Abortion Snowball Plan
by Motte Brown on 07/25/2008 at 9:00 AM
With more and more young evangelicals calling for a more holistic approach to politics, saying we shouldn't just focus on abortion, I found this portion of Citizen Link's interview with Star Parker interesting.
CitizenLink: What would you like to say to values voters in this country?
Star Parker: We need to put all of our eggs in one basket, and then we need to fight for the helm of that basket. We have to be a force. If we're scattered everywhere, we don't control anything and that's the reason we're facing the type of election environment we're in today.
You keep resolving, you be steadfast, and you keep fighting.
The question is, can you be a force when the political buzzword of this election year is something as malleable and broad as social justice? I don't think so.
Maybe we can "put all our eggs in one basket" by applying Dave Ramsey's debt snowball plan to political issues where you take all your extra cash to attack one debt while paying the minimum on the others. For example, we expend all of the time and money we've reserved for being responsible citizens and focus primarily on one issue like abortion until it's eradicated. You know, like the smallest debt. Only in politics, you go after the biggest threat to innocent human life.
Politically it could mean every Christian becoming a single issue voter or practicing civil disobedience. Practically it could mean adopting, volunteer/donate to crisis pregnancy centers, providing homes for women facing a crisis pregnancy, sidewalk counseling, etc.
I mean, if we just keep "paying the minimum" on a legal "procedure" that takes 3,500 human lives a day, giving it no more weight than "social justice," then we'll never pay off that debt, right? And it's not like we'd ignore other important issues. We'd just pay the minimum on those until abortion becomes illegal (at least on a federal level). Then we can attack the next greatest threat to innocent human life, (fill in the blank).
Far fetched, I know. But interesting to think about.
1. mary kate said the following at 9:08 AM on Jul 25:
interesting concept, yes. but i'm not sure you can really 'quantify' human suffering and injustice?
2. obewan said the following at 9:25 AM on Jul 25:
“--We'd just pay the minimum on those until abortion becomes illegal (at least on a federal level).--“
That sounds good in theory, but how many decades have we been fighting on this issue so far, and how far has it gotten us? I think we are better off fighting at the LOCAL level through adoption, crisis pregnancy centers, and protests. I voted for Reagan, and it got us nowhere on abortion despite all his rhetoric. I attended a protest at a large hospital, and it wound up with the board of directors banning abortions at THAT hospital because they said it violated the Hypocratic oath. I don’t see us changing the federal law anytime soon. The question is, is that being pessimistic or realistic?
3. Krissie said the following at 9:31 AM on Jul 25:
If you are going to apply the debt snowball plan to politics, then you forgot one important aspect of it, the "snowball". Ramsey's plan is to start with the smallest debt first, then once that is taken care of move on to the next smallest... thus gaining momentum.
It's essentially being applied backwards here.
Great financial plan, but I don't know that it applies to politics.
4. Autumn said the following at 9:37 AM on Jul 25:
I have always been a single-issue voter, which I know is probably not the best or most responsible way to practice my Constitutional right. But I cannot bring myself to vote for a candidate who supports abortion. This election year, I vowed to be different. As soon as the field was narrowed down, I began to research the leading candidate's views on the economy, war in Iraq, education, etc. I was leaning towards Obama. Then, I stumbled across a website called "On the Issues" and found the following: "(Obama is) Undecided on whether life begins at conception. (Apr 2008)" How one can be undecided on something like that boggled my mind. I am aware that he could have made up his mind and/or changed his position since April and if this is the case, please let me know!
5. Sarah said the following at 9:59 AM on Jul 25:
very interesting take on things.
I am, however, a little troubled by the comment "If we're scattered everywhere, we don't control anything and that's the reason we're facing the type of election environment we're in today."
Control? Is this really what Christians are concerned about?
In terms of the Snowball Plan, let's consider that not everyone in America is a Christian and does not hold to Christian beliefs. Therefore, their greatest sin is not whether they practice homosexuality or have an abortion. Their greatest sin is that they are living in opposition to and separation from Christ.
So perhaps before we concentrate our efforts on making abortion illegal, maybe we should go after what is, in reality, the biggest threat to human life: living in opposition to and separation from the God who created it.
Legislation does not equal evangelism. Let's remember that American is not a theocracy (though that would be nice) and our job as Christians is to follow Christ and preach his gospel with love, not merely try to force everyone into our standards through legislation.
6. Carrie (the original) said the following at 10:24 AM on Jul 25:
Sarah,
It's not a matter of forcing everyone to our side. It's a matter of being consistent and not talking out of both sides of one's mouth.
As demonstrated in the last several on this blog, people claim they want economic strength and social justice. Yet, often, those people advocate the use of methods to wipe out human life that they wouldn't wish on their neighbor's dog. Can you imagine the uproar of PETA if people were taking pregnant dogs by the thousands to a local vet office in order to terminate the pregnancy? All those precious, puppies to be! All the weeks of headlines until the murderers were brought to justice!
It's about consistency, not winning people to our side.
You say a theocracy would be a good thing, but I don't think you have thoroughly thought that through. (wow. . . nice tongue twister on my part!) A theocracy always leads to legalism.
Anyhow, people need to use their heads when it comes to politics. I still have issues with being a one-issue voter, which has been past precedent in how I've exercised my voting rights, but I think that Motte may be on to something.
7. Sarah said the following at 10:41 AM on Jul 25:
Carrie:
Sorry, perhaps theocracy wasn't the correct term. When I think of theocracy, I think of a group of people under the rule of God. Basically, I'm thinking idealistically of a sort of utopia.
Let me go further with something though. You wrote, "Yet, often, those people advocate the use of methods to wipe out human life that they wouldn't wish on their neighbor's dog." The problem here is the number of people who wouldn't even agree with this statement because they have a different definition of what is human life and the value it has.
Let me state that I favor making abortion illegal. My main point was taking Motte's theory and boiling it down a little more by saying that, in my opinion and understanding, our biggest problem is not abortion. Our biggest problem is people who do not have the mind of Christ and who are living in separation from God. Therefore, that is what deserves our utmost effort and attention.
8. obewan said the following at 11:00 AM on Jul 25:
Sarah said:
"--Our biggest problem is people who do not have the mind of Christ and who are living in separation from God. Therefore, that is what deserves our utmost effort and attention.--"
Amen to that. I firmly believe that we will never legislate morality into existence without first changing the heart.
9. Craig M. said the following at 11:20 AM on Jul 25:
I don't agree with "single issue voting," though I am strongly pro-life. But regardless, nothing--and I mean NOTHING--will happen on the pro-life front as long as the Supreme Court is stacked with five liberals who imagine themselves "philosopher-kings" who can re-imagine the meaning of the Constitution at will. Accordingly, the single best thing you can do to possibly move forward the pro-life legislative agenda is to work for the election of ... this Fall. I know, I know...I can't believe it either. :)
10. JB said the following at 11:43 AM on Jul 25:
Is abortion really the "greatest threat to innocent human life" around? I mean, leaving aside your ideological commitments about the nature of abortion, there are 1.2 million abortions in the US each year. However, 2.7 million people die of malaria annually. Maybe, instead, Christians should wholly devote themselves to fundraising and lobbying on behalf of curable and preventable infectious diseases. Undoubtedly more innocent human lives would be saved that way. Focus on the Family by itself could treat 58 million people with malaria with its annual budget.
11. BDB said the following at 11:49 AM on Jul 25:
Krissie (#3) is right - if you were to apply the "snowball" principle, you'd need to start with something small, fix that, then move to something bigger, fix that, and so on.
Believe me, I get much better treatment from the liberals I know when I run into them in a setting where we're doing something about poverty. They still don't agree on abortion. But they're MUCH more willing to listen to a faith-driven perspective after they see me with my sleeves rolled up doing something else. They usually say something along the lines of, "All the Christians I've run into so far don't seem to care about anything, they just yell at scared women."
12. Craig M. said the following at 11:49 AM on Jul 25:
lol....wow, even the talkbackers can't name a candidate on here? I didn't know that. Sorry...didn't mean to endanger your tax exempt status Boundless....
13. Craig M. said the following at 12:12 PM on Jul 25:
By the way, he's very similar to the hero of the Die-Hard films in many respects--tough-guy cop "John McClain" .
14. A.M.C. said the following at 12:15 PM on Jul 25:
The problem with voting single-issue against abortion is not that the goal is misguided, but that the result we want, namely making abortion legal on the federal level, is currently impractical. To achieve that, at least 2/3 of the Congress has to be pro-life in their voting record. (Not 50%, because a majority that can override the presidential veto is necessary.)
==> Even if all Christians across the U.S. are willing to vote for the pro-life candidate when available regardless of the party affiliation of the candidates, the fact that many people will simply vote along party lines and that sometimes the pro-life community is the minority means that this goal cannot be reached until public opinion is overwhelmingly pro-life (read that at two-thirds of the electorate).
Since that is not the case, Christians need to do more than simply vote. Evangelism, education, and massive lobbying are also necessary. [For that matter, I would even daresay that we need to change to voting system to http://rangevoting.org>Range Voting so that 3rd-party or independent pro-life candidates would have a better chance.] If necessary, I would even add civil disobedience to the list.
15. a sassy sister said the following at 12:44 PM on Jul 25:
obewan, well said.
16. mary kate said the following at 12:44 PM on Jul 25:
bdb (#11), i think your comment here is relevant to some of the discussion that was happening over on the social justice post.
this quote of yours "They still don't agree on abortion. But they're MUCH more willing to listen to a faith-driven perspective after they see me with my sleeves rolled up doing something else" makes total sense to me, and seems to be very christlike.
17. Doug R said the following at 1:13 PM on Jul 25:
I have come to the same sort of conclusion as obewan (#8).
Politically if these issues were resolved (abortion, homosexual marriage, fill-in-the-blank), there might be no need to fight the battle any further. However, morally, the battle isn't halfway won.
I used to think that just defeating RoeVsWade was the goal, but I have come to realize that we have to show people why our position is the better one. If we don't do that, we run the risk of losing the opportunity to share the gospel.
The two objectives aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but we (and I, specifically) need to remember that winning one battle still leaves the other open.
18. Jo said the following at 3:08 PM on Jul 25:
I see where you're coming from Motte, but I disagree. I think God puts different things on our hearts. For some, it's abortion. For others, homelessness, or Zimbabwe, or mistreatment of women, or child abuse, or... If abortion isn't at the top of someone's list, it doesn't mean they don't care about it. But if other Christians persuade them to abandon the causes closest to their hearts in favour of abortion, they won't be living out their calling, but other people's.
Don't misunderstand what I'm saying: ALL these issues are huge and there are so many 'baskets' that Christians can put their eggs in. And as you say, we don't have to support one cause at the expense of all others. But who has the authority to make one basket more of a 'priority' than all others? And who has the authority to decide that all Christians should put their eggs in that same basket?
I think the truth is that one person with a calling from God and a passion for an issue can make a whole lot more difference than a hundred half hearted people who actually are being diverted from what God really wants them to do.
19. ML said the following at 4:02 PM on Jul 25:
"Politically it could mean every Christian becoming a single issue voter"
And get another President Bush? I don't think so. This is a poor way to make any decision. You do not just boil it down to one issue. You need to look at the entirety of the candidate.
Practically, we need to focus efforts in every area where there is suffering. Why are unborn children all of a sudden more valuable than people who have been born already? I disagree strongly that abortion is our biggest problem.
20. Motte said the following at 4:17 PM on Jul 25:
ML:
President Bush certainly isn't perfect. But in my view, he's done more for the preborn than any other president since the legalization of abortion by appointing Supreme Court judges who won't "re-imagine the meaning of the Constitution at will" as Craig M. put it.
And I never said preborn babies are of more value than the already born. But they are in more danger. Exactly where are these already born people you speak of that are being torn apart limb from limb at a rate of 3,500 a day?
21. BDB said the following at 4:33 PM on Jul 25:
Mary Kate's comment (#16) reminds me that for some on the left, abortion IS the solution to poverty. They really do see unplanned motherhood as keeping women down. Therefore their solution is to eliminate the children.
Men's ministries take a completely different tack. They see single mothers struggling - but they note that these are unmarried teenage moms - AND women whose husbands bailed while the children were less than five years old.
I know a woman whose husband just filed for divorce and apparently locked her and their 1-year-old out of the house. She was married. Heck, they were in a church's newlywed class!
You could easily make the case that 90% of abortion arises from situations where men are unable - or unwilling - to take responsibility for their actions. If you reach that conclusion, you'd focus your energy on things that encourage (or in the case of child support enforcement, force) men to take responsibility.
The Roe v. Wade court decision isn't the root cause of the problem. If it were gone tomorrow, the issue would fall to the states. The major states like California and New York would remain pro-choice until people's hearts are changed. But that doesn't even take into account countries like Russia and China, where far more abortions are performed.
So I guess I disagree with the all-your-eggs-in-one-basket idea. There's a Body of Christ with different parts for a reason. We may not see the entire design in this lifetime, but God does.
22. Jethro said the following at 5:23 PM on Jul 25:
I don't think this approach would work. It might work with debt, but what if we used it with, say, medical care. Stop trying to cure all diseases except HIV/AIDS, which is 100% fatal, and once that's cured move onto other things. Too bad for everything out there with cancer...
Likewise abortion.
23. Clay Shentrup said the following at 7:52 PM on Jul 25:
The point about getting Score Voting (aka Range Voting) is absolutely right on. Voters need to be able to vote on independent issues, so that they can support the best match of stances on issues. But with our current system, you effectively have two choices. So maybe the pro-life candidate is also pro-war, and that's a conflict to you. Wouldn't it be nice if you could support candidates who more closely matched your precise ideology, but still have your say in the "real" election between the front-runners, even if none of the front-runners are especially desirable?
I personally see Score Voting as the most important issue in the world, because it is the key to how we make decisions as a society, in order to address all other issues - from war, to global warming and other environmental issues, to economic policy. Humanity will never be even nearly as harmonious as is possible until we get Score Voting.
24. BDB said the following at 9:38 PM on Jul 25:
Not sure where the "score voting" or "range voting" stuff is coming from. We used to call that "cumulative voting." For example, if you get 7 votes for 7 seats on the city council, and vote all 7 for the same guy, a small group could get that guy elected.
It's a really, really bad idea.
I'm firmly convinced that the reason the U.S. overall is as prosperous as it is stems directly from the way the government locks up on itself when they do anything really stupid. For two years, a Democratic president had a Democratic congress. He tried some stupid legislation, and the country rewarded him with a republican congress and senate. With split government, the budget got balanced. Welfore reform is passed.
A few years later, situation is reversed. A Republican president goes too far for some people, and they give him a Democratic congress to work with. The president discovers his veto pen on spending bills. Gosh, where was that? In a drawer? And the government returns to gridlock.
Frankly, gridlock is predictable. For a business owner, it's a lot better knowing that tomorrow will be pretty close to today. Wild uncertainty is really bad for jobs. Our geographic-based separation of powers system prevents any one faction from doing too much damage. If the overreach, other parts of the government will slow them down until the clock runs out.
That stability is what allows prosperity in America: the knowledge that no one will ever get enough power to really, really mess stuff up. There are more than 89,000 elected offices in the U.S., each with a little bit of power. If the president's brother's dog is running loose, the elected dog catcher can still take the dog into custody, without worrying that armed men will show up at his house in the middle of the night to hurt his family.
25. a sister said the following at 9:59 PM on Jul 25:
Well said, Motte. This is no time for a diluted focus. I'm all for social justice - properly defined and prioritized. But there are some matters that rise to the top in importance.
I often mention that promoting cultural (and legal) respect for human life is not a single issue for me. It's actually a "banner issue." That is, where you stand on this issue tells me a whole lot about who you are and what you believe. It's a "without which not" - if you don't get it right, all your care for rainforests and abused chimpanzees and redistributing hard earned income from the people who worked for it to those who didn't doesn't matter a hill of beans to me.
Similarly, if you do get respect for innocent human life "right" you are much more likely to be right on a host of other issues which are important to me, though perhaps slightly less so than this one.
For those who say that our fights for life in the public arena haven't mattered, I would introduce two facts:
* Teens are, overall, having sex later, delaying pregnancy, and choosing life more frequently.
* Abortions have decreased from their high of 1.5+ million a year to 845,000 a year.
These facts are at least partly due to the active involvement of believers in the fight to stop abortion and encourage teens to celebrate sexually within the protective context of marriage.
Although often invoked, it is worth remembering William Wilberforce. His fight against slavery didn't reach the hoped for victory until after he died. Others had opposed it, though not so powerfully, long before he started championing the cause of the chained Negro in Parliament. We've only been fighting the evil of legalized abortion for a little over 30 years. It's a marathon folks!
26. Adam said the following at 11:05 PM on Jul 25:
I think the debt snowball idea is a good one. But you have to start small. Why not start with something bi-partisan even?
Abortion is a very big issue and a very divisive one. It might make sense to put all the effort towards banning late term abortion. That would have much more chance of success because the cruelty of it is much more shared.
------------
Another thing to consider... to what extent do you fight the battle? Should all forms of the pill be banned because of the potential of aborting a fertilized egg? Should Plan B be outlawed?
Conception seems to be a very easy point to say that that is where life begins. From a secular perspective this seems very easy. From a Christian perspective, we must also consider at what point this fetus/baby receives a soul. It could happen at conception, after conception, and could even happen before conception - in which case we would need to rethink some other theologies as well.
----
The simple fact of the matter is that I would be scared to vote for a party that made abortion elimination their sole #1 issue. Yes, abortion is a tragedy. But ignoring or minimizing other problems in order to fix the one problem is a recipe for disaster. Just hating abortion doesn't make you qualified to represent me in this country.
27. A.M.C. said the following at 11:17 PM on Jul 25:
Re: BDB (#24)
Actually, Range Voting and Cumulative voting are entirely different systems. Cumulative Voting is as you have described: you get a set number of votes, which you could give all to one candidate or split among several candidates. In Range Voting, however, you give each candidate a rating in a set range (say, between 0 and 99), with no limits on the sum of your ratings, and the candidate with the highest average rating wins.
* Range Voting is a huge improvement over plurality because it eliminates the spoiler effect-- you could honestly vote for your favorite 3rd-party or independent candidate (i.e. give them high ratings) while still being able to vote for a major party candidate as back-up. The fact that it utilizes ratings rather than rankings means that strength-of-preference information is retained and that it is more resistant to strategic voting; the most people can exaggerate their votes is to only use the maximum or minimum. When this happens, Range Voting is reduced to Approval Voting, which is still an improvement over plurality.
==> And if you're worried that a dedicated small group can elect a totally unknown candidate, rest assured that such possibility can be prevented by adding the so-called "quorum rule," which requires a minimum total score for a candidate to be elected.
28. BDB said the following at 11:55 PM on Jul 25:
Thank you A.M.C. (#26) for the explanation.
So, I will simplify my answer. The reason I like geographic-based districts is that it requires the elected official to pay attention to his/her constituents. For most offices, that means understanding what is important to people, and taking that into consideration when governing. In the U.S., it tends to come back to jobs, jobs, jobs. This constrains all political actors - if something - even global warming - threatens the jobs of their constituents, they need to stop and think before passing that legislation.
(This is why Boeing has manufacturing operations in 26 states. The joke is that they own 52 Senators.)
So, if range voting allows candidates with specific, single issues to get elected, how are they held accountable if they make decisions that destroy a lot of jobs?
29. Naomi said the following at 8:25 AM on Jul 26:
I'm sorry. I live in another country and I don't understand why there is not one united voice among Christians in America against abortion.
I understand that abortion isn't the only issue that Christians should fight about but it seems that a lot of Christians in America would rather skip this issue.
30. A.M.C. said the following at 9:59 AM on Jul 26:
Re: BDB (#27)
So, if range voting allows candidates with specific, single issues to get elected, how are they held accountable if they make decisions that destroy a lot of jobs?
To be honest, I'm not sure. It's strange that the math professor who took the time to set up his detailed website that promotes Range Voting (rangevoting.org) never addressed this issue. But here's my guess:
1. In practice, single-issue candidates would have a better showing when the situation favors them regardless of the voting system used. If anything, Ross Perot did receive 18% of popular vote back in 1992 by focusing on the issue of budget deficit.
2. In the context of this topic, I guess you're thinking about the possibility of electing single-issue pro-life candidates who might make irresponsible political decisions? Let's be practical here-- it won't happen for the following two reasons.
(a) If Range Voting ever gets passed on the state or national level, the number of candidates to choose from will increase because 3rd party and independent candidates would be encouraged to run. Among those, surely some of the pro-life candidates would be more competent than others. Thus the problem goes away by itself because better choices are available.
(b) Although Prof. Warren D. Smith said on his website that Range Voting might cause the "nursery effect" (i.e. the phenomenon where people would vote strategically for major-party candidates but honestly for 3rd-party candidates who wouldn't win anyway), I'm personally skeptical. Chances are good that many people would either give arbitrary low scores to lesser-known candidates, or utilize the "blank" option if available. The former would decrease the chance of electing them simply because that lowers their average score, while the latter would increase their chance that the quorum rule would prevent them from being elected.
[Translation: Yes, Range Voting does help 3rd parties a bit, but major party candidates would still have an advantage simply because they are better known.]
3. Even if Range Voting does elect incompetent candidates, remember that this could happen under every voting system. That's what the recall procedure is for. Remember that part of the goal of replacing plurality voting with Range is to increase the chance that better candidates would be elected in the first place (so that people would not have to recall the elected official later).
4. You might have noticed from Prof. Smith's website that he does not like the Electoral College because the popular vote winner could lose. Personally, I don't either, but I would accept "federalism" and "states' rights" as legitimate defenses.
==> Then again, Range Voting could be used in conjunction with the electoral college and geographic-based districts. So, I would not consider it a threat to our country's federalism. For that matter, I would even argue that many of our geographic-based districts are not democratic due to gerrymandering. As things now stand, many people are essentially disenfranchised when it comes to congressional elections, simply because their districts were computer-drawn to be safe for either major party. So, I would say that getting rid of gerrymandering would be another reform to advocate in addition to Range Voting.
31. Craig M. said the following at 10:38 AM on Jul 26:
Yes, by all means let's spend all this space and time discussing a massive re-write of the Constitution that is never, never, never going to happen under any circumstances, ever.
32. BDB said the following at 12:45 PM on Jul 26:
A.M.C. (#30) thanks for your response. I like this part:
>>If anything, Ross Perot did receive 18% of popular vote back in 1992 by focusing on the issue of budget deficit.<<
Yes. And I knew a number of Perot voters in the late 90's who said, "I voted for Perot to balance the budget, and look, the budget is balanced." But it took a split between a Democratic president and Republican congress to get it done.
Now, one way they got it done was though wefare reform, which put a five-year limit on benefits. States that were aggressive, like Wisconsin, reduced welfare rolls by 1/3. Advocates for the poor screamed, and still scream, that it's a terrible injustice to the poor. But for a while, the Perot voters got a balanced budget.
In reading the Federalist papers, I still think that the reasons for the Electoral College hold true. Urban voters do not understand agriculture, and will vote stuff to themselves at the expense of everyone's food supply.
Out West, a great example is water. The city-dwellers would LOVE to eliminate water for agriculture and divert it to the cities. As someone from Northern California joked to me; my lawn is dead and my car is dirty so that people in San Diego can take long showers...
You see it happening now with the issue of dams and judges. There are a variety of lawsuits on behalf of various threatented species that are reducing the water available for both agriculture and cities. I think my water prices are going up 20% this year due to one recent lawsuit and the reducion in available water from the state water project. In this case, the lawsuits are pushed by single-issue individuals who, as far as I can tell, could care less about the consequences to jobs or food prices. Their single issue is protecting certain species, and they're going to force that perspective on others regardless of the consequences.
Geographical elected officials have to balance these things. As one of my poltical friends likes to say, if you had propositions on the ballot to increase education spending by 50%, increase environmental spending by 50%, increase helth care spending by 50%, and cut taxes by 50%, they'd all pass. It's impossible to do all those things together, but the voters would pass them all.
33. Meghan said the following at 1:20 PM on Jul 26:
As for me, I will not vote for a candidate who supports abortion if there are any alternatives. If it comes to chosing between two pro-abortion cadidates (and there are no 3rd party alternatives), then I vote for the lesser of two evils -- the one who is least pro-abortion.
I view the pro-abortion candidates in this way: either he/she is deceived and ignorant of the facts of life and consequently as oblivious to a currently running modern-day holocaust as many in the German populace claimed to be back in WWII or alternatively, they know perfectly well what they are supporting and have consciences so seared that convenience (of garnering the vote or personal convenience)rule their actions. After all, to this candidate, out of sight, out of mind. If a baby cannot yet vote or speak, and is sequestered away unseen in-utero it doesn't matter whether there is human life . . .it is expendable and irrelevant to gaining power or making the right people in the right circles "happy".
I could not trust either one deceived and ignorant nor one so bereft of conscience as to ignore the plight of the weakest members of society and tolerate child abuse on such a grand scale. One will be apt to self-deception and ignorance in other areas of policy, and the second will apply such self-serving and cruel logic to other issues, as well. . .including euthenasia of the disabled, assisted suicide, etc.
What a leader does in this arena feeds into all others. But unlike cries for "social justice" (which are just as easily twisted into soviet style propaganda slogans as something benefiting the truly needy), abortion is a much starker contrast. Whether in India, the former Soviet Union, or in America, the act of abortion has the same end goal and the same ultimate meaning: the death of an unborn human being -- social justice could mean anything the leadership wants it to -- from "down with the bourgeois!" to "Redistribution of wealth" and anywhere on the spectrum of political opinion.
34. JDB said the following at 4:51 AM on Jul 27:
I don't know about "score voting" - -sounds a bit out there. But there's another system that is constitutional called preferential voting or "instant runoff" voting. We used it at my school in our elections and it's been popular in ballot measures.
It's still in local districts and the candidate with the most votes wins. But you rank candidates 1-2-3. But you can vote for your real first choice without worrying about splitting the vote if you end up deciding it's worth supporting your "lesser of two evils" over the candidate you like the least.
More on this idea on web at places like www.instantrunoff.com
35. farmer Tom said the following at 8:42 PM on Jul 27:
I have a suggestion. And since I'm older an more seasoned than many of you, I think I speak from my life experience, I hope anyway.
Instead of being a single issue voter, and making abortion the focus of your vote, instead of trying to use the snowball effect on abortion. How about a radical, life changing and throughly Biblical approach to how we interact with government.
First, why this pattern is Biblical, then how to implement it. As I have stated before Scripture is our final authority for Faith and Practice. Jesus repeatedly said that unless we knew the Scriptures we could not know God. Since God had revealed himself through Scripture John 5 Unless we knew the Scripture we could not know Christ. John 5 That those who did not believe or hear Gods Word were not His disciples. John 8 I could give numerous other passages in II Peter and I Timothy which emphasis the superiority of Scripture in knowing the truth and how to live the Christian life. What I'm saying then is that a true believer in Jesus Christ uses Scripture as the basis for their belief system. Scripture contains "all things that pertain to life and Godliness". Scripture is the owners manual, the service manual, the operators manual, the textbook, the instruction manual, you get the idea???
Now in the political sphere, one can accomplish the same agenda as Motte desires by following one simple principle. Returning to the foundational, underlying instruction manual of this nation, and only supporting those politicians who understand and practice politics as written in those documents.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness(Property)."
Most of the politicians today are ineligible for office using this standard since they do not believe that all men were created!!! An evolutionist/atheist types are philosophically unable to understand and support the foundational principles of this country because they do not believe in a God who Created us. If we evolved then our existence and therefore our rights are simply a result of random time and chance and can be changed or revoked on the very whim of the political class.
A politician who does not understand that the Right to Life is foundational to the very existence of human race is likewise unworthy of office since that politician believes that life is a light thing to be treated as a mere happenstance, ignoring the fact that man is created in the very image of God.
The Declaration of Independence is the statement of belief in what we as a nation were founded upon. The Constitution is the document which implements that system of belief. Any politician which does not understand the Original Constitution is again ineligible to hold office. If one does not understand that the role of government is limited to the stated powers and that all powers not stated are reserved to the states and the people, is a traitor and treasonous to the Constitution. Any politician which supports the ratification of and continues use of the 16th Amendment should be ineligible to hold office, since that politician is a thief, desirous of unjustly stealing from the citizens of these United States.
Any politician who has read the Constitution and does not understand that when the Preamble states "and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," definition "Posterity
posterity n. 1. Future generations. 2. All of a person's descendants. [
and that those future unborn citizens are according to the Fifth Amendment nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law , that politician is a murderous thug who should be charged as a murderer for depriving a citizen of these United States of Life.
And politician who reads the Fifth Amendment and fails to understand and support the Right and Duty of the government to deprive those guilty of crime of their liberty or their life dependent on conviction by a jury trial, are unworthy of being elected to office.
I could go on, but I think some of you might be getting the point.
You should only vote for politicians who will say "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute office of..........., and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." And then follow through on that oath.
This requires that those politician actually read and understand the Constitution they are swearing to defend, and that we the people will hold them accountable when they fail to do so.
My personal Senator from Iowa should have been impeached when he claimed that all handguns should be confiscated and thrown in the sea. He does not believe nor understand, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So in summary, vote for a politician who actually believes and understands the Constitution. That would solve most of the problems we are having with unacceptable choices for public office. If they don't believe and follow the Constitution they are ineligible for office. Just as a person who denies or rejects the authority of Scripture cannot know Jesus Christ.
36. A.M.C. said the following at 9:28 AM on Jul 28:
Re: Craig M. (#31)
by all means let's spend all this space and time discussing a massive re-write of the Constitution that is never, never, never going to happen under any circumstances, ever.
Well, I would cite Mike Huckabee's earlier response regarding amending the U.S. Constitution to fit God's Word better. Although some would say that he phrased it badly, I agree with the underlying premise, namely that the Constitution is a human artifact that is fallible while God's Word should not be reinterpreted to fit fallible human constructs such as the Constitution.
And besides, Range Voting is supposedly constitutional. So your concern goes away by itself.
37. A.M.C. said the following at 9:38 AM on Jul 28:
Re: JDB (#34)
[T]here's another system that is constitutional called preferential voting or "instant runoff" voting. We used it at my school in our elections and it's been popular in ballot measures.
It's still in local districts and the candidate with the most votes wins. But you rank candidates 1-2-3. But you can vote for your real first choice without worrying about splitting the vote if you end up deciding it's worth supporting your "lesser of two evils" over the candidate you like the least.
Yes, I do know that IRV is somewhat popular and has been actually tried in actual elections. But due to several of its major flaws, I would argue that it's inferior to Range Voting, and in certain cases even worse than plurality voting:
------------------------------
1. In IRV, there are cases where voting honestly prevents your favorite candidate from winning. For example, let's say that we have a 3-candidate election:
36% of the voters: C>A>B
30%: A>C>B
24%: B>A>C
10%: C>B>A
B is eliminated first, and A wins in the round 54% to 46% against C. But if some of the C>B>A voters change their vote to B>C>A:
36%: C>A>B
30%: A>C>B
24%: B>A>C
3%: C>B>A
7%: B>C>A
A is eliminated first, and C wins in the final round against B... and in a landslide (69% to 31%)! Now, imagine that "A" is the pro-life candidate we're trying to elect. In both cases, A would lose. Would IRV really help our cause?
------------------------------
2. Historically, IRV countries such as Australia and Fiji have also had two-party domination. In the case of Australia specifically, IRV even hurts racial minorities (all 150 MPs are White). Add that to the fact that write-in candidates are either not allowed or arbitrarily ranked last in IRV, and it becomes clear that such a system does not help our 3rd-party pro-life candidate.
------------------------------
3. The method that IRV eliminates candidates and transfer votes poses other problems. For example, IRV ballots cannot be counted in precincts (which is one way to detect electoral fraud) because each new vote may change the candidate being eliminated in each IRV round. This problem doesn't occur in plurality or Range, where the totals are simply added.
------------------------------
4. IRV favors extremists. Let's revisit our earlier example:
36%: C>A>B
30%: A>C>B
24%: B>A>C
10%: C>B>A
Here, A is the Condorcet winner, i.e. A wins in both pairwise match-ups (66%-34% against B and 54%-46% against C). In contrast, B is the Condorcet loser, because B loses 34%-66% against A and 24%-76% against C. Yet B would win despite that A is arguably the best compromise candidate (ranked first or second in 90% of the votes).
------------------------------
5. And if all of the above are not enough, there are even cases where voters are better off staying home under IRV! Here's another example:
38%: A>C>B
33%: B>C>A
29%: C>B>A
C is eliminated first, and B wins in the final round against A in a landslide (62% to 38%). But if some of the A>C>B voters stay home:
19%: A>C>B
33%: B>C>A
29%: C>B>A
A is eliminated first, and C wins in the final round 48 to 33 (an improvement in the minds of A>C>B voters). So, here's the strange yet true conclusion: IRV might discourage voter turnout. This would certainly not occur under plurality or Range Voting!
38. A.M.C. said the following at 9:44 AM on Jul 28:
Re: farmer Tom (#35)
I have one question.
As I've said earlier, I believe that, as Christians, we're NOT supposed to give the U.S. Constitution more authority than God's Word. Thus, I can imagine the possibility that a politician might find some part of the Constitution contrary to biblical principles. When this happens, should the politician support the fallible Constitution anyway simply because we have a secular government?
39. farmer Tom said the following at 11:14 AM on Jul 28:
should the politician support the fallible Constitution anyway simply because we have a secular government?
I'm very tempted to be snarky here since you did not read my post very carefully.
I will assume that you simply missed the point.
I said, "Any politician which supports the ratification of and continues use of the 16th Amendment should be ineligible to hold office, since that politician is a thief, desirous of unjustly stealing from the citizens of these United States."
Now if I believe that the income tax is unBiblical and an unjust and immoral tax on the first fruits of labor, yet some socialist idiots somehow got the 16th Amendment to the Constitution ratified. Then clearly I believe that all followers of Jesus Christ must put Biblical principle before the Constitution. Is that clear enough???
Remember though that this is not an excuse for bad Scriptural interpretation. A.M.C. have your ever read any of the works of Locke, Blackstone, Madison, Washington etc. Most of these men were very knowledgeable men who knew how to read and speak several languages, and believed Scripture to be God's Word. They envisioned a government founded on the Truths of Scripture while at the same time, not forcing any one particular religious affiliation , after all their experiences with the church of England and others were not good, many had left England because of religious persecution.
So don't attempt to stick modern day theological practice into the Constitutional mold.
40. P&P said the following at 7:17 AM on Jul 29:
I've heard several reports about Monica Goodling, the employee at the justice department that played a role in the hiring and firing of Attorneys General as well as other high-level figures, used abortion and gay marriage as a basis for her decisions.
She violated civil law, left the JD and is now facing some serious legal problems as a result of her behavior.
Food for thought.
41. Craig said the following at 10:38 PM on Jul 30:
I will throw out a question that I would love to hear a dialogue on, although it may be too hot for people to touch.
I am pro-life, but I have a hard time being really passionate about the issue. Here is why:
If I knew that someone was going to kill my wife, or my child, or my neighbor, I would feel compelled to step in and protect them, even to the point of using deadly force or putting my own life at risk. This example plays out even if the killing is government-sanctioned (ala China's cultural revolution or the Nazi Holocaust).
Thus, if I REALLY believe that abortion is the same as murder, then I am compelled to act by the methods above. Namely, even to the point of forcibly stopping the person who is to do the killing, whether it is the abortion doctor or the mother, or both.
Yet, I hear many Christians be zealous about opposing abortion and calling it murder, yet not taking such drastic steps. This leads me to conclude that either (1) they really do not believe that abortion actually is murder, or (2) they do not believe that force should be used to protect another person's life (i.e., if a burglar breaks into my home, I should go ahead and let him kill my wife). What is the answer to this issue?
For me, I have concluded that I really do not understand when life begins and when my obligation to step in starts. As such, it is hard for me to be zealous on this issue (although I am pro-life, for reasons other than concluding that abortion is simply murder), because zealousness would require the responses described above--which I would imagine even many supposedly zealous pro-lifers would disagree with.
Thoughts? Please do not take this as an invitation to attack me. I am wrestling with what the right response is and am not attempting to indicate I have it figured out. So, in responding, please be respectful and give a genuine, thoughtful response, without ad hominem attacks and name-calling.
Peace and grace!
42. Leah said the following at 12:13 AM on Jul 31:
I agree with Jethro, BDB, Jo et al. We can't all be crusaders for the unborn, as important as they are, because some of us must be crusaders for AIDS orphans in Africa, or suicidal teenagers, or the freedom to pray/ teach religion in public schools, or translating the bible into other languages, or taking the gospel to other countries, etc etc. For sure, we can do several of those at once, but we will always prioritise something as #1, and abortion does not have to rate as #1 for everybody, or nothing else would get done. BDB's medical analogy was a good one.
I have to admit that I almost cringe whenever our minister brings up abortion in his sermons which touch on ethics. He's so avidly anti-abortion that it's almost the only ethical issue we ever hear about from him, and truth be told, as good a teacher as he is, I'm getting sick of it. It's like it's the only matter of ethical importance in the world, when it isn't.