teachers had actually said that the coins were idolatrous because they bore a graven image. So Jesus is not making the point that paying taxes is good or necessary, just that the Pharisees themselves had become tangled up in the politics of the Empire whether they admitted it or not.
What Jesus was trying to communicate was that His Kingdom did not operate on the same principles as the Empire. To follow Him meant to abandon the methods and hopes of the Empire and go another way. So I think it’s just as misguided for us to try to use the methods of the current Empire to try and change it.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t ever vote or that we shouldn’t pay taxes. I just think we have to realize where our hope comes from.
That’s an irrelevant argument. People choose to break the law all the time in an illegal and dangerous manner. Proven fact: people who commit armed robbery tend to die because of illegal and dangerous activity. The question isn’t whether or not this law would be violated but whether or not abortion is moral. If you come to the conclusions that it is not moral, then there should be a law to stop it. Just as there is a law to stop murder of one adult to another adult, one adult stealing from another adult, etc.
If the law is just, then people risking their life to violate for their own convenience is irrelevant.
I’ve read Miller’s explanation (and I was just as disappointed at his actions re: the Obama campaign as I have been with Jim Dobson’s interventions in GOP campaigns), and all I can say is “whatever helps you sleep at night…”
The “right to life” was first brought to light in Genesis, affirmed in the Mosaic Covenant, further defined in Leviticus, and made fully practical in the Jewish Oral Law, which Jesus affirmed in the story of the Good Samaritan. Basically stated, innocent life must be preserved over every other law other than idolatry/blasphemy and adultery. Any other moral equivalencies don’t wash…
And yes, Rick makes a point about why it is so difficult for Christians to participate in politics, because of the weighing of issues when supporting a candidate. In the case of abortion (and any other legalization of murder), the line is pretty clear – other things, like interpretation of “care for the poor” and the government’s role in it, are secondary.
No matter how you try to rationalize it away, a vote for a pro-abortion candidate is a public affirmation of the right to murder “the least of these”.
Now, am I naive enough to believe every politician that claims to be “pro-life” that they are, indeed, pro-life? No. However, since this has become a judicial matter rather than a legislative one, the President of the US is truly the only politician with the ability to significantly impact this issue, at the moment. And on this matter, McCain has been consistent – no matter how much some of his other stances have been less than ideal. Obama has also been consistent, as well – to the point of affirming that the right to abortion is not the right to terminate a pregnancy, but rather is the right to a dead child.
1) Talk about moral relativism – let’s not make murder illegal, because people will still do it, but it will be more dangerous? Really?
2) I don’t see any publicly traded corporation doing as you suggest. The issue is far too polarizing for an industry with already thin profit margins to risk halving their potential customer pool. It wouldn’t fly (no pun intended).
3) Judging from the real-life issue of prostitution (illegal in all states, except for a few Nevada counties), somehow I doubt that prostitution activity across the US would remain constant if it were suddenly made legal and easily available.
Chad, this is moral relativism at its worst…
Phil,
That is exactly right. Especially this point:
It is true that by the very gesture of the Pharisees being able to produce the coin with an image on it in the Temple (something they were vocally against) shows their own hypocricy. But even in spite of that Jesus does not say don’t pay the tax (something that would have had him arrested on the spot for treason) but give what is Caesar’s back to Caesar. The second part of that is the kicker: Give to God what is God’s. We are stamped with the image of God – thus, ALL of what we are is to go to God.
That being said, however, there is an obvious tension between our civil discourse and our duty to God. Jesus did not openly condemn the injustices of Rome (like infanticide) but he did show us how to be the Church in the midst of it.
Chris L.
You really have to help me understand the duplicity of your argument.
On one hand you say abortion needs to be stopped because it harms the “least of these” but by in large the Republican policies of the last 8 years have harmed the “least of these”.
I don’t agree with abortion but I also don’t agree with capital punishment. I don’t agree with dictators but I also don’t agree with collateral damage to remove a dictator. I don’t agree with corporate welfare but I don’t think a single mom should have to leave her kids in the hands of headstart because the government thinks she shouldn’t get a hand out.
Government didn’t take the role of the Church. The Church abdicated it’s role a long time ago.
“Don Miller has a pretty good explanation for his reasoning for supporting Obama while being pro-life on his blog. It is worth the read.”
I cannot imagine a single worthwhile reason to vote for Senator Obama. And besides, who cares what some one else’s reasons are for voting for someone? The only reason to vote for someone is if I think I should vote for them, if the candidate lines up with my ideas–not if I line up with his/hers.
On the other hand, I can’t think of a single reason to vote for McCain either. He is little more than Bob Dole propped up. Until conservatives learn to put up a younger, CONSERVATIVE, living candidates, conservatives will not win such elections–regardless of how pro-life their candidates are. I think there’s a lot of people my age who have become more than single-issue voters, and ‘we’ are tired of old-dudes being the only options ‘we’ are given in elections.
So I will protest both parties this year and vote for neither of those jackasses.
To be sure, my main issue for voting is not Roe v Wade as I don’t think Washington DC is the place that battle should be fought or can be won. My main concerns are freedom from the tyranny of taxes, personal liberty, and my freedom to worship as I please.
That’s my .02.
jerry
Chris L.
It is unfair to claim that those who understand the limits of legislation are moral relativists. I understand a ban on masturbation would be pointless, but that doesn’t mean I think anything goes regarding lust.
And how do you balance abortion against war? It is not as if the Republicans have clean hands concerning the sin of murder. And in that case, it was the President who ordered the bombs that killed the Iraqi civilians. The last I checked, Obama is not an abortion doctor.
Joe,
Would you take the same position about war? How about health care?
Look, like I said before this is not an easy issue. It is intellectually and morally lazy, however, to assume that abortion is the issue that trumps all others and makes one politician “righteous” over and against another. Lets not fool ourselves.
If it is, as you say, a moral issue (which I agree with) than why are we pinning our hopes on the government to legislate our morals? To give a woman a choice is not to be pro-abortion/murder. It is simply to recognize, from a secular viewpoint, that this is a complex issue. I would expect nothing less from a godless governemnt in a nation that is not Christian (again, we are fools if we think we live in a christian nation).
The task for us as Christians is to proclaim the sanctity of life in ALL areas (including the womb AND outside the womb) and provide outlets and resources for those faced with choices the gov’t. has allowed. Voting for a pro-life candidate who is also pro-war is an oxymoron. Voting for a pro-life candidate and then to think we are voting for a righteous “king” is also nonsense. Voting for a pro-life candidate does not put us off the hook or allow us to say we have now acted more morally than those who did not, thus washing our hands of the problem.
Personally, I don’t think the Democrats would have reacted all that differently to what happened after on 9/11 than how the Republicans did. You have to remember that when the US first went into Iraq, it was not a unilateral decision by Bush.
I’m not saying it was a wise decision, but I don’t think you can say that the Dems are the reasoned ones and the Pubbies are just warmongers. When it comes down to it, they both think violence will solve things.
As far as capital punishment, I would say my position on it has softened throughout the years, mainly because of issues of people being wrongfully condemned, but I have to say I still don’t get the comparison of convicted murderer to an unborn child.
I guess one thing that I see is that a more liberal position ends up seeing the perpetrator of a crime as a victim more than the person who actually suffered the crime. Rehabilitation is an important thing, but justice is as well.
I understand a ban on masturbation would be pointless, ….
And how do you balance abortion against war?
M.G.
Are you anti all war? Just this war? Either way, let’s look at this for a minute. On one hand comparing lust to murder seems rather disingenuous to me.
For fairness, let’s look at the war. 4,000 humans are dying in abortion here everyday. Even the most horrifying numbers of deaths in the war would are surpassed quickly here in America. I realize if you are coming from the position that all war is wrong, then this is a moot point.
My concern with arguments like yours and Chad’s (at least as I perceive them–which may not be accurate) is that if a person is against abortion but not the death penalty or the war than they are illogical in their voting choice but if one is against the death penalty and the war, then those issues are more important than abortion and should inform our vote more than abortion should.
I don’t understand that view at all.
All candidates are pro-war. It just depends whether the war is popular or not.
I’m starting to sound more and more like Rick. I’m kind of worried…
Phil I’m not arguing about who is worse or who is right. I’m arguing that politics is a sham. All the way around. One will say “Abortion is wrong” in one breath and then turn right around and say “Drop the bomb”.
Whoa, there Dukey, I never said one candidate was righteous. I cannot vote for someone who is actively for making abortion more accessible.
That doesn’t mean I think McCain is all that great of a candidate.
I’m sorry, we disagree that healthcare is as important an issue as the active extermination of life through abortion.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth and setting up a straw man to burn down. I am not pinning my hopes on the government. I am expecting it to do what is right, just as I expect it to do what is right and not allow me to kill you–which is again a moral issue. Why do we expect them to “legislate our morals” then but not when it comes to an unborn person? If they will make murder legal across the board then at least we’ll be consistent.
As for war (please note that I’m not saying “this” war but I am talking about war in general), I am a former soldier so I assume we’ll disagree there as well. Which is fine, but please don’t put words in my mouth.
I wasn’t “comparing” lust to murder. I was making the point that what you believe about the power of human laws and criminalization does not *necessarily* determine whether you are a moral relativist.
I’m against pre-emptive war. And comparisons are hard to come by here because it was the *President* who invaded Iraq.
However,even if there were a constitutional amendment banning abortion, *doctors* would still perform them, and by the thousands.
Chris -
The fact that abortion is the murder of the “least of these” (about as “least of these” as you can get) is actually a secondary issue to the fact that it is murder of innocent life. Is caring for the poor something we are commanded to do? Yes. Is it something the government commanded to do? No.
However, one of the two biblical mandates of government is the maintenance of a fair judicial system. So, murder is directly in the purview of the judicial system, so its illegality is part of government’s God-given role.
“Social justice” (i.e. caring for the poor, the sick, and the weak), on the other hand, is not part of the job of government – it is part of the job of the church and individual members of society. Unwilling extortion of money – even for noble purposes – is not condoned by scripture. If I go rob a bank and then give all of the stolen money to a homeless shelter, God is not honored and the work of the kingdom is not done. In the same way, if my government forces me and others to fork over money (against a threat of imprisonment) in order to do ‘good works’, God is not honored and the work of the kingdom is not done.
I only agree with capital punishment if its evidence is in line with biblical mandate – two witnesses (of which, I would consider DNA to be a liable substitute for one witness, but not two). This is consistent with biblical principle.
Was this self-defense (which is within the biblical purview of government) or conquest (condemned by a biblical world-view)? If you believe it was the former, then I don’t have a problem with the removal of a dictator – if it was the latter, I have a problem. In the case of Iraq, I’m torn, but – based on the data available at the time – I would reluctantly support the actions taken.
A false dichotomy.
Corporations don’t pay taxes – consumers pay corporate taxes via increased prices in the goods produced.
Should the single mother be helped? Most certainly. Should the government be the institute of that help? Not in God’s kingdom. I realize that this is the idealist in me speaking, though, which is why – because of the partial failure of the church – I support some means-tested programs (i.e. temporary, based on short-term need with the aim of eliminating that need for the individual by helping them become self-sufficient). What I don’t support is gross redistribution of wealth w/o means testing – i.e. giving “tax cuts” to people who pay no taxes… That’s not the government’s business…
Actually, if you follow the history of the late 1800’s, the church was actually doing quite a lot, as were church-affiliated aid societies. This wide net went away when it suddenly became the government’s role.
So, to be accurate – Government took the role of the Church, and the church didn’t fight back to take it back. Instead, it chose to abdicate one of its chief roles. I see the shift in the church over the past decade towards social causes as a willing tide to take that back, should it be allowed to do so. But why provide something for the poor, when they already get it from the government?
Where does my help come from? Ask the psalmist…
Why does this argument always seem to be used when we are discussing people who disagree with us? It is rude at best to imply that somehow I have not wrestled both intellectually and morally with this issue simply because I believe there are some issues that are so important that they become “one issue” issues.
It works both ways by the way…
I can’t reconcile being against war but for abortion.
Joe, I am former military myself.
Look, if the rhetoric is going to start to fly (Dukey) and such, then I will respectfully bow out of this conversation. It is not worth coming to arms over and I am so tired of the “Right” making villians out of those who disagree with them on this volatile issue.
In the end, Jesus is Lord – not America and certainly not our president.
grace and peace.
BTW, I’m not “pro war” I am simply “Pro Choice” when it comes to war.
Chad,
Dukey was a joke. (Go HEELS). I find your last comment to be rather ponderous however, when it is you who was “making a villian” of me saying I was intellectually and morally lazy. Saying that I was pinning my hopes on the government, saying many other things that I didn’t say.
If you want to vote for Obama, vote for him, if you don’t, don’t. I’m ok with that, but please argue honestly and fairly.
And…?
I mean so what? So then Doctors will break the law.
Having said that, I do not believe we’ll ever see abortion made illegal.
…with congressional approval. I’m sorry, but if we’re going to hold it against one, we need to hold it against them all. Now Bush was the executive, so he rightly does have a bit more responsibility. But to just blame him seems just to play into the narrative that the Dems have been trying to use for their benefit.
Just so that everybody knows. I won’t be voting for Obama or McCain.
Me either. Probably. But yes, I will be voting.
No absentee ballots in South Africa?
Joe, I wasn’t calling you intellectually lazy. I was making a general point and restating what I have said before about most of the arguments involved in this debate.
How do you reconcile that with your views on abortion?
I’m not pinning my hope on the government to legislate our morals. I’m pinning my hope on the government doing one of the two things God set forth for its purpose in the first place – justice for the innocent victims of murder.
This has nothing to do with legislation, at the moment, because Roe v. Wade has removed it from the realm of legislation. It is now a judicial issue. And the limits of the judiciary are that they are appointed by the executive branch of our government. SO – specifically when it comes to the single selection of the head of the executive branch (who controls judicial appointments), one’s vote is a moral question when the candidates have made clear what their judicial appointment philosophy would be.
I support ‘war’ for the purpose of self-defense, but not for the purpose of conquest. The first is part of the biblical mandate for government – the latter is part of the biblical prohibition broken by Solomon (and others).
Abortion, on the other hand, is always the taking of innocent life. Always.
Weighing the two isn’t all that difficult.
Chris-
Some would argue that war is always evil – always.
Please don’t let this thread go down the “Iraq war” path!
Let’s all just agree that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been a cluster since about 1945. And leave it at that.
Honestly, I was trying to use satire to point out the incongruity of that statement when it is used in the reverse. If I am pro choice for the war, than I am obviously for the use of war. When someone says they are pro-choice for abortion, then they are for abortion no matter how they try to state it.
And some would argue that taking a drink of alcohol is always evil – always.
Elevating personal convictions to moral absolutes is legalism, no matter whether it is practiced by the right or the left…
For some reason the American embassy doesn’t accept having American citizens as friends as a reason to vote in an American election…
Did anyone read the linked article? That’s one of the first points made…
Just tell them, you’re from Ohio
Oh yes, I did.
I am not following your logic. If you say you are pro-choice for war than I am assuming what you mean by that is that you allow war to be an option, such as in the case of self-defense. So what I am asking is why can you so easily say you are pro-choice for war, which doesn’t mean war is inevitable, and not pro-choice in reproduction, which doesn’t make abortion inevitable?
Oh snap!
It’s interesting to me that essentially we seem to using the same arguments here, just for different things. I think all of us would agree that war is evil. I don’t think God delights in humans killing other humans at all. But I really can’t see that war will ever cease to exist as long as there are nations on earth. Humans are pretty much addicted to war. So what I see is that those on the right are willing to see war as a necessary and unavoidable evil. I will grant that some have made it some sort of panacea.
Now abortion is always evil in my opinion as well. To me though, it isn’t just a matter of seeing it as a necessary evil. It’s something that could largely be prevented. I truly believe that abortion should be illegal in the same way that murder is illegal. Murder happens, but we don’t view it as “necessary evil”.
It’s just interesting to me that the rhetoric is so similar for both things.
Why are you assuming that non-violent resistance or pacifism is a “personal conviction” only? Comparing the rightness or wrongness of war with taking a drink of alcohol is an unfair comparison.
Chad, I am saying that I am for war. I believe war can be used in a Biblical manner. I do not ever believe that abortion can used in a Biblical manner.
Joe, I disagree.
Put another way, I believe there are times where nations are forced to go to war. I do not believe there is ever a time when a person is forced to commit murder via abortion.
Chris L.,
Now I’m really confuzzled. I thought that you were reacting to Chad’s point refarding the consequences of criminalizing abortion. But what you were really saying is that by voting for Obama, qua Obama, you are a relativist. That doesn’t seem right. It seems rather that you believe that a vote for Obama is a moral error.
You missed my point about war. I would agree with you that war is not always wrong. I’m no pacifist. But the war in Iraq was not self-defense. It was, in my opinion, deeply wrong.
Assume I’m right. How would you balance the murder of Iraqis against the murder of the unborn?
It is something I struggle with.
But, Joe, come on. This is not fair. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head and forcing them to have an abortion. No more than giving people the right to own guns or making it easy for them to get them is forcing them to commit murder.
The only instance that I could agree with this statement is in the necessity of self defense.
Joe, I disagree.
Fair enough. I said that I assumed we’d disagree. That still doesn’t explain to me how you can be for abortion (which is killing far more people and will continue to do so than the war) and claim consistency. I realize that you feel I too am being inconsistent but help me realize how you believe you are being consistent.
While you may not accept my reasons, I have history on my side. Would you say that defeating Hitler wasn’t a Biblical thing?
Sure, it’s fair. You and I are just more concerned about different people in the equation: You seem to be concerned with the woman (No one is putting a gun to a woman’s head and forcing her to get an abortion); whereas I am concerned with the aborted baby, who I think we can safely say is being forced to take part in the abortion.
Because there is no clear, biblical mandate to support this.
Conversely, the biblical role of government is two-fold – physical protection and provision of judicial regress. Physical protection may require “war”…
[However, since I do note that it is "personal conviction", I fully support the individual's right to take the role of a CO, and to not be forced against his will to commit what he believes to be a sin.]
As we all should…
Exactly. I think we can have an honest debate over whether or not Iraq was truly ’self-defense’ (there are good arguments both for- and against-).
Joe, let me put on my Rush Limbaugh face and be very, very clear: I am not FOR ABORTION. In fact, I don’t know any person who supports choice that is pro-abortion.
My views on this have changed considerably in the last few years. 4 years ago I would have probably voted for a candidate on this issue alone, being pro-life. I am still pro-life but see that there are many, many pro-life issues that extend beyond the womb.
To give a woman a choice, though, is not to say you want dead babies but to recognize, as I think we all agree, that this is a MORAL ISSUE and the government should, perhaps, not legislate morality. In reality, I would rather women chose NOT to have an abortion NOT because the government tells them it is illegal to do so but because they recognize the sactity of ALL life, both in and out of the womb, and they come to this recognition not becaues their president vetoed Roe V Wade but because of the Church’s proclamation.
FTA:
Chris L-
That is silly, sorry. It is just as silly if I say that the person who is pro-gun ownership is also pro violent murder via guns.
Slavery is a little bit easier to regulate than abortion.
Regulating abortion is like regulating masturbation. Do it to make yourself righteous, but don’t do it because it will have a dramatic impact on people’s behavior.
The ironic thing for me in this whole conversation is that the abortion issue is really almost a non-issue for me in deciding whom to vote for in this election. I’m far more concerned about Obama’s socialist economic policies than the whole abortion issue. I don’t think either candidate will influence the abortion issue that much, barring a Supreme Court nomination. But even then I don’t see the issue changing all that much.
But we legislate morality all the time. See my previous comment before about murdering adults, stealing, all of our laws legislate morality. That baby is being forced to participate and is being killed as part of that participation. I think we have gone around this tree as much as is profitable. You’ve stated your opinion, I’ve stated mine. We disagree.
I’ll leave the last word on this topic between you and I to you.
Peace.
Is the ‘collateral damage’ death of ‘innocent Iraqis’ worse than the murder of ‘innocent Iraqis’ by their former dictator? Or the death of innocents when he invaded ‘innocent’ Kuwate? How many more ‘innocent’ people should Saddam have been allowed to murder before the resolutions passed by the UN were actually enforced? Seriously? What is ‘innocent’ here about a people who tolerated that man in power? Seriously?
Joe,
Grace and peace, brother.
Well, heck then, why have any laws at all? Why have laws against murder of your own post-born children? Why should it be murder to kill a child who’s one minute old when it was perfectly OK to kill it two minutes ago.
Apples and oranges. I support gun ownership, but I don’t support someone else committing violent murder with guns. Conversely, the “pro-choice” position supports the choice of someone else to kill a child…
So I decided to some checking on the Roe v Wade decision by the Supreme Court. I thought it would be interesting to discuss in light of the political climate of this debate.
When the decision was made it was only dissented to by 2 Justices.
Rehnquist- Nominated by a Republican
White- Nominated by a Democrat
It was concurred by all the remaining Justices.
Burger- Nominated by a Republican
Douglas- Nominated by a Democrat
Brennan – Nominated by a Republican
Stewart – Nominated by a Republican
Marshall – Nominated by a Democrat
Blackmun – Nominated by a Republican
Powell – Nominated by a Republican
In 1973 the majority of the Court was nominated by Republicans.
There is no guarantee that a Republican President or a Democrat President based on their stance on abortion could influence the court. In this case it didn’t.
We have made this the litmus test for nominations of Presidents but unfortunately history does bear it out that it’s been favorable to the cause.
The last time I checked, “ease of regulation” was not an opt-out clause from basic issues of justice…
Chris – the political landscape has altered in the past 10-15 years. One candidate has said he will use “pro-choice” as a “litmus test” for his judicial appointments. The other has said he would only appoint “strict constructionists” (which is PC code, BtW, for holding to the constitution’s original intent, which is that one person’s “privacy” does not hold the primacy over another’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).
So, in this particular election, at least one (if not both) sides have telegraphed their picks, specifically couched in the light of Roe v. Wade.
Okay so…If you read the history on the case as I’ve been doing most of this morning (my day off) you would still need a case to get from the local level to the Supreme Court. Which I think is about 7 steps. Then you would have to have it heard. Then the Justices would have to agree with your opinion to overturn it.
The likely hood of that happening is astronomical, especially with how charged the debate is. Most experts agree that ultimately it would be reverted back to a state issue. In which case then each individual state would vote.
Not trying to say that you don’t understand this already just trying to present the difficulty in it happening.
Chris L.,
You persist in missing the point. Some things you can regulate, some things you can’t.
Lying
Masturbation
Lust
Greed
Alcohol
Robbery
Assault
Rape
Fraud
Because it is a medical procedure, abortion is more like the first list than the second.
*That* is how you make these choices. The process isn’t random.
Well, just because something is difficult doesn’t mean we should abandon it completely. I do think that churches would be much better off in focusing their efforts on preventing abortions on things like offering help to women who find themselves pregnant. But I still still believe the Roe v. Wade is a particularly bad law when looked at from a constitutional law perspective. It seems like a clear case of the justices making law rather than interpreting it.
Which we agree on Phil. My point was that to make this the litmus test for a president is not a guarantee of anything changing.
Well, we do attempt to regulate four out of five on that list, at least to some degree. Try lying in a courtroom and see how well it goes. We regulate how old someone can be before they may be lusted after. There are numerous laws on the books regulating greed in one way or another, and most politicians are currently calling for more. Alcohol is one of the most regulated substances on earth.
Perhaps I’m missing you point, but the efficacy of certain regulations has never seemed to be a reason to justify their existence.
Amen, those were my thoughts when I first posted, you stated them much better than I. Because it’s not in the realm of legislation candidates on BOTH side of the issue only use their stances as a means to get votes. So, when they voice their stances it’s all moot.
As I said using the litmus test of abortion for a supreme court is moot also. If there were more constitutional justices at the time Roe V. Wade instead of a more activist court, Roe V. Wade wouldn’t have seen the light of day. IMO
The litmus test for a justice should NOT be their stance on abortion, BUT how they view the Constitution.
Phil,
Regulate was a poor choice of words. Ban would have been better.
And abortion is regulated, but not banned, just like lying and alcohol.
Strictly speaking, lust is in no way regulated (and your comparison to child pornography was inapt). Greed is also not regulated in any way.
Some things can’t be banned.
Oh, and we opine on the efficacy of laws all the time.
Wasn’t prohibition the Noble Experiment? What about the debate on the War on Drugs?
M.G.:Wasn’t prohibition the Noble Experiment? What about the debate on the War on Drugs?
The “War On Poverty” has been a huge success since Johnson put into action also!
Chris L.,
You miss my point about the ease of banning slavery. It was merely to say that because you are pro-choice doesn’t mean you are pro-abortion.
The ban on slavery stopped slavery (well, mostly). The same can’t be said about abortion. Apples and oranges.
How is the child porn example inapt? We ban it don’t we? It’s illegal, but yet it still exists. Seems like a pretty good comparison to me. Now we can’t ban what goes on in the human heart, but only actions.
So we do want the amount that people can act on certain heart motivations to be limited.
Actually, Prohibition did have the intended effect to a large degree. It made less people drink. A black market did grow. Probably a main reason it was eventually repealed was because of the loss of tax revenues. I think it was a bad law, too, but I just think that comparing that to abortion is probably not a good example.
All these issues are heart issues – I’ll give you that. A law can’t change the heart. A law tries to limit the amount of evil that be perpetrated.
It seems to me this whole discussion gets derailed because people disagree on whether or not the baby is a baby with rights or if the fetus has limited rights which are inferior to those of the mother.
One should never vote in view of what it may or may not accomplish legislatively, we as believers must vote in obedience to the Spirit. If every single voter voted a pro-choice ticket, and that would make a pro-life vote irrelevant, we still must vote our conscience in concert with the Spirit’s will.
Abortion is murder, and a believer cannot vote for a candidate that supports it. And this conversation illustrates the duplicitous nature of politics. One could argue for making adultery illegal, etc., etc., but in the end, the system such as it is, a believer cannot ignore infanticide as a moral issue.
If you vote because you believe in the system being used of God, you cannot Biblically defend a pro-abortion vote. This election probably more than any other will be one of principle because:
* McCain is not an alluring candidate
* The economy is very bad
* Sen. Obama seems like a very nice guy
So believers are given a greater challenge to ignore those factors and vote in principle, not because of circumstances and pragmatism.
Wow, Rick – I actually agree with you on a political post (#89)… an odd day, indeed…
We will never change this world until men’s hearts are changed. Politicians cannot, government cannot.
That being saud we are first and foremost Ambassadors of Jesus Christ on this earth. AsAmbassadors, we are called and commanded by our King (if He is our King) to spread the good news of forgiveness of sins to all nations. When Christ enters in, He makes our repentance good, changes our character, our desires, matches our will with His etc.
As citizens of a nation where we have the right and the privilege to choose our leaders, we must vote with our valuse that have been changed by Christ. We must consider who will vote in our stead for Supreme court Justices who interpret the law, Legislators who make the law, and the Executive who enforces the law.
The life issue is very nuanced as presented in this piece, however, as Christians we must consider that we must speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. The abortion issue is important because these babies cannot speak for themselves. Additionaly, it is a race issue, because abortions are killing off a significantly higher proportion of blacks than whites. This is damaging to the african-american culture, and it is institutional genocide.
When it comes to war, Our commander in chief, and our legislature both supported this war, and we have liberated two nations, and brought freedom to another group- women- in both nations. That is a human rights and life issue; Women in both these nations are no longer enslaved to a life of subservience and second class citizenship. They can get an education now, they are not thrown in rape rooms or subjected to other human rights violations. Isn’t this a life issue?
What it comes down to is what we see as the human rights we choose to defend and look at. I argue that this liberal argument of innocents being killed in a war zone is a red herring to distract from the good that these wars have done, and take it away from the issue of abortion as the life issue. Another red herring is the less abortion argument. If Obama really wanted less abortions, why would he vote for a baby of a botched abortion to be able to be murdered outside the womb to ‘finish the job’?
As ambassadors of Christ, we must first do the work of evangelism then we must do the work of a citizen. Vote your conscience and remember you will get what you vote for.
M.G. –
When you’re lying on a bed at age 85 and your son decides that you’re not much use anymore and instructs a doctor to introduce an overdose of morphine into your intraveinous line, that must be a medical procedure, and under your logic we then couldn’t or shouldn’t legislate it.
Acting as if the murder of an unborn child is some sort of benign medical procedure because a doctor perfoms the killing in a controlled setting is fairly ludicrous.
One of the ultimate ironies is that there are federal and state laws in this country whereby you can be charged with murder for causing harm to a woman that results in the death of her unborn child. The only difference between that and her having an abortion is whether or not she wants the child. How sad to live in a society where that value of the life of an unborn child is assigned based on the whims of the mother.
I am sensing growth in the force!
I find this “advice” to be funny given the fact that you have openly checked out of the political system. It’s like my dad telling me how I should structure my business when he’s never been a business owner.
The Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th Amendment didn’t stop slavery, but they were steps along the path… Not apples and oranges.
Overturning Roe v. Wade won’t end abortion (unless the ruling declared an unborn human to have basic human rights, which would be a million-to-one shot) – it will put it back in the legislative branch. As for regulating it, I’d have to go with Phil on that one…
Can a Christian vote for a pro-choice candidate? Possibly.
But let’s at least be intellectually honest that “pro-choice” = “pro-abortion” even if you dislike the procedure, itself, and would never contemplate it…
Joe – my advice was to believers who sincerely believe God works through the political system. I believe it is good advice, my personal views notwithstanding.
Yeah, Rick. I understand and I am not saying it’s bad advice it just struck me as funny. I hope I didn’t offend.
“Can a Christian vote for a pro-choice candidate?”
Sure they can, but that makes their vore pragmatic and not principled. Please give me an issue which trumps unborn murder? A believer’s vote is before God, not an acquiescence to a perceived inalterability of the law of the land.
Rick,
I have an issue. 90,000 dead civilians in Iraq.
Can a Christian vote for such a party? Perhaps. But I cannot in good conscience.
MG – That is an issue as well. But approximately 2 million unborn murders trumps that issue by sheer numbers. The war in Iraq is a war crime in my opinion, but that is another thread.
So if you consider both an issue, you cannot vote for either party and either not vote or vote for someone else like Joe suggested.
Approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S. in 2006. That is more than 3,300 abortions per day. Since abortion became legal in the U.S., millions of abortions have been performed. I personally have seen statistics indicating that there have been 928 million abortions worldwide since 1920 — almost a billion! Statistics say there are approximately 42 million abortions worldwide per year. That’s almost 115,000 abortions per day.
Frankly, this should make Christians vomit, weep uncontrollably, and cry out to God for mercy that He would put an end to this abomination, but eighteen percent of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical” (however, I believe if you as a Christian had an abortion, or you before you were a Christian had an abortion, and have since been born again, God will forgive you if you ask, as is written in 1 John 1:9).
And now, here we are, a Presidential election coming up. Do we vote our consciences? Can you vote for Obama and still call yourself a Christian?
In a Washington Post article, Michael Gerson, an Op-Ed columnist said:
“But Obama’s record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion — a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called “too close to infanticide.” Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be ‘punished with a baby’ because of a crisis pregnancy — hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.”
Kimberly Daniels in an article at http://fireinmybones.com/, speaking of Obama, writes:
“We know, for example, that he is an inclusionist. For 20 years he attended a church in Chicago that preaches that (1) Jesus is not the only way to God; (2) there is no hell; and (3) God will allow homosexuals to go to heaven even if they remain in their sinful state. Obama also has defended the killing of unborn babies, even in the third trimester.
He claims to be a Christian, but in his book The Audacity of Hope he calls the first chapter of Romans an ‘obscure’ passage of Scripture.”
Christian: I cannot see how you can vote for Barack Obama and call yourself a Christian.
I hope this article speaks to your conscience. God says that He knit you in your mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13), and knew you before you were born (Jeremiah 1:5). He also says that you shall not murder (Exodus 20:13).
Vote your conscience.
PB,
The problem is that legality has a negligible effect on abortion. The rates are quite high in South America where the laws are the strictest.
You write as if Obama’s election guarantees millions of abortions, while on McCain’s inauguration day, abortion will magically stop. This is untrue.
And to claim that a vote for Obama is unchristian is wrong. Shame on you.
For me, being pro-life means my adopting children. I don’t have so much faith in the laws of men to think that McCain can get in there and solve abortion.
He can’t and he won’t.
Some things you can regulate, some things you can’t.
Lying
Masturbation
Lust
Greed
Alcohol
My mother regulated lying, alcohol and masturbation. Just sayn’
Rick: “Abortion is Murder”.
M. G. –
Two simple questions: Since laws against murder haven’t stopped murder, should we do away with them? If not, how is abortion different?
Opps. Hit send too soon. Rick I am staunchly anti-abortion but I have had to come to the conclusion that it is not murder. It is something “else”. If someone was taking children and murdering them society would rise up and take matters in their own hands if the government did not, especially children. Would you not take personal action, up to and including violence if that were happening in your neighborhood? I certainly would. And yet although I destest abortion I do not firebomb abortion clinics or shoot abortionists. Upon self examination I have to conclude that for myself (and the majority of Christians it seems) whatever henious sin abortion is, it is not murder.
John -
The reason that it does not get the same reaction is because it is done in secret, away from public scrutiny and done to individuals that people have not had the opportunity to develop a relationship with.
Remember a few years ago, the nationally publicized story of Scott Peterson in California that killed his wife and their unborn son? What happened there? The unborn baby was named (baby Conner) and the public outcry was great, because value had now been assigned to the unborn baby and people felt like they knew the named baby.
Killing an individual (which an unborn baby is) is by definition murder. People may call it something else to make themselves feel better, but it is murder nonetheless.
Eric,
My response is simple. While a ban on murder has not stopped murder, it greatly *reduces* murder. The same can’t be said for abortion.
If it were proven that a ban on murder actually increased the number of murders, would you still favor it? What if it put your family at risk?
yes
Again, Eric, I will preface this with my firm stance against abortion, but I will have to disagree. If someone were taking children into an office down the street from you and killing them I am sure you would personally do something about it, up-to and including using physical force with the perpetrators to stop it. I would too. However, I don’t walk into the abortion clinic down the street and start shooting the workers? Why. Because inside I don’t TRULY believe that abortion is murder. Inside, although I detest it, I see it as **something** less than murder.
We can say it’s murder, but or actions or lack thereof, demonstrate this is a lie, we don’t truly believe it is. And if you did walk into an abortion clinic and kill the doctors and workers I would not call you a hero, but a misguided monster. So again, in our truest self, we see abortion as something other than murder, or else we’re all total cowards or something along those lines. Therefore I am very careful about saying “abortion is murder” because my own actions deny I truly believe that.
John H-
That is a very introspective and insightful point.
When I wonder in my own head I wonder what we would do if we made abortion illegal to the one’s we caught getting one anyways, even if in another country. Would it be a capital offense? Would we sentence the teenager who is raped by her father and impregnated who has an abortion to death? If not, why? If it is indeed murder then it would no doubt be premeditated murder and should carry with it the sentence that advocates of the death penalty preach, correct? Are we willing to put to death the woman who has an abortion because of health risks to herself or the baby? If it is murder than it is murder regardless of the reasons it is done and by whom it is committed, yes?
The issue I see with this is that in South America, I would imagine the socio-economic status the average woman seeking an abortion is quite different than the average person in the US. I would bet the impact on poverty is a lot bigger in those countries than in the US.
In the US, abortion cuts pretty equally across race and class lines. in fact the average person seeking an abortion is probably more likely to be from the middle class. It has truly become a matter of convenience.
I would think that if abortion were banned outright in all states that the numbers of abortions would decline significantly. I would expect some sort of black market would arise, but this would probably put the cost of the procedure out of range for many seeking them, and it would also just simply discourage others.
I don’t see a ban as the end-all solution to the issue. I think much needs to be done in the area of changing people’s attitudes toward the unborn in general, and I also think we need to step up the effort to help those who are not in a good financial place to support a child (which only 22% of women gave as a reason for an abortion).
Well, I’m not. If a mother kills a child outside the womb, we (Christians) have one recaction. If the child is killed inside the womb we have another. I guess it’s because, although a separate entity in many major respects, it is still viewed as dependant on the mother for life and is seen an “extension” of her body, as a matter of congnitive expediency if not technically.
The Levitical law had penalties for 3rd parties causing the death of a fetus, but I don’t recall any for abortions. God was also very adamant about taking the life of innocent (born) children. But I guess deep inside I view the fetus as a “potentiality” and not on the same level as a child (the actuality) outside the womb. And yet I do believe that life does start at conception. So again, I see abortion as wrong but not murder. It is not easy to reconcile this dissonance.
MG,
“I have an issue. 90,000 dead civilians in Iraq.”
Do you have comparable statistics for how many dead civilians (in Iraq and elsewhere) there were under the leadership of Saddam Hussein and his two sons? And can you directly attribute those 90,000 dead to George W Bush and the Republican party? After all, Democrats also agreed to send troops to the ME and continue to fund them. Or do you think that perhaps there are terrorists coming in from, oh, say Syria, Iran, and elsewhere to help wage war by killing civilians and pinning the blame on the US soldier?
At least civilians had a chance to breathe air for a little while, see the sun, taste an apple. Not so the unborn.
jerry
M.G. –
What comparison have you used to determine that outlawing murder has reduced the number of murders? Can you point to a time in U.S. history when it was not outlawed and provide a per capita comparison? Or are you making an assumption?
There is no way that you can say that a ban on abortion in the U.S. today would not reduce the number of abortions. A comparison to the county of South Africa is not remotely applicable. You have fallen for the lie told by many that it wouldn’t make a difference – they cannot know that to be true.
Your question about a law against murder making it more frequent is convoluted on so many levels, but I will still answer it. No, I would never support legalizing murder no matter what set of statistics or what (flawed, human) logical line of reasoning you could use to show me that it would be make murder less frequent or make my family safer. I would not willfully chose disobey God in this regard even to the point of death for me or my family.
John –
When you say that we (Christians) have two different reactions, please be aware that there are many Christians that do not share that view. I don’t run down the street and stop someone from killing a child because the government is charged with carrying out justice and has laws to enforce. I have the same view and disgust when a born child is killed as when an unborn child is killed. The Bible does not charge me with being judge, jury, and executioner, or otherwise charge me with meting out justice in the public arena. God charges government with this responsibility.
Have you rushed to Darfur to stop the killing of Christians? Beside the practical reality of traveling there, why haven’t you? Could it be that you don’t know these people, that they are merely statistics in many ways like unborn children? If your family was about to be killed in Darfur would you rush there and do what it takes to stop the action? What is the difference? I suggest that one great difference is the amount of emotional attachment and personal stake we feel. Abortion is much the same.
I once heard someone say:
“Live begins at conception because it cannot begin any where else.”
Chad –
No matter how you couch murder in sympathetic terms, it is still murder. Do you think God uses our human, emotional standard when He judges right and wrong? Sympathetic circumstances do not justify actions against God’s will and law.
The Old Testament example of Uzzah is a good example of justice meted out to what human emotion would consider to be a sympathetic figure. Uzzah was being pragmatic. He figured that avoiding the ark falling to the ground was worth breaking God’s law and violating a principle established by God. God did not equivocate or reward his pragmatism, but rather judged his disobedience.
We’ve strayed from the original intent of the OP, by a mile.
Bottom line, is it a sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate? Does a Christian that votes for a pro-choice candidate run the risk of bringing judgment on themselves??
I believe that’s what it all boils down to.
What party? Only Congress has the ability to declare war, and a bipartisan congress did so.
I would also dispute the civilian number (particularly insofar as the number due directly to US fire and not domestic terrorism), while wondering what the number was as a result of Saddam during his rule (and would have been during the same timeframe, as well).
Somehow conflating 90K (to use your number) war deaths (which are arguably related to self-defense) with killing 6 million children (which are in no way arguably related to self-defense) is intellectually disingenuous, as best…
Thank you!!
I was always amazed when the Vietnam war became Nixon’s war. When even then it was the Congress that gave the go ahead at the insistence of the Democratic party at that time!
Eric, are telling me that if you saw someone herding children into a building a killing them in your neighborhood that you personally would not unilaterally and go and storm the gates of this place if the police did not interveve (or at least grap a hand full of neighbors)? Or that you would not do **whatever** it took to stop someone who was killing a child in front of you ?
And yet we do not do this for abortionists. The only explanation I can come up with is that deep inside we do **not** see abortion as murder, but **something** else. Actions trump rhetoric. It’s the “something” I personally am having a hard time with defining.
Again, I am speaking as an anti-abortionist that thinks it should be outlawed.
Also, I hope to God that such arguments would not push some derranged soul over the line and have them go out and bomb and abortion clinic which would be murder. This is not what I am advocating by any stretch. I am just pointing out the descrepancy between words and convictions and the internal turmoil I face on the issue.
M.G. if you come to the conclusion of “no” which is your right and I want to affirm that. I believe you must also come to the same conclusion for a party that wants abortion to remain legal forever. We’re killing far more than 90,000 people every year with that.
I’m troubled with the concept that we are now saying 90K versus 6 million. Or the ever popular false analogy of “How many more would have died had we not…”?
Death is Death and Murder is Murder. Whether it happens at the hands of an Abortion Doctor, A tyrant, or a stray bomb. We shouldn’t conflate the argument with such silly comparisons.
Chris L.,
For what it’s worth, Congress did not declare war, they signed an Iraq Authorization Resolution, which was not, strictly speaking, necessary for Bush to move as under the War Powers Act.
You, as well, are seriously confused on issues of moral responsibility. First, what if Gore had won? Would Congress still have passed the authorization? No. This was Bush’s war.
As well, the U.S. is clearly morally responsible for what is going on Iraq. We broke it, period. And I’m mystified as to what relationship Hussein gassing Kurds in the 1980s has to do with setting a nation aflame 25 years later.
Moreover, I think it is more than a fair comparison when you consider that Bush himself destroyed Iraq, but abortion is a matter of refusing to ban. So the government, clearly, does ,NOT bear responsibility for the sum of all abortions, but does bear SOME, but not all, responsibility for the marginal effect of legalized abortion. No one knows that number, but it isn’t six million.
You are right about one thing MG, if it had been Gore, nothing would have been done. By now we would be ruled by Mullas and perhaps an Ayatolla or two, be under Sharia law, and women would be wearing burkas. (Spelling doesn’t count.) Gore would have been about as effective as Clinton in fighting terrorism.
Jerry,
Nothing like using hyperbole and a slippery slope to make a point.
OK, Chris, if it will make you happy take the hyperbole out. (MG brought it up, not me.)
MG, you are right about one thing, if Gore had been president, nothing would have been done (I view this as a sign of respect for President Bush.) Gore (or John Kerry) would have been as effective as Clinton in fighting terrorism.
There, no hyperbole. No slippery slope. Just fact.
Thanks Jerry!
John –
I answered your hypothetical. Would you be willing to indulge me with an answer to mine?
John,
To expound on my answer to your question: It is very hard to answer your question or to draw the parallel that you seem to be drawing. Is murder legal in the scenario which you are laying out? If not, there are authorities that I would contact to address the situation. If murder is legal in your hypothetical, in order for it to be analagous to abortion, I would have had to have grown up my entire life in a country where it is legal and occuring continuously as the legal norm. Otherwise, the emotions of the two can not be equated.
I do not go into an abortion clinic and personally try to stop abortions because I would have to break laws to do so. God instructs me to obey the laws of my government unless they cause me to sin against God, in which case I refuse. Abortion by another party does not cause me to sin against God, but it grieves me equally as much as born child being killed.
I appreciate where you are coming from in your wrestling with your own disparity of emotion. I and many others believe that abortion is murder for the simple fact that it is the unlawful taking of a human life created by God.
If a known murderer is not punished by reason of legal technicality, I do not go out and carry out vigilante justice on that person based on God’s law. I let God sort the matter out, but my emotion concerning the act remains the same. I believe that to be more analagous to my lack of action to storm abortion clinics.
Thanks for the interaction.
You are welcome.
John – If life begins at conception abortion is murder. If it doesn’t it isn’t. It cannot be “something else”.
But the actual answer for stemming abortion is the gospel, not the ballot box. Democracy has become an idol.
M.G. –
I came across another article at the same site to which Chris L. linked for the article in this post. I don’t know how to put the link in my comment, but if you go to the home page of the Witherspoon Institute, it is the entry for today, October 24. It speaks about the effectiveness of pro life laws. Another interesting read.
Actually, we don’t know the answer to that question – he would have received the same information from the CIA vis-a-vis Iraq and WMD’s. Addtionally, history has shown that Presidential doves have a much larger record of disporoportionate military response early in office than hawks (an observation made by … Colin Powell), so we cannot say that Gore would not have done the exact same thing.
In the case of Iraq, it took two to tango – Bush and Congress. Without either, it wouldn’t have happened. Besides, if you’re going to weigh voting to support the war in Iraq vs. abortion (which still boggles the mind in terms of the gymnastics required to produce any moral equivalency), only two of the four principals in this election had any say in the matter – Biden and McCain – and both voted “yes”. Obama was a do-nothing state senator at the time, and Palin was newly appointed to the Alaska Energy Commission, so neither of them had a say. For Obama to suggest that he had any say or sway in the matter is ludicrous.
Agreed – which was why it was important (regardless of the ‘rightness’ of starting the conflict) to finish the job rather than to raise the flag of surrender and boogie on out.
That is but one atrocity among hundreds committed by Hussein. I wasn’t picking that one specifically.
My 6 million figure was the number of abortions which have occurred since the start of the Iraq war – sorry I wasn’t more clear. That was the 90K vs. 6 million I was weighing out to demonstrate the idiocy of trying to create moral equivalency between Iraq and abortion. Its a non-starter. A red herring.
I rather suspect that the CIA intelligence on Iraq would have led Gore and/or Kerry to begin the conflict with Iraq (which, if you recall, had a great deal of support across both major parties in 2003) , but as you note, they would not have had the intestinal fortitude to finish the job, and it would have been Somalia II (or Vietnam II)…
Actually…
comparing amounts of human lives snuffed out is offensive.
1 or 1 million…
it’s all tragic and wrong.
Pres. Bush was determined to go to war for several reasons, I doubt Gore would have been so energetic about it. The Iraq war would never have been waged had the presiedent been more measured and cautious, but he parlayed the terror hysteria into manipulating the entire world.
If a dictator’s atrocities against his own people is grounds for war we should be fighting at least ten wars right now. We as believers must always take into consideration the eternal destiny of the human “collateral damage” before we take into consideration world politics.
We must always see things through Christ’s eyes, not American eyes.
Eric-
Re: my outloud musings in post 111 I was not couching murder in sympathetic rhetoric. I was asking a serious question that no one answered. Why is that?
That was NOT the only issue.
It was Hussein’s not following the sanctions to the letter.
Taking pot shots at our planes in the no fly zone.
Not letting the inspectors do their jobs.
He was rattling his sabers again. The last time he did that we had to chase them out of Kuwait.
Hussein did nothing to make anyone think that he did NOT have WMDs.
I could fill a page at a 9 point set on what Hussein did not honor within the agreements of the first cease fire.
To say that we went in only to go after terrorist is just not true, it’s all easy enough to look up the facts! And the President didn’t pad the list just for the sake of going in or attempt to parlay terrorist hysteria, he didn’t need to. You need to go listen to or read what Colin Powell said to the U.N.
We had the U.N that was unwilling to do it‘s job because, it was and IS just as corrupt as Hussein’s regime was. It was the U.N sanctions that Hussein took great pleasure in breaking, along with Russia, France and Syria, just to name a few, there’s more.
Terrorism was not the ONLY issue. And as always it’s always the usual Democratic talking points that get bantered around that have little to do with facts and only serve to fool those that choose remain ignorant on the WHOLE issue of why we’re in Iraq.
It amazes how soon the history revisionist get in there and how willing people are to believe what they say!
Chad, I’ll answer this question, maybe not tonight as I am about to go to bed, but first I’d ask your indulgence and ask you to answer me a question first.
Would you encourage this girl to get an abortion? If she was sitting in your office and she asked you what she should do, she wants your opinion, what would you say?
Chad,
I think people didn’t answer this question because it seems to be a rather extreme question that is arguing from extremes and is therefore not really designed for conversation. Having said that I will answer it in my next comment.
Ok, I’ll answer this question now b/c I’ll probably forget tomorrow. I would not advocate the death penalty for this extreme (and rare) case
because I wouldn’t advocate the death penalty for anyone.
I believe this argument still misses the point of whether or not abortion is morally wrong. Chad I know we disagree here to some extent, but I’m going to state my opinion one last time. For me I start with the fact that I believe that baby is a life and should have all the same protections that my life has, therefore the first question I have to answer is “abortion murder?” For me, that answer is yes. Which leads me to my next question of whether or not that should be legal regardless of the implications of how inconvenient enforcing the law could be.
In my opinion murder, which I believe abortion is, should never be legal. Being a victim never gives one the right to further wrong by propagating another travesty on another human being. And I’ve been a victim of some pretty horrendous things so I know something of what I speak.
For me abortion is killing a human and most of the time it is done for convenience sake.
Joe,
I would never, under any circumstance, advise someone to get an abortion. At the same time though, I must admit that should they reject my advise and have one anyways I would extend to them grace and welcome them in such a way that might be different from the person who sat in my office conflicted with the desire to murder their wife and despite my advice not to did so anyway..
Well, it is not as extreme as we might like to think. Women do become pregant by rape. But lets leave out the extreme. You say you would not advocate the death penalty in those cases. First, let me ask this: Why? Is it not murder? Why should the circumstances surrounding why they are pregnant or their reasons for the abortion let them off the hook for premeditated murder?
Second, lets take the case of rape off the table. Would you call for the death penalty for the woman who gets an abortion because the pregnancy was unplanned and she feels she can not raise a child, perhaps due to poverty?
peace
My questions are not meant to be mere sensationalism. A few here have accused me of being “pragmatic” (as if that is a bad thing). Any good theology is practical theology. Theology devoid of any legs on the ground is just ivory tower musings about a God we hold at arms length. The questions I am asking are honest questions trying to drill deeper into the implications of our thinking around this topic.
thanks
Chris L.,
I feel I’m not making my point very well. Let me if I can make things simpler.
George W. Bush, unlike any particular member of Congress, is *at the least* a but-for cause of 90,000 dead Iraqis. In other words, 90,000 Iraqis would probably be alive if Bush had never been elected.
To make the same argument about Obama, the following events will have to occur.
1.) A pro-choice Justice steps down following an Obama win.
2.) Obama nominates a pro-choice Judge, while McCain would have nominated a pro-life Judge.
3.) A case comes up allowing Roe to be overturned.
4.) Roe is overturned.
5.) Abortion returns to the states.
6.) The number of abortions drops dramatically even though women will merely have to travel across state lines and charities will instantly pop up assisting women to do so.
2,4, and 6 are all tricky. I’m personally unsure whether Roberts would overturn Roe in light of stare decisis. So I think we may need two judges, both in the Scalia and Thomas mold. BUT THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
The Dems are going to *increase* their control of Congress in two weeks, and they will simply never allow a Scalia type judge through. It just won’t happen. McCain would have to nominate a Roberts type judge.
The Republican party is bankrupt right now, and on the wrong side of history on just too many issues (immigration, preemptive war, the environment, healthcare, the economy, the death penalty, party corruption, fiscal responsibility, etc.).
I agree with them on abortion, but sadly they have shot themselves in the foot. They’re done, at least for the next four years.
And that’s why when people screech about Obama and abortion, I just don’t buy it.
Maybe the future of the fight against abortion rests in the hands of people like Bob Casey Jr.
We shall see.
In my previous comment 4, 5, 6 should all be in the subjunctive. Sorry if that confuses things.
I agree, M.G.
Is everyone here who voted for Bush bearing the responsibility for all the lives lost in an unjust war?
Though I don’t know the statistics for South Africa (I will look for it), I am pretty sure that the majority of abortions being done in South Africa is on women who have been raped. As I was thinking about it, it struck me how little the church in South Africa is doing to help these women. Debating the abortion issue in South Africa is made even more difficult here because of that.
It is quite difficult to find statistics on abortion linked to rape but here is what I found so far:
There are about 54 000 Rape cases reported in South Africa anually and it is estimated that only 1 in 20 cases are actuall reported. 4% of women questioned in a 2001 survey said they were raped in the pevious 5 years.
There is around 75 000 legal abortions done annually in South Africa.
I can’t find any studies done to link abortion to rape in South Africa.
MG,
Which I would dispute, because you have to participate in an exercise in alternate history which says that Gore would not have seen the same data from the CIA, that Saddam would not have played brinksmanship with him, and that he would not have ever taken action against Iraq. In fact, Clinton’s military actions (Bosnia, Somalia, Afghan missile attacks) and the actions of other previous dovish presidents (in order to prove their bona fides) would suggest that is it more likely Gore would have gone into Iraq than not.
So, in short, no, Bush is not necessarily a but-for cause of the death of 90K civilians (most of which died at the hands of domestic terrorists, not US military action).
#’s 1-6 are not that improbable. #3 would likely happen, because an ultra-con state (like Utah) would purposely create a case that would be summarily rejected (based on Roe v. Wade) and appealed up to the USSC.
While yes, women would be able to travel across state lines, data from pre-1973 (where we did actually have interstates, cars, cheap gas, and the wherewithal to cross state lines to states which allowed abortion) would suggest that the number of abortions would be dramatically different. (In fact, had Roe v. Wade been the law of the land, Obama would likely never have been born.) Believe it or not, a good number of US citizens are law-abiding to their own domicile, when state-to-state laws differ. (You can also figure that non-abortion states will have parental notification laws which would impact the number of abortions, as well).
As for justices, Roberts and McCain’s unnamed justice may well follow stare decisis (which is always a side-danger to constructionist judges), but I doubt it.
I would suggest that (on the whole) they are not on the wrong side of history re: immigration, the environment, healthcare (especially), the economy, or the death penalty. As far as fiscal responsibility goes, I blame both parties, though I think the GOP has far more fiscally responsible members than the Dems. And as for corruption, the blame for the current financial crisis lies squarely on Dodd, Frank, Reid, Pelosi, Hillary and Obama (who have all been in the pocket of Freddie/Fannie and turned a blind eye to all of the corruption in the financial sector and regulatory mismanagement borne of failed social engineering vis-a-vis the CRA), and let’s not even try to compare the corruption in the Bush administration to the morally bankrupt, sleazy 8 years previous to Bush.
Which assumes that a) Obama wins and that b) he does not pursue the agenda he’s plotted. Should he do so, it is not likely he will retain congress in 2010 (if God is merciful).
yeah, then we’re all screwed.
Duh. No.
1) Iraq was not a known quantity on Nov 5th 2000, and the question in 2004 was not “do we go into Iraq”, it was “do we fix what we broke, or do we raise the white flag of surrender?”
2) I would dispute the revisionist notion that it was an “unjust war”.
Actually, in the case of the mother, it is not murder – it is engagement in murder for hire, which in most states is not a capital offense. Additionally, the death penalty (even as applied by the ancient Jews) is a maximum penalty, not a minimum, to be decided by the facts and circumstances.
I would not oppose the death penalty for abortionists who continued to operate in states where it is illegal, though, as that would go to the root of the problem.
Because facts and circumstances are always taken into account in capital cases, because the death penalty is a maximum, not a minimum.
Conservative: Rape is wrong. We should never allow rape! Rapist should be punished to the full extent of the law!
Liberal: While I believe rape is a bad thing, and it should not ever be done except in the extreme circumstances where the rapist simply has not been satisfied otherwise. Besides, this is my morality, and why should I place my morality on anyone else?
Conservative: Incest is wrong, and anyone who commits incest is morally bankrupt and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Liberal: While I would never commit incest, it is my moral background that teaches me this and I cannot place my moral underpinnings into other people’s bedrooms.
Kinda changes things when we change the subject. You will say apples and oranges, I know. But we can justify voting pro-abortion, and that is what it is and call ourselves Christians!
Chris L: Your comment #151 was probably one of the best responses to the Obama ‘08 (aka “I hate George Bush”) arguments I’ve read in a while.
Comments like “Is everyone here who voted for Bush bearing the responsibility for all the lives lost in an unjust war?” irritate the bat snot outta me! Your statement (to another comment) is a great rebuttal:
If some people here are so stinkin’ smart and able to predict the future (or the mind of another person)…why aren’t THEY running for President?!
Chad in comment #144 please see all of my comment in #143. I stated rather plainly that I am against the death penalty for all people. I said,
Chad,
You’re comment in #148 assumes that we agree with you that this is an unjust war. Secondly, I find it intellectually dishonest to use a war as your argument point, when earlier in the thread you have stated you are against all war. Either you assume we’re all with you or even in being against all wars you believe there is such a thing as a just war.
Chris L.,
In order to justify the invasion of Iraq, Bush in June 2002, speaking before the West Point Military Academy, established that it remained the prerogative of the United States to preemptively invade another country as an act of anticipatory self-defense. Many people decried the so-called Bush doctrine as a dangerous and unprecedented military posture. Historians noted it was the first such foreign policy in America’s 230 year existence.
Ultimately, we engaged in a full-scale invasion, toppling Saddam Hussein. To compare that act to NATO action or other discreet military exercises (like the launching of cruise missiles to distract from Monica Lewinsky) is silly.
To think that Gore would have had a similar Gore doctrine, just to invade Iraq, while we were simultaneously prosecuting the war in Afghanistan (which we would have done under Gore, obviously) is beyond absurd.
This is Bush’s war. Your arguments otherwise are some of the least tethered to reality statements I’ve seen you write yet. And I typically agree with almost everything you write.
I wouldn’t be so dismissive of the Casey family if I were you. It’s Bob Casey Sr whose name is on the Casey decision that very nearly toppled Roe. I’m assuming he’s done more to fight abortion than you have. And he was a Democrat!
PB,
That is the silliest strawman I may have ever seen in my life. I love it that you are a hard core Republican. It confirms my own (quite) moderate positions.
It is arguments of this nature that almost make me want to change my mind and go ahead and vote for a president in this next election.
But if we are going to play the ‘alternate reality’ game, then let me add my flame to the fire: How many more Iraqis would be dead if Saddam Hussein had been left in power after the UN did nothing with all of its ‘resolutions’? I think that is a reasonable question.
jerry
Jerry,
Reasonable question with a quick answer. Although we don’t have firm numbers on disappearances, executions, and other related deaths, it’s natural to assume the number would be in the hundreds. At the time of invasion, though, Iraq was not a humanitarian crisis (like it has been before, admittedly) and there was not widespread violence.
Many of the dead would be alive today had we not invaded. That’s just a fact.
Also, using the whole “Well, are people who voted for Bush responsible for the 90,000 (do you have stats for this?) civilians killed?” is at best a Red Herring in this discussion as it presupposes we knew that Bush was going to go to war when we voted for him and that we knew his intelligence was bad (if you believe it was bad) in the second election. Neither of which is true.
This discussion is/has been about voting for a candidate that we know is for abortion.
Joe,
You can go to iraqbodycount.org.
Unfortunately we will never know that. Which essentially makes this argument an appeal to consequences which in philosophy circles would be considered a logical fallacy.
On the other side we have known variable that many people lost their lives which is a tragedy and fact. Therefore the conclusion is that this war was not a benefit to them.
Well MG, if mine is a strawman, yours is a red herring.
We have the opportunity to change the law and regulate abortion. The war is happened, the deaths have occoured. We cannot turn back the clock. But the war is almost won, the Iraquis are in control of the most part of their country. But millions upon millions of babies are being killed. We can make law that will not stop it, but make it illegal and less accessible. To bring the war in as justification for voting for Obama is a red herring of the worst kind. We can save babies.
Check out this article
As M.G. pointed out the Bush Doctrine was unheard of as a diplomacy or military tactic. That’s what makes it so dangerous.
The U.S. has nuclear weapons therefore we must invade them because we can’t trust that they are a good nation.
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
MG,
“Many of the dead would be alive today had we not invaded. That’s just a fact.”
I think it is grasping at straws. Given what has been uncovered, and given the history of violence, I don’t think that yours is a reasonable assumption at all; far, far from provable fact.
jerry
Another “non-partisan” organization?
Me thinks you need to go read what Bush said to the cadets.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html
Against the backdrop of my particular eschatological eprsuasion, just the fact that believers are discussing voting for a pro-abortion candidate fits nicely in the final stages of my end times graph.
The war in Iraq is not relevant to the abortion issue. How many mothers bring their children under a falling bomb? But millions of mothers march right into a murder clinic and open their wombs to murderers called doctors. War is horrible and I believe the war in Iraq was a giant mistake, however it pales both in quantity and in the continuing human tragedy openly and legally inviting mothers to murder their unborn yet living children.
We have become ambivalent about abortion as we discuss it in political jargon, buffered by antiseptic descriptions such as “pro-choice”. It is murder, vicious and gruesome in its act, and to complete the horror murdering babies has become a form of medical profiteering.
Most of the murder mill is carried out by the heathen, but it seems to have become fashionable and sophisticated among believers to shed the archaic stands of past principle and walk into the modern light of compromise. We will give an account one day to Him who has seen and recorded every single murderous invasion of a God created female womb.
He who supports this holocaust is partaker of their evil deeds. We cannot bid a “pro-murderer” godspeed.
Jerry,
The number of political dissidents killed by Hussein in a 20 year reign was in the thousands, while the overall killed (especially when you consider the Iran-Iraq war) is maybe 200,000 thousand people.
Of course most of that was in the 1980s, when the United States viewed Saddam Hussein as a bulwark against the rise of Iran and its clerical leadership.
If you want to believe that Hussein, under the watchful eye of the U.S., was going to go on a murderous rampage, thereby killing almost as many people in 6 years as he killed in the previous 20, even though his former protector was now his greatest enemy, that’s fine.
Really really dumb, but fine. But hey, maybe I’m grasping at straws.
PB,
Until McCain repudiates the Bush doctrine, I cannot in good conscience vote for the man.
Ok, 166 comments and here’s what we have:
1. Some people think the war is a greater travesty than abortion
2. Some people think abortion is a greater travesty than the war
3. Some people disagree on all points
4. Some people agree on all points
We’re going ’round and ’round saying “I disagree”
I agree with Joe’s disagreement…I think.
M.G.: Don’t look at it as a vote for McCain, but rather a vote AGAINST Obama…that’s what I’m doin’.
Well, as one who already voted, I will rest well tonight