Anne Rice's Meaningless Abortion Lamentation
by
Motte Brown
on Aug 23, 2007 at 12:52 PM
As I am sure all vampire aficionados are aware, novelist Anne Rice has publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. Her reason, odd as it may sound, is because she believes that Hillary and the Democrats are our nations best chance to "find a solution to the horror of abortion." She writes:
I have heard many anti-abortion statements made by people who are not Democrats, but many of these statements do not strike me as constructive or convincing. I feel we can stop the horror of abortion. But I do not feel it can be done by rolling back Roe vs. Wade, or packing the Supreme Court with judges committed to doing this. As a student of history, I do not think that Americans will give up the legal right to abortion. Should Roe vs Wade be rolled back, Americans will pass other laws to support abortion, or they will find ways to have abortions using new legal and medical terms.
Without Rice providing specific anti-abortion statements, it's difficult for me to believe she's doing anything more than setting up a strawman to justify her support for a pro-abortion politician. Because if you go by the statements of each party platform, it's pretty clear who believes in the sanctity of human life, at least on paper.
Like many pro-abortion Democrats, Rice speaks about abortion like it's something bad, calling it a "horror." But she never says why it's a "horror." Is it a horror because it is the murder of a human being that is yet to be born? Is it a horror because the "product of reproduction" actually looks like a baby, even when it's been torn apart by abortion?
And if it's a horror because of these things, then it is right to force Americans to "give birth to children" they do not want to bear. Anything less would be to justify murder for the sake of convenience, which is what this country does. And like it or not, this is what the majority of Democrats stand for. The following is taken from The Democratic Platform for America in 2004:
Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
How Anne Rice gets from this statement to this one taken from her blog, I'll never know.
Again, I believe the Democratic Party is the party that is most likely to help Americans make a transition away from the abortion crisis that we face today. Its values and its programs -- on a whole variety of issues -- most clearly reflect my values. Hillary Clinton is the candidate whom I most admire.
1. BDB had the following to say on Aug 23 at 1:32 PM:
You guys are just mad that I came out in favor of good vampires earlier this week, huh?
Anyway, I think I can tell you how Anne Rice gets from being anti-abortion to pro-Democrat: the poor. Included in the Vampire Chronicles is a surprising amount of discussion about human suffering. The Republican Party doesn't do a good job of thinking through - and talking about - addressing poverty and at-risk individuals. Personally, I think that Barak Obama has done a better job of thinking through what to do about poverty than Hillary, though I disagree with many of his conclusions. At least he's grappling with the morality and limitations of government action.
A Republican who was willing to grapple with the issues involved in poverty - and talk about realistic approaches - would probably be able to get the votes of anti-abortion Democrats who are also concerned about the poor.
2. JB had the following to say on Aug 23 at 1:55 PM:
I thought her position was pretty clear from her statement. She believes that while abortion is wrong (and she says she believes in the sanctity of fetal life, so presumably she considers abortion murder), she doesn't think that it is possible to prevent abortion in the long term through an abrupt change in the law. This seems to be because she thinks that (a) people will find ways around laws which prevent abortion and (b) people will in the future succeed in overturning laws banning abortion if the social situation remains as it is. Clinton offers the best way of stopping abortion permanently because Rice believes her social policies (including those on education) will create the type of environment in which people will come to be truly convinced of the moral wrongness of abortion and permanently end the practice.
That's a pretty conservative position if you think about it. Rice is arguing that social change can only come through the slow change of people's attitudes over time, not through government action. (I'm not advocating Rice's position, just trying to explicate it.)
3. kman had the following to say on Aug 23 at 2:22 PM:
she thinks that (a) people will find ways around laws which prevent abortion and (b) people will in the future succeed in overturning laws banning abortion if the social situation remains as it is.
JB- this is against those that use the reasons you cited.
a) There are laws against many things that people still do i.e murder,rape,theft ad nauseum. People will just murder in back alley murder mills if we outlaw murder. People will just rape in back alley rape mills if we outlaw rape....etc..
b) Why not have social pressure AND legal pressure? If this is truly an issue of murder, then why wait until social forces decide it's something to change?
-Rice is arguing that social change can only come through the slow change of people's attitudes over time, not through government action.
Roe vs. Wade- social change was accelerated if not induced by this ruling. Laws affect social change and vis versa
4. Zusanne had the following to say on Aug 23 at 2:27 PM:
Government can't change peoples minds for them.
Like so many of the socially-conscious, Anne Rice is doing what Hillary AND Obama AND many others of their party are doing: trying to put a Band-Aid on a dam that has already burst.
Instead of fixing the problem (asking people to behave responsibly and then take responsibility for their actions), they are allowing people to do whatever they want, and then expecting society to pick up the tab--both in social and in financial consequences.
One of the largest social consequences of irresponsible sexual activity IS poverty. Unfortunately, many people find themselves in a cycle that seems impossible to break. Abortion often seems to be the easy way out of a difficult situation. But the behavior doesn't change--it just continues to have an escalating set of consequences.
The difference between the Democrats' position and the Republicans' position on the poor is pretty simple: the Democrats SAY they want to help the poor (because they feel so bad . . .) and collect taxpayers' money and give a little to the causes (all of these organizations have operating expenses, don't they? sometime research how much money goes to celebrities for endorsements for fundraisers, etc.); Republicans use their OWN money and OWN labor and don't talk about it quite so much.
Okay: qualifiers here.
1. I'm not talking about elected officials. I'm referring to the vast majority of Americans. Good people who, time after time, step up and contribute. As a South Florida resident, I'm constantly impressed with how much money and goods are donated each year to various places around the world that face disasters. Americans are far more generous than many other people on the planet. And not just because Americans CAN--because Americans DO. Many of the other nations that pledge relief don't actually follow through.
2. When I say "Republican" I mean conservative; when I say "Democrat" I mean liberal (or progressive, if that's the term in vogue).
3. I'm not putting ALL registered Democrats and ALL registered Republicans in pigeon holes. That's the trend.
Think, Scrooge in A Christmas Carol before his great transformation. He's asked to contribute to a fund for the orphans--he says essentially, "I contribute through my taxes." Democrats want to be there to help us clean up the mess we make--without forcing us to face the consequences. And that costs money. Read the book Who Really Cares? to find more interesting statistics along this line.
5. JMarie had the following to say on Aug 23 at 2:43 PM:
I had an overly wordy comment, but I'm simplifying it to a plug for Feminists for Life.
www.feministsforlife.org
I usually vote for candidates who will make pro-life decisions on things like abortion and stem cell research. However, I think the idea that "social change can only come through the slow change of people's attitudes over time, not through government action" has some validity. Maybe laws will come in time, but they won't me made or enforced until people's minds are changed.
In the meantime, Feminists for Life tries to offer support to men and women involved in pregnancies so they won't get desperate enough to choose abortion. Through slogans like "Peace Begins in the Womb" and "Women Deserve Better", FFL tries to get people to really consider the destruction inherent in abortion.
I can't totally fault Anne Rice's reasoning, but my vote won't be following hers. Voting isn't the only way to combat abortion.
6. JB had the following to say on Aug 23 at 3:04 PM:
I think it's interesting that Mitt Romney recently said something which I think echoes Anne Rice's thinking. He has said that he wants to overturn Roe v Wade and allow states to make their own laws. Then, he would follow this at some point in the future with a constitutional amendment banning abortion. His idea seems to be that an abrupt ban wouldn't succeed and time needs to be allowed for people's attitudes to adjust.
7. Justin had the following to say on Aug 23 at 3:09 PM:
Let me phrase this differently, since my last comment didn't go through.
I'm pro-life. But I don't think that a Republican party which advocates for war is more pro-life than the Democrats who support abortion.
Even though I'm registered Republican, I'll be voting Democratic this time around, because I think they are the lesser of two evils. As such, I agree with Ms. Rice on this one.
8. Motte had the following to say on Aug 23 at 3:16 PM:
Justin:
Thanks for rephrasing your comment. (And I apoloqize to others for engaging in this tangent.)
You do realize that 81 House Democrats and a majority in the Senate (29-21) voted for the war. And that Hillary is on record saying she would have voted the same way given what she knows now.
Here's Hillary quote the day of the vote:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.
9. Justin had the following to say on Aug 23 at 3:25 PM:
Oh, I can't stand Hilary. Don't get me wrong. I'm an Obama man.
And I'm not cutting the Dems slack, they screwed up by voting for this War. But... ...at this point its the Repubs war and as such, the Dems are the lesser of two evils.
10. Michael had the following to say on Aug 23 at 9:00 PM:
I know this is a tangent and hate to continue it but it has already been started so I will opine. I am a strong supporter of the war in Iraq. I could never vote for any candidate who opposes it and that includes Republicans like Ron Paul. Democratic Whip Rep. James Clyburn said a positive report from General Petraeus would be bad for Democrats. As a member of a military family I could never vote for a party which cares more about its electability than America’s success. I could certainly never vote for a man like Barack Obama who accused U.S. troops of “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians.”
For those who think the Democratic Party is more pro-life for opposing the war its country is in, remember that in order for the death toll of American troops to equal the approximate number of children killed by abortion (46 million) the U.S. would have to remain in Iraq for the next 50,000 years.
11. Peter Kananen had the following to say on Aug 23 at 10:33 PM:
I am surprised at how easily partly lines confuse the analysis of important issues, such as the one above, by those who post blog topics here. 9 people commenting above me understand what Rice is trying to say and see through the political inclinations of the blog author. Why is this a perpetual problem on Boundless?
12. Kellie had the following to say on Aug 24 at 12:08 AM:
Last time I checked none of the top republican candidates were pro-life either...
13. nikki had the following to say on Aug 24 at 7:46 AM:
I don't believe the problem in our country is that abortion has been legalized. The problem, right now, is that people WANT abortions. Until that desire goes away, laws are completely irrelevant.
I'm not sure why people are so bent on overturning Roe v. Wade. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely pro-life in every sense of the word. (Including I hate war.) But why don't we try to change the hearts and minds of our population? What good is illegal abortion vs. legal abortion? There is no legal fix for a nation wherein the majority of people think it's okay to take the life of a child. No, the problem is in the hearts of the people. That's the only place any "war" will be won.
14. P&P had the following to say on Aug 24 at 7:47 AM:
What many people in the evangelical world overlook is that abortion was at an all-time low during the previous Clintion administration.
The Clinton view was abortion should be "safe, legal and rare" was taken to heart by funding sex and birth control education without any "abstinence only" restrictions, better options for prenatal care and a movement towards health care reform in general (although it ultmately failed).
Rather than placing legal bans on abortion, providing effective birth control education as well as a better health services for all citizens might be a better way of eradicating unwanted pregnancies.
15. Motte had the following to say on Aug 24 at 8:50 AM:
P&P:
Abortion statistics are at there lowest now and have been decreasing ever since President Bush took office. And abstinence-only education began before the Clinton administration.
You are right about one thing. Pregnancy and abortion rates began to decrease during the Clinton years but it was only after abstinence programs were introduced into our public schools.
16. Holly had the following to say on Aug 24 at 10:21 AM:
I believe this comment has the proverbial snowball's chance of being published, but I'll try anyway to answer Peter. I've given that question a lot of thought, and I believe that I see the root problems. One, the Boundless staff well represent FOTF in that they are party loyalists first. Candace said awhile back that she was a party loyalist on election day (in the context of intimating that she would, in fact, vote for Rudy Giuliani). When you start from the premise of being a party loyalist first, absolutely everything is colored by that starting point. Rudy supports abortion rights and is gay-friendly to the point of having appeared in public in drag on several occasions. His nomination would be a bad thing in the short run, but in the long run, it might finally convince those who are loyal to the GOP first that there is no longer any appreciable difference between the parties on the so-called moral issues. Second, I had a bit of an epiphany recently while praying about this blog and its authors. The reason that the Boundless authors, especially Ted and Motte, spout Republican talking points as if they were authored by the Lord Jesus or the Apostle Paul, is not that they secretly wish for careers in political talk radio or political speechwriting (my previous suspicion). It's that they have made idols out of the idea of a "Christian worldview." FOTF and most other large ministries promote, support, and defend their version of "a Christian worldview" and how such a thing ends up looking, in their opinion, when applied to public policy. This would be a wholly laudable and admirable goal were it not for the fact that they conflate both this worldview and the worship/seeking after it as a primary goal (i.e. being, as Candace publicly states, a party loyalist) with worship of the Lord Jesus and being a Christian. FOTF and the other high-profile ministries who do this have SUCH a high profile that this conflation has taken over the public perception of Christianity in America.
This is why, upon inviting one of my black belt students (a fact relevant only in that achievement of a black belt demonstrates seriousness, maturity, and character) to church not long ago, the immediate response was that he had a gay family member and gay friends whom he loves and thus would not be attending church, period, thanks for asking.
I hope that God will forgive us for what we've done in His name, the substitution of party loyalty for loyalty to Him and the souls He called us to reach. I believe that He will. Those spending eternity separated from God because we elevated our politically-motivated "Christian worldview" above the salvation message, thus making the Gospel inaccessible to them, never will. Nor do we deserve their forgiveness, now or in the life to come.
17. P&P had the following to say on Aug 24 at 11:33 AM:
Motte:
May I see some reference to genuine statistics? I seem to recall that the former Surgeon General, Richard Carmona (a Bush appointee), felt that abstinence education was not effective, however he was shut down by administration higher-ups.
18. kman had the following to say on Aug 24 at 11:36 AM:
I see no problem with passing or changing laws even when everyone's hearts and minds aren't for it. We don't need 100% agreement to pass a law, just a majority. And 100% expected compliance with a law is NOT the litmus test for passing laws. If we never passed a law that we didn't think 100% of the populace would comply with... well you be the judge of where that leads.
19. Canadian Boy had the following to say on Aug 24 at 11:50 AM:
Holly:
Wow. Since that got published, I may as well try my opinion:
Upon becoming a Christian, I was pro-life. I believed that every pregnancy must not be terminated, and that if the woman got pregnant, it was her own fault.
However, I'm now pro-choice, due to many things, one of them being something my grade 12 Law teacher once said. We were talking about abortion in a male-dominated class, and he said that it is impossible for males to fully understand what abortion means. He elaborated, and I was blown away by his remarks: I am a male. I will never have to experience abortion if I don't want to. I will never be pregnant, I will never have to raise a child- I will never have to be in a position in which abortion could be an option.
Knowing this, it's impossible for me to be pro-life, because I'm not the one who is affected by this decision. Women are. To me, they should be the ones who are making the decision. And by giving them the choice, they will.
20. John had the following to say on Aug 24 at 11:50 AM:
Holly,
You could not be more wrong. Your accusations are untrue and your conclusions is false.
As far as your conclusion is concerned. NOBODY is responsible for someone else's salvation. Be they partisan or not, nobodies actions prevent someone else from entering eternity. It is up to the individual to choose Christ.
We can be stumbling blocks, we can create obstacles, etc, etc. But we are never ultimately the reason for someone else not getting into heaven. That is their own choice.
So nobody in hell or that ends up there will have anyone to blame but their self.
Doesn't mean we can do whatever we want, because we're not ultimately responsible for their eternal state, that is sin in itself. But, at the sake of sounding redundent, we do not cause anyone to go to hell. Nor do we cause anyone to go to heaven.
21. kman had the following to say on Aug 24 at 12:15 PM:
-the immediate response was that he had a gay family member and gay friends whom he loves and thus would not be attending church, period, thanks for asking.
This sounds like he understands the Biblical view on homosexuality and doesn't want any part of it. It is his choice to do so. I have loved ones that aren't saved, do sinful things but it's not a valid reason for ME to not serve God. We must come to God on HIS terms, not our own. We are the ones that must change and surrender.
22. Robert J Espe had the following to say on Aug 24 at 12:15 PM:
Four words: "Ron-Paul", "Constitution Party".
Pro-life, no evil there, lesser or otherwise.
(Not trying to beat a dead horse, but every time I hear the ridiculous lesser of two evils line, I have to point out that there is a real choice)
23. Steph had the following to say on Aug 24 at 12:47 PM:
I would first like to comment that I think Ann Rice is shameful for trying to sway the vote of her fans (who may or may not be pro-life). Anyone who knows Hilary's voting record can clearly see that she will NOT support the sanctity of life.
I also wish that people would stop bashing President Bush for the war. After 9/11 Democrats and Republicans were all for the war. Further more, I think it is very unprofessional that Democratic party mock him publically for his choices. That lack of respect for our Country's president should not be tolerated regardless of their differing opinion. I do not like guns or the idea of war. But I don't have all of the confidential intelligence information that our elected officals have. I trust that they are making the best decisions for our well being.
I would also like to comment on Democrats supporting the poor. I am a social worker for a living. I am also politically conservative. In my professional experience helping is fine - enabling is dangerous.
As far as the Abstinence Only education monies are concerned those were recently at risk of being lost to Planned Parenthood (PP). I don not like the idea that my tax dollars pay for abortions provided by PP. Hilary is a HUGE supporter of PP. Abstinence Only (programs that endorse self respect and modesty)are very progressive and are the best way to end the cycle of poverty and abortion. The last time I checked Hilary was not in support of these programs.
24. Justin had the following to say on Aug 24 at 12:52 PM:
I hope that God will forgive us for what we've done in His name, the substitution of party loyalty for loyalty to Him and the souls He called us to reach.
Excellent, Holly. You nailed it.
FWIW, Focus on the Family didn't always used to be like this. They've only changed over the last decade since Karl Rove began to embrace the Religious Right.
25. xeres had the following to say on Aug 24 at 1:11 PM:
Holly, are you one of those single voters types? I'm a single voter so, party loyalty isn't my priority; their character is.
26. Paul had the following to say on Aug 24 at 1:17 PM:
Wow Holly, that was an impressive post... think you went over the top a bit, but it was very accurate too of how some (i'm not necessarily agreeing that the boundless posters do) conservatives treat Christian worldview.
Party loyalty only goes so far, and if the Republicans nominate Rudy, I will seriously consider either not voting for president or voting for a third party candidate. I refuse to use my vote for someone who will advocate the killing of an unborn child.
We do have to be conscious however, that we're dealing with people here not votes. Abortion is a tragic thing and it destroys not only an unborn child but women who are for the most part unaware of what they're doing or pressured into making the decision. Gay marriage is an issue that delves deep into the freedoms of an individual vs. state's authority. While both are sins, we've got to love the sinner and realize that we're sinners too and are offending God as well in our lives by our failings and pride. Remember, to much is given, much is expected.
27. kman had the following to say on Aug 24 at 2:29 PM:
-because I'm not the one who is affected by this decision.
Canadian Boy-How about if the person carrying your child decides to abort it? Can you say you're not affected? Not physically no, but absolutely no effect on you? Is that what you are saying?
I am not sure how that affects the morality of the decision. If it's not something physically able for you to experience , then you do not have any discernment about it, you should remain quiet?
So only females can legitimately speak about abortion then. They are imbued with a superior position due to their sex alone, which seems...uh sexist :/
28. Motte had the following to say on Aug 24 at 2:47 PM:
P&P:
Sure. Here you go: Abortion stats & Abstinence research.
It's also worth pointing out that STD, teen pregnancy, unplanned pregnancy and abortion rates went through the roof since abortion was legalized and comprehensive sex ed was introduced in our public schools. It was only when abstinence education was introduced in the late 80s that these rates began to go down.
29. Canadian Boy had the following to say on Aug 24 at 4:31 PM:
kman,
Great questions. You're right, someone aborting my child would have a huge effect on me, and any other male, if I wanted to be a father. In this case, I fully concede that it is not just the woman's decision.
But instances of this are few and far between. There are so many women who are impregnated and then abandoned by the father of the child. He chooses to have nothing to do with the mother or baby. And he can do this. He doesn't have to change his life in any way because of this pregnancy. This is not true for the woman who is carrying this baby.
To me, it seems sexist that men, who will never become pregnant, are advocating for abortion to be illegal.
30. John had the following to say on Aug 24 at 6:40 PM:
Too many are duped into the false dichotemy of abortion totally illegal under all circumstances on one hand and abortion totally legal under all circumstances.
Fundamentally, the Roe v. Wade decision was an over step, one of many, by the Supreme Court to misapply their power and the constitution. The Supreme Court cannot make law, but congress loves when it does, because it takes the responsibility out of their hands.
That, and this is not a matter of a "surgical procedure between a doctor and woman". As someone pointed out there are other parties involved, such as: most importantly, the baby, the father and, in fact, the state.
The first two should be obvious. The last one is where many pro-abortion advocates try to side-track prof-lifers. The state as an interest AND a responsibility in protecting the life of the innocent, from conception to grave. (or womb to tomb).
The extent of this interest is what makes for much debate, but to try to say that the state has zero right to get involved is false. And by state, I'm refering to government and specifically the state government. The national government should not be making laws concerning abortion, in general, but of course, if a state government makes laws allowing for life to be ended capriciously (like abortion is right now), it should be involved in preventing this. (The exact opposite of what it did in Roe v. Wade)
Basically, abortion should not be simply so capricious as a woman just simply deciding to terminate her child. A doctor violates the Hypocratic oath by merely performing the act. (Not to mention that abortionists used to be considered med school drop outs not worthy of the profession, only doing it because they needed the money)
I will finish my points later.
And my spelling is awful, I know, no time to spell check.
Lord bless
31. Chris Krycho had the following to say on Aug 24 at 9:40 PM:
Holly: that was indeed an impressive post. However, I'm going to have to say that it was most impressive in the degree to which it erred, and to which it ran in direct contradiction to Scripture. The Christian worldview as idol? Hmm... I'm not even quite sure where to begin here.
We are explicitly instructed by Paul: "Do not be conformed any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may judge what is the right and good and perfect will of God." We have a responsibility to those around us, and I would like to see any Biblical support for the notion that the responsibility we are given does not include our interaction with the law of the land. To the contrary, Scripture makes it clear that God deals severely with those who walk against His law - but it also makes it clear that those who know His law are absolutely responsible to communicate it to those around them (see, for example, His clear words to Ezekiel as His "watchman"): if you do not warn them from evil, their blood is on your hands, not theirs. That's not insignificant.
Nor is it insignificant that the early church fought long and hard against the evils of the Greco-Roman world, from homosexuality to abortion to infanticide. They were noted for it - and persecuted for it. Did they do it through the democratic process? Certainly not; they couldn't! But they did engage in what today would be considered mass grass roots action - going in large groups to the rivers to rescue the babies tossed in to drown, rescuing the abandoned children from the streets, and so forth. In less than three hundred years, they transformed Roman culture in great part. Certainly it was still sinful - yet those sins, rather than being celebrated, were now seen as evils, rather than goods.
We have a responsibility to the souls of those around us, yes! I agree, and I think that sometimes we get too caught up in trying to win arguments instead of trying to win hearts... but I also know from long, hard experience that winning hearts includes winning minds. Moreover, if we do not fight for a Christian worldview - that which you so strongly object against our fighting for - then the blood of those sacrificed to other worldviews is on our hands. If we're not fighting - at the very least in prayer and conversations with those around us - to make abortion illegal, then the blood of the millions who die every year is on our hands. That should be sobering, very sobering.
Focus' conflation of the Christian worldview and a pursuit of Christ is not, as you claim, erroneous. (Nor is it erroneous when advanced by Chuck Colson, the Family Research Council, or any others in pursuit of this.) To the contrary, if we are in pursuit of Christ, then we will be passionate about the things He is passionate about - and that is not limited to the sharing of the gospel. It extends as well to caring for orphans and widows (which James calls "true religion"), supporting the destitute, and caring for those in need. It extends to calling out the sinful as sinners (as Christ did over and over again); it extends to a proclamation of the truth of sin's damaging and ultimately damning effects. It extends to how we deal with sins in our midst, particularly as a body in a generation that has embraced all kinds of sin condemned from Exodus and Leviticus to Romans and Revelation.
And since you posit these claims in light of a concern for the advancement of the gospel, you should realize that only a deep understanding of the Christian worldview will allow us to effectively communicate the Gospel to a generation that is steeped in a postmodern outlook. Only by advancing the cause of truth in every aspect of our culture - of showing the need for Truth, for absolutes - will we be able to maintain a firm footing for the advancement of the gospel. This, if you note, was precisely the pattern that Paul took in proclaiming the Gospel message in a culture no less diverse, multicultural, and sinful than our own.
In short, a Christian worldview is not an idol... it is an inestimably valuable part of our witness, and a necessity for engaging those steeped in a Godless culture. It is furthermore fundamental and essential in our very lives, for if we operate outside a Christian worldview, we run contrary to the very nature of God. If we do not care deeply about - and fight for - the issues that God cares deeply about, as revealed in Scripture, are we really being transformed by the renewing of our minds? Or are we instead allowing the lies of this world to become our truth, overriding the Gospel because of convenience, complacency, and an utter lack of certitude?
32. Mike Danger had the following to say on Aug 24 at 11:08 PM:
Kman,
“You're right, someone aborting my child would have a huge effect on me, and any other male, if I wanted to be a father. In this case, I fully concede that it is not just the woman's decision. But instances of this are few and far between.”
First off, it’s not “few and far between.” It's not like there's a check mark on the abortion questionaire asking, "does the child's father oppose this abortion?" It’s just not reported. Just like you don’t know if the woman sitting beside you in church, at work, or in class has had an abortion; you also don’t know if the man beside you has lost a child to abortion. By some estimates, there have been upwards of 40 million lives destroyed by abortion. Even if only a quarter of those abortions were opposed by the fathers, that would still leave 10 million men living with the knowledge that there children were taken from them. In general, men don’t talk about how they feel. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that most “forgotten fathers” wouldn't discuss their inability to save their own children.
On June 7th, 2005, I lost a child to abortion. It was devastating…IT STILL IS devastating, and there were few people that I could talk to about it. Even now, two years later, many people don’t want to hear about it.
I think about my son everyday. If he were alive today, he would be about eighteen months old. I wonder what kind of man he would have been; I wonder what father I would have been. Sadly, all I can do is wonder.
More to the point, I don’t vote for “Parties.” I vote for the individuals. I’d vote for Barney the Dinosaur, if he was running on a pro-life platform. That’s why I’m leaning towards Ron Paul. Even though I disagree with him on several issues, I know that he’s solidly pro-life.
And…
"To me, it seems sexist that men, who will never become pregnant, are advocating for abortion to be illegal."
If you take a look at the Executive boards for organizations such as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc., you notice that a good deal of the board members are men. Also, a good portion of the doctors who perform abortions are men. So, Kman…if men can advocate for and even perform abortions, why then is it sexist for men to also be against abortion.
Using your logic, no white person would have been able to march with Dr. King during the sixties, only Jews would be able to talk about the holocaust, and only military veterans would be able to talk about war. Do you see how absurd that kind of logic is?
33. Patricia had the following to say on Aug 25 at 6:37 AM:
I agree with you that at times, unfortunately buying the Republican party line is seen as having a "Christian" worldview. My hope and prayer is that Boundless writes don't subscribe to a political party so unilaterally they would consider voting for someone such as Rudy or Romney whose views and personal ethics clearly do not indicate someone with integrity or Chrisitan values. Party loyalty, I think, as a Christian is itself bad. We are called to bring about the Kingdom of God not the reign of the Republican, Democratic, etc political party. We need to remember that Jesus got in trouble with the Pharisees becuse he wouldn't suppor their political program for the liberation of Israel from Roman rule. Party loyalty is a principle that places politicals about God's values. I don't know who I plan to vote for in 2008 yet but I can assure you I will not vote for Rudy because he does not strike me as someome reflecting Christian values.
34. Patricia had the following to say on Aug 25 at 6:44 AM:
Here are some interesting statistics about abortion in the US:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
After reading through the stats, it seems there is a strong correlation between women being single, poor minorities and abortion. I was listenting to a Priest talk about abortion and I think he made a good point by saying if abortion was illegal, women who have abortions should not be thrown in prison, but the abortion industry should be targetd. It seems like most women in this case are encouraged to have abortions by boyfriends, sometimes health professionals, friends, and a general fear they cannot physically provide for their baby because of lack of education and financial resources. Perhaps programs helping this women out would be the best way and then target people in the abortion industry who actually profit off abortions.
35. Kellie had the following to say on Aug 25 at 12:22 PM:
Candidian boy wrote: "I will never have to be in a position in which abortion could be an option." I'm a woman and I will never be in that position either, because I don't consider abortion an option. But as Christians, it is our duty to speak for those who can't speak for themselves.
36. John had the following to say on Aug 25 at 5:34 PM:
THE BOUNDLESS STAFF ARE NOT PARTISAN!
They are pro-life, pro-family, pro-church, Christian, conservative, so forth and so on, not necessarily in that order.
All those positions are at least apart of the Republican National Party planks, even if for many in the Republican party it is simply lip service.
That said, all things considered, the Republican party is head and shoulders above the Democratic party in all those areas. That's not saying much, but it's true!
37. Paul had the following to say on Aug 26 at 9:48 PM:
Canadian Boy,
I'm a guy and this is why I'm pro-life. Take it for what it's worth.
If you were not a Jew, would you have spoken out against the holocaust?
If you weren't African American, could you have protested segregation?
Granted, I am a male and will never experience pregnancy and the life-changing events of birthing a child. But I am a human person, and when my fellow human beings are being killed inside the womb, I must speak out. (and I'm pre-med and there's really no denying that the unborn child is a human being. the anatomy, genetics, even the miraculous premie babies that survive all are positive proofs for the humanity of an unborn child.)
And even I "couldn't speak out" against abortion as you feel unable to, and I understand the argument you make, how can any woman or any person for that matter choose to take another human life for the sake of his or her own convenience and peace of mind. Heaven help us when we start making those types of decisions. Except for cases of rape and incest, the girl chose to have sex, she can choose to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. There are good couples who are lining up to adopt these types of babies.
Just wanted to clarify my opinion. Any thoughts?
38. Matt had the following to say on Aug 27 at 8:46 AM:
OK -- an observation.
Anne Rice clearly does not believe in the "rule of law" nor does she believe that the citizens of the US really believe in the "rule of law."
The good news is it doesn't really matter what Anne Rice or the American people think -- we are still governed by the rule of law, and if the law changes, we are to abide by it, come hell or high water.
And if the law says that we can no longer murder infants, then presumably less murder will take place.
One need only think back to the issue of segregation. The supreme court made a mistake, and it was corrected. Separate but equal was overturned, and schools were eventually integrated. A lot of folks, especially down here in Dixie did not like that. Oh well, the law is the law.
As far as what political candidate supports what -- I'll make two observations. First, the recent book "Party of Death" by Ramesh Ponnuru will cast aside ANY doubt about which political party supports breaking the 6th commandment (fyi-thou shall do no murder) -- the taking of innocent life. Anyone who is looking for an excuse to support the Dems will find one and they will overlook the facts.
Secondly, for all of you anti-war folks, try Ron Paul on for size. He is the ONLY anti-war candidate, and as an OB doc, he is also the most articulate pro-life candidate in the race.
MW
39. Denise Morris had the following to say on Aug 27 at 9:08 AM:
Hi Holly,
I just wanted you to know that I work for FOTF, and I don't consider myself a party loyalist first. I want to vote for the person whose values are most similar to mine. I actually wrote an article related to voting awhile back if you'd like to check it out: http://www.trueu.org/dorms/stulounge/A000000615.cfm
Also, I do believe that worldview is very important. My website, TrueU.org, is devoted to the idea that the lense through which we view the world directly affects our thoughts and actions. However, as Christians, I do think we need to be careful to make sure that we are promoting a biblical worldview and not a worldview that simply aligns with whatever political party we like.
Hope that helps. Thanks!
40. Irene M. had the following to say on Aug 27 at 10:25 AM:
//As someone pointed out there are other parties involved, such as: most importantly, the baby, the father and, in fact, the state. The first two should be obvious.//
Actually, I am a staunch pro-lifer and I strongly disagree with spousal notification laws.
Under our current laws, a fetus is viewed as the property of her or his mother. However, what pro-lifers are saying is that the fetus is not the property of her or his mother, but an actually human being who is entitled to the right to live.
Supporting spousal approval actually harms our cause because, instead of insisting on the humanity of the fetus, we are saying that the fetus is the property of her mother and her father. A father really should not have a significant legal say over whether a fetus is murdered, because that fetus is a human being and not a posession of the father.
Also, do keep in mind, that granting fathers the power to deny abortions may also give them more power to insist on abortions. Likewise, with parental notification laws.
41. John had the following to say on Aug 27 at 7:19 PM:
I wasn't making a case for spousal or parental notifcation laws, but what I was making a case for is that it is not simply the decision of a woman. Her "choice" affects more than just herself.
The Democratic party is in fact the party of death.
I'm not a fan of the Republican party as of late, either, but, like I've said, they're at least, on the whole, better than the Democratic Party.
42. Paul had the following to say on Aug 27 at 9:20 PM:
Amen John! The Democratic party is truly the party of death. And before anyone harps on me or him for saying this, just check out the platform from 2004.
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
They state that they believe abortion is a human right and should be "safe, legal, and rare." (why rare, if it's a human right?)
furthermore, not only do they support the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, which involves the destruction of human embryos, is already being done by scientists all over the nation (don't believe that it's not happening), and has not shown ANY promise for disease curing. Meanwhile they don't say a word about adult stem cell research which is already saving lives and is used int he treatments of 72 different diseases.
Unfortunately, the Republicans may join them this year in offering a pro-death candidate, and if that occurs, like I said earlier, I may not vote at all.