The Moment Pro-Life Voters Become Pro-Abortion
by Motte Brown on 10/21/2008 at 5:12 PM
Can you be "pro-life" and vote for a "pro-abortion" candidate? It's a question considered by Gerard V. Bradley writing for The Witherspoon Institute in this article. The answer is yes, you can be pro-life and vote for a pro-choice candidate. But the moment you do, you essentially become "pro-abortion". Here's why:
The "pro-life" voter who votes for a "pro-choice" candidate materially -- that is, in fact and as a matter of foreseeable effect -- cooperates in sustaining this country's radically defective legal structure about abortion. Take the case of presidential elections. Voting for a "pro-choice" candidate helps him to win the presidency, and helping him to win the presidency is, perforce, to help him make his declared "pro-choice" policies a reality (or, to the extent such policies are in place, to help him to block efforts to repeal them). The "pro-life" voter who votes for a "pro-choice" candidate knowingly declines to do what he or she can do to legally protect the unborn from being killed-namely, to vote for a "pro-life" candidate (if one is running).
We've been having an internal discussion at Boundless on the culpability of Christians who knowingly support a pro-abortion president. Here's the question we're pondering: When a pro-abortion president they helped elect signs legislation which directly leads to more abortions, do those Christians have blood on their hands?
1. Dan said the following at 5:28 PM on Oct 21:
Absolutely. In fact, the people are arguably even more to blame than the politicians who often as not are just plastic snakes saying what the people want to hear.
2. DP said the following at 5:37 PM on Oct 21:
If you voted for our current President, do you have the blood of innocent Iraqis on your hands?
3. Brian Ramsey said the following at 5:43 PM on Oct 21:
Motte, I think this is a good question because I know many people who aren't sure how to measure their standards for voting. It seems to me that a wise approach might be to consider the question, "Would I sign such-and-such into legislation?"
If a candidate would sign something contrary to your morals into legislation, then their personality is of lesser consequence (though not entirely un-important).
I do feel, however, that a person might still consider himself to be "pro-life" even if voting for a "pro-choice" candidate because they might have felt other issues were of greater importance (I don't). That person might also still encourage others around them to consider adoption, yet still have voted for a "pro-choice" candidate. Interesting question, Motte.
4. farmer Tom said the following at 5:53 PM on Oct 21:
[quote]"When a pro-abortion president they helped elect signs legislation which directly leads to more abortions, do those Christians have blood on their hands?[/quote]
YES
5. Kate said the following at 5:58 PM on Oct 21:
Apparently you have been busy with this discussion and that is why you haven't been posting as many interesting articles?
6. Motte said the following at 6:06 PM on Oct 21:
Kate:
*smile* I do tend to have a one track mind around election time.
7. cn said the following at 6:13 PM on Oct 21:
I think any Christian who votes for a pro-abortion candidate absolutely has innocent blood on his/her hands. Its not even a matter of question.
8. Megan G said the following at 6:21 PM on Oct 21:
I agree with the sentiment protrayed by DP in comment #2. While I do think that a pro-life voter has a resposibility to vote against someone who is pro-choice on the abortion issue, I believe that being pro-life does not only apply to abortion, but to war and the death penalty as well. I believe that pro-life voters must consider the views of a political candidate on all life related issues, not only abortion. Is it right to vote for a candidate who is more likely to go to war (which inevitably causes death of both soldiers and innocent civilians) just because he is pro-life on the abortion issue? I'm not sure.
9. Leah said the following at 6:23 PM on Oct 21:
Your logic is that voting for a pro-choice candidate supports his pro-choice policies.
What if a pro-life candidate isn't flagging pro-life policies? What if he's all talk and no walk?
So saying The "pro-life" voter who votes for a "pro-choice" candidate knowingly declines to do what he or she can do to legally protect the unborn from being killed-namely, to vote for a "pro-life" candidate (if one is running). isn't entirely true. In the above situation, voting for the "pro-life" candidate would not be doing anything to legally protect the unborn.
When a pro-abortion president they helped elect signs legislation which directly leads to more abortions, do those Christians have blood on their hands?
When a pro-life president you helped elect kills innocent civilians in a war, or denies cheap health care to low-income earners, is their blood on your hands?
Give it a rest. We know your opinion, we don't need it constantly jammed down our throats. And this is coming from someone vehemently pro-life who'd never vote for a pro-choice candidate if she could help it.
10. Kerry said the following at 6:35 PM on Oct 21:
Honestly, I think this post is very unfair. The truth is that both candidates will sign legislation that would leave "blood on our hands." Whether that is for an unjust war or the death penalty, neither presidential candidate is going to align perfectly with our morals. Moreover the current "Pro-life" candidate (not naming names because I know we can't do that on Boundless) does not even want to abolish abortion. He simply wants to leave it in the hands of the states. If you think abortion is murder (which I do) to say it is up to the States to define what is murder is crazy. So in my opinion both candidates are NOT pro-life so I have to pick the lesser of the two evils. If the pro-life candidate would support a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn, I would vote for him. But he just wants to "leave it to the states" which is a cop-out. So I am voting for the candidate who might allow for abortions (which is wrong) but is going to provide people with social programs, health care, and contraception to prevent many of the abortions from happening.
11. Jordan Peacock said the following at 6:38 PM on Oct 21:
It's hardly a choice of 'blood on one's hands' vs. 'no blood on one's hands'. If you participate in current U.S. electoral politics, and support just about ANY candidate (certainly any major party candidate) - you are directly and indirectly supporting numerous policies and situations that are completely untenable for a believer.
Double this for corporate support. Ever drunk a Coke product? Do you support the murder of union leaders in Colombia? You can take this logic pretty far any direction you want, once you're committed to it.
12. Jeremy said the following at 6:57 PM on Oct 21:
"If you voted for our current President, do you have the blood of innocent Iraqis on your hands?"
Exactly. There is no perfect candidate. If everyone were personally responsible for the negative results of every decision made by the people for whom they voted, literally no one should vote.
Instead, of course, most take exactly the path Motte took, to choose a single issue and attack those who dare to consider anything else to be important.
13. Dan said the following at 6:59 PM on Oct 21:
What if we put all our work into taking away the stigma from teen pregnancy? The stigma that drives people to try and undo their mistake. Let's pour the funds that we spend getting people elected into Crisis Pregnancy Centers that counsel people considering abortion to seek either adoption or to keep the baby. Then we push the government to make adoption much more affordable for qualified, loving families.
How much money, time, and effort has been spent getting Pro-life presidents elected who haven't really done anything to protect the lives of the unborn? It can be argued that some of them merely didn't make things worse, but that's debatable.
Let's work at a level that we can actually make a difference: the local level. Dan #1 had a solid point, most of the political process revolves around the image that they are exactly who we want them to be, and we really have no way of knowing. It hasn't served us well in the past.
14. Chris said the following at 7:04 PM on Oct 21:
Maybe I'm reading too much into things, but I think some people are attempting to "circle the wagons" using abortion because of fellow church-goers potentially voting for one or more candidates whose party is not approved by certain religious organizations.
But I could be wrong.........
15. Nancy said the following at 7:14 PM on Oct 21:
I have a moral dilemma, then . . . I voted on two issues in the last election, the pro-life issue and the prospect of openings on the Supreme Court. But I am torn, a la Megan's comment. The last president I voted for let the ban on automatic assault weapons expire (likely due to campaign contributions and influence from the NRA). How does a pro-life president justify this action? And why did we attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? I will vote pro-life again, but with a great measure of discontent.
16. Nathan said the following at 7:15 PM on Oct 21:
When a pro-life president you helped elect kills innocent civilians in a war... is their blood on your hands?
I am not convinced that you can fairly compare casual abortion (i.e. not needed to save the mother's life) with the war in Iraq. Despite the debate concerning the war, I think that most people would agree that the primary motiviation behind invading was not simply to kill innocents.
In the case of casual abortion, the intent is always a cruel death for the unborn child. Instead of comparing abortion and war, a more accurate picture may be found in comparing abortion and genocide.
17. Adam said the following at 7:25 PM on Oct 21:
Yes, a lot of pro-life people already have an educated opinion on this, myself included, but there's someone out there who's read this that just got educated for the first time.
18. jethro said the following at 7:46 PM on Oct 21:
For a non-political organisation you sure do talk politics alot. Often in a way that seems to favour one particular party. Now why is that?
19. KDS said the following at 7:50 PM on Oct 21:
What if I vote for a candidate who wants to give tax breaks to the rich? Am I ignoring Jesus' command to care for the poor?
What if I vote for a candidate who wants to wipe out all immigrants from the country? Am I ignoring God's command to care for the foreigner and the alien?
The problem with this logic is that there will never be a candidate for political office who entirely embodies what I would like to see enacted on a social level (abortion, immigration, the poor, health care, gay rights, war, creation care).
Christians face a problem when we become one issue voters. Political conservatives are typically closer to Christian values on abortion, gay rights, etc... But more liberal politicians put more emphasis on care for the poor, widow, alien, and disenfranchised.
So, based on the above logic we should never be able in good conscience vote for any candidate. When we do choose to vote we are always faced with choosing the best of the options presented. If voting for a pro-choice candidate leaves the blood of the unborn on our hands we should feel guilty about innocent civilians who get killed in wars our candidate initiates. This is a conundrum that will always face the Christian voter.
20. Brendan Berkley said the following at 8:03 PM on Oct 21:
If this statement is true, then anyone who pays taxes in states that fund abortions for low-income women (Hawaii, New York, Washington, and Maryland do it willingly, 13 other states are under court order to provide abortions on some levels) would also be directly paying for the murder of children. Should they not stand up for the rights of the unborn and not pay taxes, if this submission to the government is subverting the law of Christ.
21. Charity said the following at 8:10 PM on Oct 21:
"If you faint in the day of adversity,
your strength is small. Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?"
Proverbs 24:10-12 (ESV)
Pro-life victory's have been few and hard fought and in one moment every single one of them- from parental notification to the partial birth abortion ban- could be erased. The dangerous potential passage of the Freedom of Choice Act should burn in the heart of every believer.
I walked through the Holocaust Museum in DC for the first time this summer and saw the piles of shoes and heaps of hair belonging to the tortured and slaughtered victims of the Nazis. I couldn't help thinking, "Where were all the good people? Where were all the regular, decent people?" The sheer volume of the dead speaks much of the cowardice and apathy that was prevalent at the time. We rightly judge those who did nothing about the Holocaust or who yawned at another sermon on slavery. How will history judge those who, by their silence or by their vote, do nothing about abortion? More importantly, how will God?
22. JB said the following at 8:18 PM on Oct 21:
Thanks for the interesting article, Motte. It was really thought provoking. I do, however, think that there are some legitimate reasons a pro-life person could have for voting for a pro-choice candidate which Professor Bradley didn't adequately address.
A theoretical pro-life voter could consider pro-life candidate X to have little chance of actually achieving a prohibition of abortion and also consider pro-choice candidate Y to have a good chance of implementing policies in other areas which are life-saving. In this case, if the number of lives likely to be saved by Y is greater than the number likely to be saved by X, bearing in mind their chances of actually achieving their policy goals, it might be legitimate to vote for the pro-choice candidate.
A variant on this position would be that a voter might believe that the legality of abortion would not significantly affect the number of abortions which actually occur, in which case the voter could consider the pro-life candidate's capacity to save lives much lower than the pro-choice candidate's.
This would essentially be an application of the doctrine of double effect. Our hypothetical pro-life voter would be engaging in an act which is morally good (i.e. voting for the pro-choice candidate in order to save the greatest number of lives) while not intending the morally bad consequences of this act (i.e. the differentially weighted chance of continued abortions) such that he or she believes the good consequences to outweigh the bad.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure it would be possible to discuss here whether this situation actually pertains to the various national, state, and local elections at hand without endangering Boundless' tax-exempt status.
23. cn said the following at 8:33 PM on Oct 21:
In response to Leah #9
No, Boundless, don't give it a rest. Never stop sharing the truth about God's heart for the pre-born. Its, not an opinion, Leah. Its truth. Plain and simple. Anyone vehemently pro-life should know that if we don't speak up, no one will, because the lives threatened by abortion can't speak for themselves. None of us should give it a rest.
24. Jarod said the following at 9:11 PM on Oct 21:
So if you voted for an avowed atheist who happened to be pro-life, does that make you then voting against God?
This seems a lot like the question can God make a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it. You are screwed either way you answer unless you ultimately realise that perhaps the question is a little wonky in the first place.
25. farmer Tom said the following at 9:14 PM on Oct 21:
When a pro-life president you helped elect kills innocent civilians in a war,
I don't have time tonight to start this discussion, but some of you really need to do some Biblical research about the subject of war.
or denies cheap health care to low-income earners, is their blood on your hands?
some of you still trying to steal someone else's money to do good with huh?
Having comprehension problems with "Thou shalt not steal" are you?
26. KeepItReal said the following at 9:31 PM on Oct 21:
Leah, Maybe you should give it a rest.
27. Sznn said the following at 9:33 PM on Oct 21:
A Christian person should, in my opinion, never vote pro-choice. A Child is a Child, not a Choice. I don't know about any of you, but I have two beautiful daughters, and four wonderful grandchildren, and I saw their heartbeats from the very beginning, then heard them, then saw ultrasounds with real live babies that we loved before they were even born. It distresses me to think of anyone aborting a child.
As far as some of the things the others have said, I have been reading a lot lately in my Bible, concerned for this election, and I've been reading the commentary by J. Vernon McGee - Thru the Bible.
It does say in Leviticus 20 that capital punishment was instituted by God. I am sure there are other places, but that happens to be one I just finished reading.
Also, there is a difference between personal murder and killing during war.
At any rate, I am anti-abortion, and I am a Christian. I believe I am voting as my Lord would have me vote, given the only two candidates we have to choose from. And particularly, given the fact that the winner will appoint at least two Supreme Court Justices during his term.
28. Irene M. said the following at 9:47 PM on Oct 21:
So, what's a voter to do when both candidates have blood on their hands?
29. Samantha said the following at 9:48 PM on Oct 21:
The difference between abortion and the death penalty is that the people on death row had the chance to live. They were allowed to make choices. (By the way, I don't believe in the death penalty.) The babies murdered by their mothers don't get to make choices. Abortion is the most important issue because all other issues come back to it. The world has so many problems. How can we solve them if we're killing all the potential problem solvers?
30. Brooks said the following at 10:00 PM on Oct 21:
Motte: Could you please clarify what you view as the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice? The common idea of pro-life means you are in favor of life in every situation and laws should be passed accordingly. Would not simple logic then demand that pro-abortion mean that you are in favor of and want laws requiring abortion in every situation?
------
I think we all need to struggle with the culpability question because there is no pro-life presidential candidate this election. FOTF has criticized both major candidates on not being pro-life. From what I've been able to find, third and fourth party candidates are not much better.
On legislation: The only way legislation either restricting or reducing restrictions on abortions to pass is if one party is in control of the House, Senate and is in the White House. Even then, as demonstrated earlier this decade, it does not mean that anything will be done.
If a pro-lifer vote for a pro-choice candidate essentially makes them pro-choice (as argued above): then should a pro-life majority be considered pro-choice if they do nothing to help the unborn? If so, are Christians culpable if we elect the "pro-life" candidate(s) who allow the bloodbath to continue?
Culpability can be very tricky though.
Please do not misunderstand me. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of an angry God. Sin, even in the lives of Christians, is a very serious issue. We will each be judged. I believe based on Scripture though, that my eternal destiny will not rest on whether I checked the box next to the (R), (D), (L) or (I) candidate on a ballot.
31. Dr. Ransom said the following at 10:01 PM on Oct 21:
In response to no. 9 and others, remain continually perplexed by the emotion-driven illogic of those who equate un-intended civilian casualties (blimey, your rhetorical style and that of a secular liberal are not different), or worse, the killing of enemy combatants in a war, with the unwarranted slaughter of small children (?).
Or perhaps, I'm not really perplexed.
After all, such views do make sense -- if one has lost sight of a Biblical worldview of right and wrong, guilt and non-guilt, and personal responsibility.
But to equate denial of life to denial of paying for someone's medical care is even more illogical. For Leah and others, I implore you in Christ to rethink this and other relativism-sourced assumptions. Please, be willing to see past this "bogeyman" of raving right-wing Christians that is so often used to justify supporting anything that's the opposing view.
32. Lara said the following at 10:10 PM on Oct 21:
I think the lives of unborn babies are just as valuable as civilians overseas to whom we give no aid whatsoever. I'm waiting for a candidate to break from party lines and be pro-life for people unborn and a hundred years old, and everyone in between.
33. Anakin Niceguy said the following at 10:16 PM on Oct 21:
Well,
I don't have these crises of conscience because I don't buy into the notion of voting for the lesser of two evils, considering that it is patently unscriptural (Romans 3:8). I am probably going to vote for a third party candidate who just as pro-life as some so-called "conservatives" whose actions have led to innocent blood being shed abroad and wealth being stolen from the American people (voting for the Bailout). The Bible is not a one-issue entity (James 2:10) and neither am I.
34. Colin said the following at 10:23 PM on Oct 21:
DP: Yes. If you voted for Bush or anyone else who pushed for the war (which I believe includes most Democratic congresspeople), you do have innocent Iraqi blood on your hands. But that fact doesn't change the point of the article: that voting for "a pro-choice candidate" (can't we just use his name?) is nothing short of taking part in a premeditated mass murder.
35. Rachael Starke said the following at 10:32 PM on Oct 21:
Leah - the issue is one of intent. Even our secular national laws differentiate clearly between intentional killing and unintentional killing. And when those innocent lives are intentionally placed in harm's way, to the point where mentally disabled teenagers have bombs strapped to their bodies and are sent in open air markets - yes, those leaders are fully responsible.
Re: healthcare, it is an argument of monstrous hubris and illogic for any politician to advocate free health care for the poor and indigent, while simultaneously legislating the denial of any care for an infant that miraculously survives an abortion. Or does an infant not qualify because they're not a low-income earner?
I strongly urge you to consider Paul's admonition in Colossians 2:8 to not be so easily deceived by worldly philosophies, and political talking points.
36. Joel said the following at 10:47 PM on Oct 21:
I've been hearing this argument a lot and I'm not sure when people started deciding that a "pro-life" stance must, by definition, encompass war and capital punishment issues. New Testament teaching clearly permits governments--and those in service of governments--to wage war against evil and punish criminals (Romans 13:3-4, 1 Peter 2:13-14). But it does not permit individual people acting on their own accord to take life.
The innocent lives lost during war pains me, but I don't know what else to say other than it's kinda hard to avoid--save never, ever going to war. But from reading the Bible, I don't get the sense that this is a realistic expectation this side of the Millennial Kingdom. Someone has to stand up and stop the Stalin's, Hitler's, Hussein's and Bin Laden's of this world.
37. Xasteius said the following at 11:12 PM on Oct 21:
Using the logic of #2 and #8, we shouldn't have entered World War II because innocent German civilians were killed during the bombing raids. Nevermind that Hitler was gassing just about everyone he considered deviant.
Saddam was gassing innocent Kurds. He is no longer in a position to inflict harm. Is the world a better place because he's no longer in power and killing thousands of people with chemical weapons? Yes. I can't remember who said it, but the fact that the US only went into 2 countries post-9/11 is a testament to the self-restraint of our political system.
What is unbiblical about the death penalty? It was used extensively throughout the Bible. It should not be used lightly, but in this fallen world it serves as a effective deterrent. Even Ted Bundy remarked that he didn't deserve to live. It takes many years for an execution to take place, anyway (the appeals and so forth). Many have received Christ, but they still pay the earthly penalty for their crimes (as we all do).
Robert E. Lee said it best: "It is good that war is so horrible, otherwise we should too fond of it."
38. Sheridan said the following at 11:21 PM on Oct 21:
To those who mentioned the Iraq war:
The Bible has never slammed war...King David killed thousands of 'innocent' Philistines in his day...on God's order. The commandment is not 'Do not kill' but 'Do not murder'.
There is a difference.
God told the Israelites to go and destroy Jericho (and kill all women and children) so that they could take over their land!
Murder is a different issue altogether, so you cannot lump the Iraq war in with Abortion.
39. DannieA said the following at 11:44 PM on Oct 21:
People are responsible for their own choices...so is blood on my hands when I vote one way or the other? No, but one should try to vote as responsibly as they can.
40. brx said the following at 11:50 PM on Oct 21:
DP (#2),
Nope, not the same case. For one it was not public knowledge - prior to the election - precisely how the Bush administration would handle a situation that led to the US occupation in Iraq. On the other hand, if a candidate has publicly stated that he will firmly advocate for and sign - given the opportunity - the so-called 'Freedom of Choice Act' -- which would lead to the death of thousands more innocent lives than the entire death toll of the occupation in Iraq.
What a society thinks about abortion reveals how much hope it has for future generations.
Grace & peace
41. Gabe in Norman, OK said the following at 11:52 PM on Oct 21:
Response to Comment 2:
You are obviously comparing the killing of war to the murder of babies. The Bible says "Thou shalt not murder," not "Thou shalt not kill" (c.f. Exodus 20). The collateral casualties in Iraq are regrettable, but what about the tens of thousands of "innocents" (there is no one who does good) that Saddam Hussein butchered?
I agree that life-related issues are the most important. I also believe that the Bible is very clear that capital punishment (war) are (is) the just wage (response) for wrongdoing (injustice) (Rom. 13:3-4).
Some are concerned about the domestic policies of the presidential candidates. Specifically, who will do a better job of taking care of the poor, needy, underpriveleged, etc. I believe this is an admirable consideration, since these are the type of people Jesus was/is also concerned about. However, I would like to remind everyone that before we can address the subject of *quality of and equality in* life we have to *have life* in the first place.
Regarding Comment 9:
I'll take my "chances" on an ostensibly pro-life candidate over a candidate who I *know* will, if given the opportunity, support pro-choice policies.
Further, anyone who believes abortion is murder and votes for a pro-choice candidate is like the person who sees a helpless person getting mugged and does nothing to help them. Yes, this person is culpable before God.
42. BDB said the following at 12:52 AM on Oct 22:
Hmmm...well, let the finger-pointing begin.
I know at which point I realized the religious conservatives had become confused by power. I read an article about campaign-finance reform. They were quoting a pro-life congressman. He was furious, because one of the major pro-life lobbying organizations had just threatened to withdraw all its support. It wasn't because of his pro-life voting record - he was 100% pro-life, spoke up publicly, everything.
It was because he was also in favor of campaign finance reform. You see, several years ago, for some reason I cannot fathom, several conservative political organizations decided to fight campain finance reform. They cared more about power, than about things like unborn babies. And so they were pressuring elected officials on something completely unrelated to their mission.
They lost their soul.
They traded it for power.
Given what I'm seeing in the polls, those groups will now have zero power.
They are reaping what they sowed.
In contrast, we have Bono, who succeeded in getting a ton of aid for Africa. By all accounts, he was always respectful to politicians on both sides of the aisle. He wasn't on TV ridiculing them. He wasn't going on talk shows and shaming them. He wasn't issuing talking points to slam the other side. He made the case in a respectful way. He learned the facts and was prepared to answer questions put to him.
Religious conservatives who which to actually accomplish something through politics can learn a lot from his methods. And resulting success.
43. Texas Craig said the following at 1:15 AM on Oct 22:
"Here's the question we're pondering: When a pro-abortion president they helped elect signs legislation which directly leads to more abortions, do those Christians have blood on their hands?"
I guess my question is "how does it matter?" As Jesus said, "if any of you says to your brother "raca" (you fool), he will be in danger of the fires of hell."
Yes, we all have sin in our lives. By your post, you are implying some greater guilt for those who might support a pro-abortion candidate, but on what basis? All of our sins have been washed away by the blood of Christ.
If we want to be serious about challenging people, let's also ask "If you choose to live in an expensive house and spend a lot of money on your kids' private education, instead of giving that money to starving children in the world or adopting orphans, do you have their blood on your hands?" or "If you choose not to support ministries that stop sexual exploitation of women and girls throughout the world, do you have their rapes and exploitation on your hands?"
Honestly, I do not mind the challenge that is presented by your post, because it can be a fair one. But, the "one-track mind" it implies is one of the reasons I think many Christians have become disenfranchised with many on the "religious right." There is so much evil in the world that we are to be resisting and fighting. Abortion is one of those evils, but not the only one. So, I will actively resist efforts to make it the litmus test for Christians, when there are so many other areas where we in the body of Christ are failing to resist evil in the world.
44. sherry said the following at 5:46 AM on Oct 22:
the problem i have with it is that the legislation will not only allow abortion, but it will be paid for by tax payers - whether you believe in abortion or not, you personally will be paying for the death of thousands of babies. I would rather have the blood of a soldier on my hands than an someone who has never seen the light of day.
45. obewan said the following at 5:56 AM on Oct 22:
Are you now saying that pro-choice is pro-abortion? If so, then our choice of viable candidates is between pro-abortion and pro-choice (which by your logic becomes pro-abortion and pro-abortion). The best the lip-service party can usually give is "let the states decide" which at the end of the day becomes a pro-choice position in my opinion. So, I have to ask: "Do those who vote for the 'good' party also have the blood of innocents on their hands?" That is only fair to ask since you now equate pro-choice to pro-abortion. There is only one party today that is truely pro-life, and they are not the major two. I already voted for them this year. I guess I have no blood on my hands since they oppose both abortion AND the war.
46. farmer Tom said the following at 6:17 AM on Oct 22:
Leah,
Just what exactly is your basis for assuming that free medical care, and more of it is good for anybody?
And where do you get a Biblical basis for suggesting such a notion?
Hospitals and doctors are dangerous.
Doctors routinely kill patients through mistakes, hospitals are cesspools of germs and disease. More free health care will only increase the numbers in this table.
Iatrogenic Deaths
47. Dr. Ransom said the following at 6:48 AM on Oct 22:
I would add, again in response to no. 9, that the objection could have some validity if you're electing a county magistrate. But the positions of senators, congresspersons, even state leaders, and especially president of the United States, are entirely different. Do you not know this?
The president, for example, nominates Supreme Court justices who interpret -- or misinterpret -- law. Nominate the wrong ones, and they'll make up their own laws, as happened in 1973.
"All talk and no walk" could apply to a supposed "anti-war" candidate as well. No one is going to assume command of the U.S. military and then "free" them all. Whether used for "bad" or "good" purposes in your view, the president (so far) will always be using the military for some purpose. And because this is a world of sin and death, Leah, that will result in civilian casualties sometimes, just as war did in Scripture. I daresay you will not accuse American soldiers of intentionally killing Iraqi civilians. No American president has ever done that either.
48. Kevin said the following at 7:47 AM on Oct 22:
I don't think this is a fair argument/accusation to make against people on who they vote for. There are many more things at stake when voting for a president, not just the stance on abortion. Pro-life/pro-choice isn't the only issue to consider when voting. Neither candidate is perfect. And to be honest I don't really want either of them in office. If I do vote I have to pick the one I disagree with the least.
This post makes it seem as though you people base your entire vote on a candidate's stance on abortion. And you seem to think that it's ok to blame other people for abortions "do these Christians have blood on their hands?" just because they voted for a pro-choice candidate. Even though there may be 10,000 other good reasons to vote for this candidate. Think about it this way. Neither candidate is proposing anything against adultery. So should we say that everyone who even voted is guilty of being pro-adultery?
49. Tim said the following at 8:06 AM on Oct 22:
You would have to double-check these facts and figures, but isn't it something like 3,600 abortions occuring each day in the U.S.? This is an incredible atrocity.
However, around 24,000 people die everyday around the world from starvation...and most of these are children.
Hunger relief groups estimate that it would take 13 billion dollars a year to end hunger for the Earth's poorest citizens. That seems like a lot except when you consider that North Americans and Europeans spend 18 billion dollars a year on pet food.
This comment probably won't get posted, and I don't blame you for being skeptical about facts and figures without a cited source, but nevertheless, I believe that those who limit the term 'pro-life' to simply meaning 'anti-abortion' have a narrow-minded view.
Why aren't Christians as outspoken about the other innocent children who are dying?
50. Kate said the following at 8:22 AM on Oct 22:
I already commented but I decided to write a serious comment (or two) this time.
I do not believe Roe vs. Wade could be reversed until/unless enough Americans remember/come to understand that the unborn children are people with the right to life that surpasses a woman's right to choose pregnancy and childbirth. At this point I believe it would take quite a social revolution for this to occur.
Even if a certain candidate holds the sanctity of life as truth, I don't think he/she would realistically be allowed to legislate changes because so much of the rest of the government is supported by a "pro-choice" constituency. Even though I certainly believe in the sanctity of life, I do not know if I believe it's appropriate/right for a president or other public official to legislate a decision that is against the will of the population.
The problem is not that everyone accepts that abortion is wrong but people are getting away with it anyway (when legislating/enforcing a law would be fine and easy). The problem is that there appear to be more people who believe abortion is not wrong than there are who believe it is wrong, or at least the first group has more power than the second.
So maybe the real questions should be something more like, "Can this presidential candidate get people thinking about what the basis and application of human rights are about, most importantly what gives somebody the right to life and when is this important to uphold?"
How many presidents or other figures have inspired social revolutions about who has rights on a wide scale? We need to be examining their lives and work if we want to figure out which leaders have the potential to make changes in our nation's beliefs and behavior towards unborn people... or if we want to figure out how to become such leaders.
51. James said the following at 8:25 AM on Oct 22:
"Here's the question we're pondering: When a pro-abortion president they helped elect signs legislation which directly leads to more abortions, do those Christians have blood on their hands?"
Yes. We are responsible for the leaders we help elect. If a pro-abortion candidate is elected and we voted for them, then the blood of innocents is on their hands for the blood they help spill and the wrongs they did not try to right, and then the blood is on our hands for knowingly electing them and knowing they would do this. If we, however, vote for a pro-life candidate who turns out to be all talk, then blood is NOT on our hands, but all on his as he both lied to us and spilt the blood of innocents. It's another story if the candidate was known to be all talk.
52. Kate said the following at 8:50 AM on Oct 22:
Who is guilty (has blood on hands) for the sin of murder? That is an interesting question once you get thinking about it. The person who committed the actual act is guilty of it. In your question, you seem to be extending responsibility to anyone who had a hand in it by supporting a candidate who supports this practice.
Are you suggesting sin by not calling something wrong when it is wrong... or are you thinking of more like the "stumbling block" concept (that's where I'm going with it)? Where is a line drawn with stumbling block responsibility? If you are going to consider and entertain that somebody who is not personally involved in an act of abortion contributes to the sin of abortion (and thus has blood on hands for it), it must go way beyond voting for a candidate that considers abortion to be ok and would support policies that allow the practice.
The hand that commits the act (the abortionist) is guilty. The woman who allows/invites this also conspires in the murder and is guilty. Additionally what about parents, male partners or others who use coercive techniques to force the woman to allow the abortion? (physically dragging her to the abortion clinic happens, threatening to or actually disowning her/putting her in the street/beating her up so bad to kill the baby anyway - I cannot emphasize enough that this stuff really happens). They are also guilty of murder as conspirators.
So there is the personal responsibility for the actual sinful act.
What about the personal responsibility of community members who are a "stumbling block" for others? Can we describe what would be a "stumbling block in this area?" This is something I have never thought about before.
Does giving people the opportunity or legal precedent to do abortions count as a stumbling block? Does failing to educate women about other options count as a stumbling block? Does skewing descriptions of the fetus and procedure with dehumanizing language count? Does failing to educate women about the potential emotional and physical complications after an abortion count?
Harder ones: does failing to provide the social support and resources women/girls need to avoid unwanted pregnancy or carry a pregnancy to term count? Does failing to teach all children from a young age about the sanctity of life and how to protect it count?
I hope somebody will respond to this comment!
53. IMO said the following at 9:04 AM on Oct 22:
I agree with Nathan. You can only make comparisons if its "apples to apples."
I see Iraq and Abortion as "apples to oranges."
54. Texas Craig said the following at 9:28 AM on Oct 22:
Charity (#21):
I can appreciate your passion on this issue, and I respect that. But, I would submit to you that simply voting for a pro-life candidate and giving some money to some pro-life organizations will not allow your conscience to be clean on the day of judgment if abortion is truly comparable to the holocaust. Would not such a horror require great action to truly say we have done something to stop it?
Even the passage you cite states "Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter." So, I would propose that those who consider abortion the same as murder and the holocaust ought to be out at every abortion clinic picketing and doing what they can to stop women from entering.
That, to me, is what is required from the passage you cited. Now, you may be doing that already and, if so, I commend you for following through on your principles. But, many people will be "pro-life" by simply voting and giving some money to the cause. That is more designed to assuage their conscience than to really effect change.
55. Jarod said the following at 9:50 AM on Oct 22:
The Iraqi war comparison to biblical wars would suggest that the Iraq war was sanctioned by God. It wasn't, so that argument is gone.
And if all candidates support abortion (or at least do nothing to stop it) does that mean one shouldn't vote? At what point do you draw the line between living as salt in the world and retreating from it.
56. Cherith said the following at 9:53 AM on Oct 22:
I agree that abortion and the war in Iraq are not comparable issues when choosing who to vote for.
If pro-life candidates were going to do anything about abortion - they would have already done it. They simply tag themselves "pro-life" for extra votes...and so many of us fall for it every time.
My dilemma in this current election is the mindset of voting for the "lesser of two evils". As cheesy and cliche as it may be - I have to believe that Jesus would not vote for either of the candidates. Unfortunately, I believe that Christians are responsible for part of this problem - it's not all at the hands of the liberal media. For too many years we have chosen the lesser of two evils instead of standing on the word of God. I'm at fault. We're all at fault. I have been convicted of getting angry over political/world issues rather than getting angry over the sin in my own life. The problem is sin. Until we can all be honest about the sin in our own lives - only then can we unite in justified anger over abortion and other political issues. We don't have to be the majority to change this country. So easily it is forgotten that Jesus chose twelve ordinary men. And those willing men turned this world upside down.
Americans have fallen into the trap of addressing the consequence of sin rather than addressing the first sin. The first sin is premarital sex, extramarital affairs, rape/incest, and selfishness. The consequence of these sins is unwanted pregnancy; resulting in the "need" for abortion. If we biblically address the first sin then the "need" for abortion will be reduced. We don't have to change the law to address the first sin. We have to stand up as Christians and bodly profess Jesus Christ.
Amos 5:24: “But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”
57. DP said the following at 10:04 AM on Oct 22:
To all who are saying my post (#2) is unfair and not comparing apples to apples, consider the following:
-I never said anything about capital punishment
-The Iraq war and WWII are not even open for comparison
-What is the Iraq war costing us? Billions per month. Can anyone think of a place that would be better spent (think $1 per day here)
-We are Christians before we are Americans
-We are not God's country in the same way that Israel was God's country in the OT, so don't make that comparison
-Romans 13 doesn't say follow your gov't like sheep. (See line above this one)
-you can't call abortion "slaughter, evil" while calling bombs killing innocents "regrettable" (be outraged by BOTH, it's not an either/or)
-Saying that "intent" is all that matters is insane. I can't buy clothes made by kids in sweat shops but feel good about myself because I didn't "intend" for them to continue to be in forced labor.
That's all for now :)
58. DP said the following at 10:07 AM on Oct 22:
"The collateral casualties in Iraq are regrettable, but what about the tens of thousands of "innocents" (there is no one who does good) that Saddam Hussein butchered?"
So we shouldn't be outraged that people are dying because no one is "innocent"? Do you really think that?????
59. Jeremy said the following at 10:37 AM on Oct 22:
Does anyone else get a vague feeling that "Farmer Tom" might be a ironic character someone has invented, a la Borat?
60. BDB said the following at 10:47 AM on Oct 22:
Nancy (#15) wrote:
>>The last president I voted for let the ban on automatic assault weapons expire<<
Nancy - both sides let that law expire because the realized it didn't matter. Street gangs still smuggled in AK-47's, the Chinese tried to smuggle them to sell to street gangs.
People realized that like all gun-control laws, the assult-weapons "ban" only banned them from law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
It amazes me that the left wants to make drugs legal because prohibition leads to crime, but somehow thinks prohibition of firearms will magically work. Nope - the criminals won't turn in their guns!
61. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:53 AM on Oct 22:
I'd like to simply reinforce the fallacy that Xasteius and others brought up comparing abortion policy to the Iraq war.
There is a distinct difference between deliberate targeting of innocent human life for termination (e.g. abortion, terrorism) and unintentional casualties brought on by war.
Regardless of whether or not you feel the Iraq war was justified, one would be hard pressed to prove that America specifically targeted non-combatants. In fact, most do not realize the extent of acrobatics that that the U.S. military takes to minimize civilian casualties. Deep intelligence gathering to make sure the target is legitimate, laser-guided precision bombing to minimize collateral damage, and restraining from attacking culturally important targets such as mosques housing munitions which under the rules of war in the Geneva convention would lose its protective status.
One might argue, "Well, you undoubtedly will kill some civilians. This is war afterall." True enough, which is one reason why it should be a last resort. But that argument alone should not hold veto power alone. Does that mean the U.S. should've never entered WWII (I'm sure there were some innocents killed unintentionally)? Likewise, does it mean we shouldn't have a criminal justice system because we might send some innocent people to jail?
Regarding voting based "life related issues" (death penalty, war, etc), it's important to understand that except for abortion, both candidates in this election on the surface seem to have similar views. Both favor the death penalty in at least some instances (both denounced the SCOTUS ruling saying that raping a minor did not deserve the death penalty), and both have said they would enter armed conflict if necessary (perhaps the circumstances or approach would be different, but both would be willing to do it). Only in abortion is the difference so stark.
No, the REAL question is should other issues either individually or as a whole trump what's generally regarded as the pinnacle "life related issue" among many voters? Some like to lump issues like poverty as a "life related issue" when in fact it is not. True, it deals with the quality of life, but I believe you are comparing apples and oranges.
I will admit that the answer is not as easy as it appears. I believe there are many genuine Christians who feel that one can support a policy they do not agree with because they themselves do not engage in or condone it and that other policies/qualities make one candidate better. And likewise, there are those who point out that since we (the voters) choose our leaders, we do have a moral obligation to try to do as much as we can to prevent what they feel is a paramount issue. I see both arguments having legitimacy.
I will say though that regarding this election specifically, I do find Mr. Obama's position on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act somewhat disturbing. The fact that botched abortions do happen, and that some of these outside of womb fetuses are "viable" (Roe v. Wade stated abortions can occur up to that point of viability), and some of them do survive into adulthood does cause me to wonder about his wanting to care for "the least of these" as he said in his Saddleback church discussion.
62. BDB said the following at 10:54 AM on Oct 22:
Nancy (#15) also wrote:
>>And why did we attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? <<
Do you mean Serbia? When Clinton bombed a country that never did anything to us?
Clinton attacked Serbia because it was supporting genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Like the 2008 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize observed, the government of Iraq has killed at least a million people. So, if you think the U.S. should act to prevent genocide, you should support both the action in Serbia and Iraq. If you are OK with genocide, and think the U.S. should turn its back (as it has in other countries), then it's OK to be against both wars.
We still have troops in Bosnia, by the way.
63. DC said the following at 11:19 AM on Oct 22:
God gives us ALL a "choice" to follow Him or not, to believe Him or not. Pro-Choice is not necessarily Pro-abortion (from a candidate Point of View) Pro-Life is "For" life or am i mistaken? Then why are the Republican candidates not for abortion yet for the death penalty and stricter death penalty laws? Though shalt not kill . . . but again we have a choice to kill or not. Lets get this one thing straight if you are FOR life then be FOR life. An innocent man on death row is someones son, husband, father brother etc. . . Who are "we" to take the life of an innocent baby, man or women.
64. farmer Tom said the following at 12:00 PM on Oct 22:
Hey, editor, you realize that this thing is still not working correctly??
Several of you keep talking about how there are other issues than the abortion question when deciding who to vote for.
And therein lies your folly. No politician or political leader can be trusted to do what is right regarding any other issue if they will not protect the rights of the unborn. Why?? Because they have already violated they standard established by God at the end of the flood.
Genesis 9:
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
God made man in his image. Anyone who supports and advocates the shedding of innocent human blood is culpable of attempting to destroy the very image of God. That person will also make unGodly and unBiblical decisions about all kinds of other issues because they have rejected the authority and commands of a Holy God.
They will steal and call it charity, they will devise monetary systems which steal the rewards of labor from those who work, they will fund educational systems which reject the very notion of God, and the list goes on and on, a politician who does not respect life is a politician who does not respect God the Creator and sustainer of the Universe. And as a professed Christian it is sinful for you to support politicians who hold those unGodly and unBiblical positions.
65. elizabethf said the following at 12:25 PM on Oct 22:
I am genuinely frightened by the number of people here who claim to be pro-life, yet seem to think the war in Iraq, and by extension the killing of innocent civilians, is somehow justified. Does God grieve less for these deaths than for the pre-born who are slaughtered daily? Absolutely not, yet we can't be bothered to stand up for them as strongly as we stand up for the pre-born. Why are the casualties of war somehow more acceptable?
We cannot truly call ourselves pro-life until we fight for every single human life with the same passion, from babies in the womb to prisoners on death row to children who are starving to those caught in the crossfires of war. The taking of another life is murder in any case, and it is always untenable. In every single circumstance. I wish Christians, particularly some of those here at Boundless, would stand up and fight for all life, not just the smallest among us. Everyone counts.
66. IMO said the following at 12:29 PM on Oct 22:
Mike Theemling, regarding your comment about the Born Alive Infant Protection Act ...I find it incredibily disturbing...
In general, the fact that my new state senator votes 100% for pro-abortion laws makes me sick.
I wish more people were aware of the Born Alive Infact Protection Act. And the congressmen who oppose it. It truly is absolutely disgusting.
67. Sandy said the following at 12:41 PM on Oct 22:
No more than you are pro-self when you decide to vote for a candidate who focuses on not raising your taxes while cutting the programs that serve these children when they are born. The reality is, we are comfortable saying abortion is wrong, which by the way I agree, but in the next breath we claim those who have these children should have the means to take care of them and not shift the burden to the rest of us. I say, not so. Now does this justify abortion? No. But does it bring to light another issue many Americans and conservatives seem to ignore? Yes. Being pro-life is wonderful; as when God fashioned man He said we were very good. However, do not make the mistake of believing that we are not repsonsible for this group who will begin life as "the least of these."
68. Adam said the following at 1:00 PM on Oct 22:
Pg. 2 #9 Jeremy said: "Does anyone else get a vague feeling that "Farmer Tom" might be a ironic character someone has invented, a la Borat?"
Definitely. My guess was an alter-ego of Tom Minnery of FOTF Action fame. I know my share of people that have incredibly similar views to farmer Tom's though. The style seems oddly reminiscent of Lewis Black. Gotta say that his posts invite either dramatic agreement or sharp dissent. His posts do help me think through the issues - even if I disagree most of the time.
BTW, props to the webmaster at getting the whole second page of comments thing working.
69. BDB said the following at 1:12 PM on Oct 22:
WHOA! Renumbering the comments is BAD - too hard to navigate to previous comments...
70. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:23 PM on Oct 22:
This whole dodging the question is getting kinda ridiculous.
First of all, this is about ABORTION - the killing of an innocent that has no ability to live outside the goodwill of his/her mother.
This is not about the Iraq war where civilians are caught in the middle of warfare simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This is not about the death penalty that condemns men and women on death row that have been convicted of the most heinous of crimes.
We are not talking about plants and animals having as much of a right to life as an unborn child.
Second of all,
Just because a pro-life candidate does not have the power to change Roe vs Wade or unable to pass any legislation in favor of pro-life doesn't make him a lesser candidate than a pro-choice.
The biggest signifying factor is that a pro-life will not move things further away from the right thing (no abortion) whereas the pro-choice candidate will likely make moves making abortion more available.
71. A.M.C. said the following at 1:57 PM on Oct 22:
Re: elizabethf (#16 on Page 2, or #66)
We cannot truly call ourselves pro-life until we fight for every single human life with the same passion, from babies in the womb to prisoners on death row to children who are starving to those caught in the crossfires of war. The taking of another life is murder in any case, and it is always untenable. In every single circumstance. I wish Christians, particularly some of those here at Boundless, would stand up and fight for all life, not just the smallest among us. Everyone counts.
That's why I strongly feel that voting single-choice "pro-life" might require voting against BOTH major parties. Why? Simply because I haven't yet seen a political party that is not only pro-family and anti-abortion, but also anti-euthanasia, anti-death penalty, and dovish or non-interventionist on foreign policy.
72. LeeLee said the following at 2:28 PM on Oct 22:
Just a thought... has anyone actually ever met a person that claimed to be "pro-abortion?" No one thinks abortion is a good thing. Some (not including myself) just believe it's a necessary thing.
73. DP said the following at 3:09 PM on Oct 22:
Lee Lee (#22 on 2nd page)
If you don't think that abortion is killing a child (and many people don't), there is not reason why abortion couldn't be thought of as a 'good thing' in many cases, thus making them 'pro-abortion'...
74. Sara said the following at 3:32 PM on Oct 22:
LeeLee, #2
I'd say I'm pro-abortion, and not just pro-choice. I look at it this way (and I'm not a Christian, so this thought experiment won't work with Christians): Pretend you're all-powerful and you can choose to bring about one of these two scenarios:
1. Things stay as they are
or,
2. Ten thousand people get to live happier lives than they otherwise would have, but one child has to go through a lifetime of excruciating torture.
To my mind, sensitive, humane people would choose #1 because painful lives *so greatly outweigh* 'normal' lives. So: of the millions of babies who are aborted (or are, in a sense, murdered before they have to live outside the womb), surely at least a few tortuous lives have been prevented, and those outweigh all the other 'normal' lives that may have been lived out.
75. farmer Tom said the following at 4:35 PM on Oct 22:
Who is Borat?
76. Sheridan said the following at 5:40 PM on Oct 22:
Sara:
How would you know if the child that was aborted would live a 'lifetime of extreme torture'.
Did you know that Layne Beachley (world famous surfer) was actually the result of a rape! (her mother didnt abort her, but rather put her up for adoption).
Most people would think that rape of all things justifies abortion...but Thank God for people who value life, because we wouldnt have a Layne Beachley. You have absolutley no knowledge on how a child will turn out, even with the circumstances they are born into.
77. Charles H. said the following at 6:08 PM on Oct 22:
Sara #24 (#74 under the old numbering system) - I'm glad you said that. It's completely indefensible, but I'm glad you said it because this flawed reasoning underlies a lot of pro-abortion arguments.
Who do you believe should decide whether a person deserves the chance to live? What sort of predicted ailment, in your mind, justifies premeditated murder? We have an entire spectrum of "defects" (and don't even get me started on that term...) from the most severe mental and physical disabilities all the way down to acne and flat feet. Interestingly, some of the most popular genetic "reasons" for abortions cause little or no suffering to those who have them - patients with Down's, for example, tend to be a very cheerful lot. No, they're not going to be rocket scientists, but does that remove their right to have a happy if limited existence?
If we're to discuss genes that tend to be aborted, we can't escape race. Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, openly promoted abortion as a way to decrease the population of African-Americans. This is a matter of public record, as is the fact that she was also an avid promoter of eugenics. Both tied in to her belief that white genes were superior. So, once more: if it's not God who confers worth on a life, who establishes the worth of that life?
78. Sara said the following at 7:56 PM on Oct 22:
Sheridan, I think you missed my point,.. I said that if there's even a slight chance that a non-aborted baby will have a horrible life, then that small chance is too much because all the 'happy' lives in the world don't make up for it.
A lot of things are like that. Say someone has some dreadful treatment-resistant spinal cord problem that makes them live chronically in acute pain. The fact that their kidneys and heart and liver are perfectly functional wouldn't really mean a whole lot to them: one bad thing has the power to outweigh a lot of good.
Say ten thousand people in a city are kind, generous people who live lives of service. It would only take one nutball to drop a bomb on them and wreck their families, and the damage caused by that one person would necessitate a huge crew of medical and construction workers and who knows what else to even begin to address the damage. It's called entropy, and I think the fact that the world works that way is awful.
I do think that the world is mostly filled with good people, it's just that it doesn't seem to take much bad to overpower all that good. We've got nuclear bombs capable of maiming millions of people for life at one blow: 'healing bombs' with that kind of lasting power don't seem to be possible. Healing is a one-on-one thing, mostly, which may sound sweet in a way, but big picture-wise, it's unfortunate.
79. JB said the following at 9:15 PM on Oct 22:
DP (#22, page 2),
Even if abortion is not morally wrong, it could very well be seen as not desirable. Medical interventions are expensive and carry risks, so even if the practice of abortion is morally neutral, it is better for the situation not to have arisen in the first place. In the same way, I am in favor of people being able to choose to have their gall bladders removed, but I'm not pro-gall bladder removal. It would be better for the whole thing to have been avoided.
80. Brendan Berkley said the following at 2:28 AM on Oct 23:
I hope my comment at #20 on the first page didn't come off as combative (I realized that I didn't put in a question mark either...ouch). But I really would like an answer. The issue of how to handle abortion has agonized me, and I'm looking for answers. How people answer this question is another piece to the puzzle.
If a vote for pro-choice is blood on my hands, then is a tax dollar towards abortions blood on my hands? (read the original comment for the basis of that question)
Thanks!
81. |)/\\/E said the following at 7:31 AM on Oct 23:
@BDB #44
"for some reason I cannot fathom, ... decided to fight campain finance reform."
Perhaps the were able to see a bit further into the depths then you, and see the future.
The future that is now, where we Americans are not allowed to discuss politics and naming specific politicians on this very blog.
Perhaps they were afraid that they would not be able to get their message out.
I'd tell you what to google but that might make this post not able to be published.
Is anyone else feeling like their rights are being violated, or am I alone?
82. LeeLee said the following at 8:54 AM on Oct 23:
Thank you, JB. That was the point I was trying to make, but you said it better.
I didn't realize non-Christians read Boundless... gives me a little hope.
And yes, I also have a hard time believing Farmer Tom is a real person : )
83. Loyd said the following at 10:07 AM on Oct 23:
I'm really not sure,but it sounds to me like we're comparing two radically different sets of circumstances.The unborn cannot leave the warzone where thier lives are being taken.I do suppose the "shedding of innocent blood",which God detests by the way,will bring about its just reward in the end.It just seems to me one of these instances is open for debate,the other one was pretty much settled long ago by the One who will make the final call anyway.The reason we have candidates at present who sound like they want it both ways is because most of us don't have the courage to call the way it is either.
84. Jo said the following at 11:09 AM on Oct 23:
I'm genuinely curious. To those of you who won't vote Democrat because they're 'pro abortion', what would you do if Republicans were also pro-abortion in the same way?
a) Decide which of those parties was 'the lesser of two evils' by deciding your vote on other issues
or
b)Vote for a third party who opposed abortion, but would likely never have the power to do anything about it?
I'm asking because in UK politics, abortion is a non-issue. Neither of the two main parties would even bother mentioning it, because abortion is accepted by almost everyone - it's simply not the divisive issue that it is in America. There must be a UK party that opposes abortion I guess, but it would be a very small one. Any vote for them would be considered a 'wasted vote' by many. How would you vote in that situation?
85. DP said the following at 11:34 AM on Oct 23:
JB (#29 2nd page):
There are lots of people who think that we are destroying the planet by overpopulation. I'm sure that they would qualify as 'pro-abortion', but we're probably splitting hairs here.
86. BDB said the following at 11:53 AM on Oct 23:
//////? (#31, page 2) wrote:
>>Perhaps the were able to see a bit further into the depths then you, and see the future.
The future that is now, where we Americans are not allowed to discuss politics and naming specific politicians on this very blog.<<
No, I really think that conservatives played this one wrong. They should NOT have threatened to withdraw support from pro-life congressmen who were also in favor of campaign finance reform. They should have said:
1) We will always support those who defend the unborn
2) We strongly believe that the proposed campaign finance legislation violates the right to petition government.
And then suggest an alternative - such as publishing the names of all contributors. Disclosure is a better solution than restricting speech anyway.
To use the Bono example again, I've never heard stories of him threatening anyone who disagreed with him. He learned his facts, used his celebrity to get a hearing, then was able to discuss the policies and the need in an intelligent fashion.
I remember one article about another celebrity who had an unusual cause: national missle defense. The article was because he was so different. He pointed out that lots of celebrities were for the rain forest or something else. This was his project.
Today, we have national missile defense. We even shot down a satellite from a ship - which is a moving platform, making the math much harder. It works! Even Russia has stopped complaining about Salt II and started their own missle-defense project.
I need to look at the court decision more closely, I think certain non-profit organizations CAN talk about candidates. A 501(c)4 organization can, but donations to them are not tax-deductible. If FOTF is a 501(c)3, they can give a tax deduction to donors - but in exchange for that, they don't advocate for candidates for public office. Those rules were in place before campaign-finance reform, though. That legislation focused on PACs.
In any case, you can discuss issues without advocating for specific candidates.
87. BDB said the following at 1:06 PM on Oct 23:
Jo (#34, page 2) wrote:
>>I'm genuinely curious. To those of you who won't vote Democrat because they're 'pro abortion', what would you do if Republicans were also pro-abortion in the same way?<<
That's a good observation. California is already like this.
One thing people do is move to cities where the local government is more conservative. My city and county are a lot more conservative than the state as a whole. That makes thing more livable on a day-to-day basis.
But it also demonstrates why being a single-issue voter is not realistic. If we want our voice to be heard on other issues, we need to deal with pro-abortion politicians.
Something interesting is happening with the Yes on 8 - traditional marriage amendment. The California Supreme Court overruled the public who made marriage between one man and one woman in 2000. Prop. 8 was already gathering signatures when the decision came down. The no on 8 people are actually running ads saying traditional marriage is wrong. Such boldness. So far I haven't seen an ad saying traditional marriage is the right thing to do. Such timidity.
On my street, three of us have Yes on 8 signs in our yard. They are the only political signs on our street. Frankly, I'm a single-issue voter on this issue this election. I don't want people to see that sign next to another political sign and associate it with just one (unpopular) party. To win, we will need people from both parties to vote Yes on 8.
Which means we are being nice neighbors. We were nice neighbors before. But it's important that people don't believe the hype that the Yes on 8 people are frothing at the mouth hateful people...
88. ganv said the following at 1:07 PM on Oct 23:
Think for a minute...
You say that supporting voters are responsible for all the decisions of their candidate...but that makes no sense at all. Anyone who thinks at all has opinions that differ from any candidate. I don't see any reason to make abortion the only issue in life--many other forms of violence and injustice exist as well.
I vote for the person likely to do the most good and the least harm. Our current president has done a lot of harm and nothing to restrict abortion. Neither candidate for president is going to do anything new to restric abortion either--even if they tell you they might to get your vote. So I am going to choose a candidate with a thoughtful rather than bombastic foreign policy, and a tax policy that favors common people over CEOs, even though he is wrong about abortion.
89. Jethro said the following at 2:39 PM on Oct 23:
Jo (#34),
They'd vote Republican anyway. Most 'Christian Conservatives' are equal parts of each -- despite the claim that they only make their decisions on Biblical grounds.
A good example is gun control. In FOTF Action's latest thought provoking piece, it says that if certain parties were elected by 2012 guns would be illegal. I'm all ears if someone can tell me anything at all the Bible says about gun control.
90. DP said the following at 3:10 PM on Oct 23:
"One thing people do is move to cities where the local government is more conservative. My city and county are a lot more conservative than the state as a whole. That makes thing more livable on a day-to-day basis."
WOW. This is a wonderful attitude...
Hmmm.
Salt and light
or
"Livable"
Hmmm.
91. BDB said the following at 3:47 PM on Oct 23:
Kate (#2, page 2) brings up some important points.
You could extend the "who is guilty" concept wider. For example, in WWII, the deliberate bombing of civilian cities was justified because they did not surrender, therefore they "supported" their governments. Hitler was elected. His upporters were firebombed. The most striking feature of the Iraq war is that people stayed in their homes-for the most part they trusted the U.S. to be relatively careful with bombing - compared to the many thousands of refugees who tried to flee the bombing in Serbia/Kosovo.
Your other point about social help for unplanned pregnancy is well taken. The church has a resposibility to help provide practical alternatives to abortion.
92. BDB said the following at 5:34 PM on Oct 23:
DP (#40) wrote:
>>WOW. This is a wonderful attitude...<<
Pretty widespread, too. Thats why lots of people are moving out of Blue states and moving Red states.
And then there's Ezra 10:11:
Now therefore, make confession to the LORD God of your fathers, and do His will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land, and from the pagan wives."
And 2 Corinthians 6:17
Therefore "Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.
This doesn't absolve Christians of their obligation to help the poor. In fact, I'm on a board with the mayor of the poorest city in the county. So, it still gives me, personally, the opportunity to interact with folks. The mayor's a Christian, anyway.
93. IMO said the following at 5:37 PM on Oct 23:
ganv-
"Our current president has done a lot of harm and nothing to restrict abortion."
This, again????
Seriously?
Progress has been made. Please do your research!!!
Your blanket statements make you look like you only read the headlines of a magazine.
94. DannieA said the following at 6:41 PM on Oct 23:
since I don't like either candidate I was not going to vote, but like BDB mentioned, we need to go out and vote SOLELY for issues that are important at a particular time.
This time, it happens to be prop. 8. VOTE YES!
95. Lucy said the following at 8:47 PM on Oct 23:
I am a Christian and I don't know alot about why people abort.
I THINK MAYBE and also KNOW that there are these reasons...
--unwanted pregnancy whether married or single (KNOW)
--rape/incest (THINK MAYBE)
--However, I am wondering about women who may need to abort because they could die if they have the child (THINK MAYBE)
***don't hang me and don't start responding until you have read on, please!!!
I've heard of that, but I don't hear about it much.
I mostly hear people talking about being Pro-Life. Does that mean they believe that the woman shouldn't have an abortion (if her life is at risk?) That is purely a question...not an attack...I just want to know if people who are pro-life have talked about that or KNOW a woman who's life was at risk due to a pregnancy.
I've never had an abortion (or children for that matter...or...anything that would cause me to have to deal with either).
Anyway, thanks for anyone who knows anything about the topic of women getting abortions because it will kill them.
I already know that women get abortions because they don't want the child (I already personally know people who have done that...and yes...they regret that).
I ONLY want to know about the women with a medical risk...I'm a teacher, so I feel I had to repeat this, because sometimes people don't really answer the question that was asked...
I do not want to know that 99% get one because they don't want the child...
I only want to know about the 1% who (I THINK MAYBE)...get one due to the medical risk...
and I'm not saying that the medical risk is something that really happens...cause...I DON'T KNOW!!! Does anyone???
96. DP said the following at 9:25 PM on Oct 23:
BDB (#42)
I can't tell if you picked up on my sarcasm there. Because if you are trying to use those verses as 'proof' that we should leave those heathen liberals states to move into the 'promised land' of red states, we couldn't be further from each other on our thinking...
97. Godfrey said the following at 10:40 PM on Oct 23:
Theoretically, there's no reason one can't be pro-life and vote for a "pro-choice" candidate. The pro-life candidate could be so bad on other issues that the "pro-choice" candidate would be the lesser evil. So practically, you have to carefully reason through the potential evils of voting for any candidate. Automatically voting pro-life has only worked (to the extent that it can be said to have worked) when there were no other moral issues of comparable magnitude.
So how do you judge the magnitude? A crude way is to simply go by body counts. We've probably had roughly 50 million abortions in the US since Roe. Compare that to the fascist or communist crimes of your choice. Put the numbers another way. The US population is currently around 300 million. So there would be 1/6th more people in this country if those abortions hadn't taken place (actually, some wouldn't have survived birth or childhood, but others would have had families). So every time you see a group of 6 people, there could have been a 7th but for abortion. That's not the only way to compare issues, and it's probably not the best, but it's certainly a place to start.
If you really want to think through the logic on these things, take a look at these essays: "Abortion Extremism," by Robert George; "My Big Fat 'Single Issue' Vote," by James Kushiner; and "First Things First," by James Kushiner. Also, look into Catholic thought on proportionate reason. For that matter, if you want to think through any of the life issues, see what some of the good pro-life Catholics have to say. We Protestants may not agree with all of their doctrine, or even all of their reasoning or conclusions. But their logic is often superb and they are frequently far ahead of Protestants in terms of thinking some of these things through (e.g., contraception).
98. Lou said the following at 11:58 AM on Oct 24:
Yes. They will have “blood on their hands”.
Voting pro-abortion this election is the absolute worse time since the candidate plans to lift the ban on partial birth abortion, and has voted in favor or terminating babies that survive abortions. (Not that anytime is good to vote pro-abortion.)
If a person wants to vote pro-life all they need to do is study what has happened with a pro-abortion party congress in control the last 2 years, and it should be easy to vote for the party that is pro-life.
Wars, car accidents and diseases kill people, but only abortion is totally about killing. If we support abortion with our vote, I don’t think God is going to be impressed with the excuses. Voting decisions should be made carefully and on our knees.
99. BDB said the following at 12:52 PM on Oct 24:
DP (#46) wrote:
>>Because if you are trying to use those verses as 'proof' that we should leave those heathen liberals states to move into the 'promised land' of red states,<<
Oh, I'm sure that most of the people abandoning the blue states aren't doing so because of scripture. They are leaving because those corrupt state governments have onerous tax rates which destroy jobs. It's a purely economic reaction to a corrupt government.
But no, I don't think there is any scriptural requirement to live under a corrupt government if you have the means to escape it. That's part of the reason so many people want to move to the U.S: to get away from their more corrupt governments to the better opportunity in the U.S.
Hey, even Jesus moved to Egypt for a few years to escape the corrupt Herod.
Ireland figured this out and cut tax rates. Jobs are moving TO their country as a result. The Blue States could learn a lot from Ireland.
100. Dave said the following at 3:34 PM on Oct 24:
Hey, Kate and others,
I respect your concerns overall. I would note that in any recent poll you read, the majority of Americans are actually against abortion. It doesn't seem so, as the liberal media spout loudly the 'Right' of a woman to on-demand abortion.
The question is, is value for life an 'issue' or a 'qualification.' For me, if you are not pro-life, you disqualify. If you are, then let's look at your other issues.
Beyond that, the issues of the war and poverty have been discussed. In regards to the war, intervening in a culture of genocide, though it may have casualties, I believe is a moral imperative. Was it wrong to stop the Nazi's and the Holocaust? Innocent people died then too? Should we have sat back and let millions die for fear of fighting a war where, yes, innocent people would be harmed?
In regards to poverty, voting for a candidate who wants to 'help' people through government programs is not Biblical. It is the churche's role to care for the widows, orphans, aliens, and needy. The government takes its role as caretaker as a chance for greater power over our lives. We should step up and fulfill this calling of the church. But with the high taxes to cover government 'entitlement' programs, legitimate 'chariities' have less to work with.
Respectfully,
Dave