What Matters Most at the Ballot Box
by Candice Watters on 10/31/2008 at 10:11 AM
Author and columnist Tony Woodlief has an opinion piece in World magazine about why he is (now) a single-issue voter. It wasn't always this way. He writes,
I used to include abortion as part of my voting calculus, mind you, but only a part. What if a candidate is pro-life, for example, but favors disastrous tax and trade policies that would consign people to lower living standards? Or what if he wants to use our military in pursuit of ill-defined foreign policy goals? Shouldn't these things factor into my equation?
Then something changed. He realized,
Those other issues certainly affect a country's safety, prosperity, and greatness. But I've come to believe that a nation that tolerates destruction of innocents deserves neither safety nor prosperity nor greatness. We've descended into barbarism, and it poisons how we treat the elderly, the incapacitated, even ourselves. We shouldn't be surprised, having made life a utilitarian calculation, that more and more humans become inconvenient.
... abortion is, in my view, the touchstone. Get this one wrong and your moral compass can guide you in nothing else.
His decision is not without dilemma:
Perhaps my mentality is a recipe for political isolation for Christians, for the losing of elections, and maybe even a loss of national greatness. I worry that the alternative, however, is to lose something far greater, which is our ability to discern good from evil, and to act accordingly.
Given all the emails and fundraising letters flooding my in- and mail-boxes trying to guilt me into voting for one or another of the candidates, I appreciate the moral integrity and intellectual clarity of his argument. No manipulation, no ambiguity. In the end, it is the biblical position:
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live (Deuteronomy 30:19).
1. Laura said the following at 10:56 AM on Oct 31
But those other issues DO affect the destruction of innocents all over the world. Over 10 million children die every year of preventable, poverty-related causes. The decisions a president makes about foreign aid, trade policy, and war affect innocent children just as much as do the decisions a president makes about abortion. It has nothing to do with whether the nation "deserves greatness or not." Choosing life in the political arena is far more complicated than just voting on abortion.
2. JaneAnn said the following at 11:04 AM on Oct 31
Amen, Amen, Amen to you, Candice, and to Gary Thomas for his article, Cool Compassion.
I sent the article over to my husband who is one of the elite multi-issue voters. We've been "discussing" our reasons for voting the way we will on Tuesday lately and I can't seem to articulate why I would base my whole vote on this one issue. Thanks for doing it for me.
3. Lydia said the following at 11:31 AM on Oct 31
Amen!
4. BDB said the following at 11:31 AM on Oct 31
May I suggest another way to look at it? Why not use Abortion as the issue to decide which politicians you financially support? Give all your political contributions to pro-Life candidates if you want.
But in a democracy, you should vote. If you're in Europe (or California), the only choices may be pro-Abortion candidates. It does absolutely no good for Christians to sit home and pout. Get out, vote for the best candidates available.
Then give your time, treasure and talent to the pro-Life candidates. Help them get elected to city council and school board. Help them get experience then get elected to the state legislature. After enough seasoning, you'll have a pro-Life candidate for Governor or Congress.
The last pro-Life guy to run for Governor in California lost badly. But he was reasonably respectful. And that Governor helped him fundraise, making the pro-Life candidate competitive in another election.
Though I must say, if you want to persuade people on abortion, you really should consider engaging the pro-Abortion people in conversation. Take a page from Bono's success - sit down and respectfully discuss the issue with the politican who disagrees. These are the people you need to persuade. And it's been my experience that people take me a lot more seriously when I'm at a $100-a-plate dinner. I can't count the number of times people spouted off about how "hateful" religious conservatives are. I can usually draw them out and separate their experiences of conflict with a person from the underlying policy.
But either way, everyone needs to vote. If you don't vote, you have no right to complain. VOTE!
5. Jennifer said the following at 11:46 AM on Oct 31
Is Focus on the Family requiring Boundless to produce a certain number of anti-abortion, subtle vote-for-this-guy articles? I am pro-life, so I'm on your side. But even I think this is overkill. We get the point. Boundless wants us to vote for the candidate who will help overturn Roe Vs. Wade. We get it. Next topic, please!
6. Ted Slater said the following at 12:19 PM on Oct 31
Jennifer (#5) -- if our readers "got it," as you say, none of them would ridicule us for speaking out in behalf of the pre-born.
As it is, a number of our readers continue to think it's more important to feed and clothe a person than to save them from death. Yes, both are important, but one is more important.
And so we do the unhip, uncool, unfashionable thing and continue to, as Scripture says, "care for orphans ... in their distress" and "speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves."
To us, concern for life is the capital E at the top of an eye chart. If we don't get that right, how can we get anything else right?
7. obewan said the following at 12:28 PM on Oct 31
">>We get the point. Boundless wants us to vote for the candidate who will help overturn Roe Vs. Wade. We get it. Next topic, please!<<"
------------------------------------
Do they really get it, or do they want compromise? "Let the states decide" is nor "overturning Roe V. Wade." I'm not saying what Boundless wants. I'm am pointing to the reality that we face.
8. A.M.C. said the following at 12:30 PM on Oct 31
Re: Laura (#1)
But those other issues DO affect the destruction of innocents all over the world. Over 10 million children die every year of preventable, poverty-related causes. The decisions a president makes about foreign aid, trade policy, and war affect innocent children just as much as do the decisions a president makes about abortion. It has nothing to do with whether the nation "deserves greatness or not." Choosing life in the political arena is far more complicated than just voting on abortion.
I would agree with your statement. And that's why, as callous as that might sound, I think it's a good idea to do the "utilitarian calculations" (in Woodlief's own words) ourselves. Let's take war for example:
According to the Opinion Research Business' estimate, the total number of deaths caused by the Iraq War was 1,033,000 as of August 2007. For the sake of argument, we'll take the upper bound of the estimate, or 1,446,063 deaths. Given the fact that the war was started in late March in 2003, let's divide this by 2-1/3 years, which gives up to 619,741 deaths per year.
Now compare that to the number of abortions in this country. It turns out that the CDC statistics for the number of abortions in the U.S. in 2003 (excluding CA, NH, and WV) is 848,163.
==> Result: the Iraq War is at worst only 73% as lethal as abortions in the U.S.
At first glance, this may seem to justify single-issue voting. But the situation is more complicated here-- after all, voting for an anti-abortion candidate would not reduce the number of abortions in this country to zero immediately. Then again, the limitation of the calculation goes both ways; given that we cannot undo the damage caused by the first five years of an ongoing war, we cannot say for sure that voting for a "pro-choice but anti-war" candidate would save more lives in the future either.
9. DannieA said the following at 12:37 PM on Oct 31
Hey Ted,
This isn't a comment to you to start a debate between people...I was wondering where you stood on well...after the child is born? I believe in being pro-life...in fact when I was a teenager/early 20s I convinced my mother to be 100% prolife (she was before, but not sure about rape or incest).
I also notice that many people who are staunchly prolife like myself and a lot of editors here don't really care for social programs.
I believe in saving babies from abortion, but I think we need to go farther and take care of them after being born as well. If there are no social programs for the people in poverty, how are they supposed to be convinced to choose life?
How do we balance choosing life and also not 'cutting people's legs' from under them after the child is born and well we pat ourselves on the back and move on?
I do believe that if we are prolife, we shouldn't be sore about how our money is taxed for providing many social programs...shouldn't we also put our money where our mouth is?
Again, this comment is not meant as an insult or to put coals on fires...maybe it can generate an honest and NON-SARCASTIC discussion?
10. Kari said the following at 1:10 PM on Oct 31
It is NOT popular to be a one-issue voter. Thank the Lord that Boundless doesn't bend to popularity!
If you want to save millions of innocent lives all over the world-- start at home.
We are part of the world.
We are killing thousands of babies.
Fix us!
11. LisaMarie Goetz said the following at 1:10 PM on Oct 31
"In the end, it is the biblical position:
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live (Deuteronomy 30:19)."
Although I certainly understand the principle here, I am relatively confident in saying that this passage is *not* about abortion...context is important, and prooftexting is not a reliable way to prove one's points.
12. Brian K said the following at 1:19 PM on Oct 31
Laura:
You are correct. That is a staggering issue. But foreign policy is not as polarizing an issue as is abortion. Meaning one is not for a unilateral withdrawal while the other is for expanding the war and waging war in additional countries. One is not for extending aid to foreign countries while the other desires to retract foreign aid policies and use government funding to purchase additional food from those same countries. But that same scenario appears when the abortion issue comes about.
13. Laura said the following at 1:19 PM on Oct 31
Ted, I don't understand why you draw a dichotomy between feeding and clothing a person and saving them from death. It's the same thing, and neither candidate has a consistent position on the life issue viewed broadly.
14. IMO said the following at 1:51 PM on Oct 31
Some food for thought:
Would we be able to determine which one of these is more biblically based?
The opportunity to have life [not having an abortion] or the saving of life [number of deaths caused by the Iraq War]?
*Asking a genuine question, not trying to have people put words in my mouth!!!
15. Ted Slater said the following at 1:55 PM on Oct 31
Laura, DannieA, etc.:
Your comments imply that we stop caring for children once they're born. This is not true at all.
You may not realize that Motte is adopting four children. Or that another member of the Boundless team has adopted a little boy. And that the woman in the cubicle next to mind adopted a little girl. That one of my good friends and his wife are adopting two little girls. And that there have been numerous adoptions among my friends here at work and church. And that Focus on the Family is very involved in orphan care.
When it comes to one post-birth pro-life issue, we at Boundless are emphatically pro-life. From womb to tomb, as they say.
This *either* you are for pre-born persons *or* you are for post-birth persons dichotomy is fallacious. We are for the sanctity of life, from the time a person is alive to the time they breathe their last.
16. Ted Slater said the following at 2:06 PM on Oct 31
A.M.C. (#8) -- Your comment is so full of inaccuracies, it's barely worth my time to address them.
But now that it's published, I have to.
While the figure that ORB estimates of Iraqis killed is ridiculously high (just look at the invalid methodology for the study), it does remain true that those who favor chaos and jihadism *have* killed a lot of folks in Iraq.
And that is one reason we are there: To put an end to these terrorists' killing spree, and see the country transition into a relatively peaceful and ordered place.
17. A.M.C. said the following at 3:04 PM on Oct 31
Re: Ted Slater (#16)
Actually, I intentionally chose the ORB study for the calculations because it gives one of the most liberal estimates in terms of deaths due to the Iraq War. Likewise, the CDC statistic (rather than those of pro-life organizations) for abortions was intentionally chosen because I would expect its estimate to be erring on the conservative side. The distortion was intentional to make my point across:
==> Even if we assume the Iraq War to be 100% wrong AND that the most ridiculous estimate were true, abortion is still a worse evil numerically speaking even if we spin the statistics in favor of the pro-choice camp.
That being said, I'll re-do the calculations using your source, which gives the civilian death count at 96,889. Divide that by 2-1/3, and we're down to 41,523/year. Compare that to the CDC figure of 848,163 abortions/year (admittedly, an underestimate), and the ratio is 1:20.4.
==> In engineering terms, we would say that the deaths from the Iraq War is an entire order of magnitude less than the number of lives lost through abortions in the U.S. I think that would settle the issue in favor of single-issue voting against abortions.
18. A.M.C. said the following at 3:10 PM on Oct 31
CORRECTION:
Oops, now I see why my previous post is "full of inaccuracies." I even got my math wrong! Instead of dividing by 2-1/3 years, it should obviously be 4-1/3.
Re-do the calculation again using the figure from Iraq Body Count:
96,889/4.3333=22,359. Compare that to the CDC statistics for abortions: For every death caused by the Iraq War, 38 fetuses are aborted in the U.S.
The conclusion remains the same: Now that DEFINITELY settles the issue.
19. DEH said the following at 3:11 PM on Oct 31
I personally don't think that it matters for the abortion issue whether or not pro-lifers are for social issues that involve caring for the poor and downtrodden.
Don't get me wrong. I believe we should care for such people (to what degree and how, I am unsure). But at the same time, I don't believe that has any bearing on this issue. Whether or not a woman thinks she can afford to have a baby doesn't change the fact that abortion is wrong. If a woman wanted to kill her preschooler because she couldn't make ends meet, no one would be arguing that we have no right to tell her not to because we aren't ready to give her a helping hand or adopt her child. We would tell her not to because to kill a child, regardless of her justification for doing so, would be murder. If she went through with it, she would bear the responsibility for her choice. We would not excuse it because we didn't do more to help her economically. Should we help her? Probably. But her actions cannot be justified simply because we didn't do more to take care of her.
Yes, it may be true (maybe) that a woman wouldn't get an abortion if she knew she could afford the child, and so if we helped her, we might be saving a life in that way. But the truth is that we can't help everyone who is needy, whether we want to or not. That's not an excuse not to try. Saying that we have to do that before we can stand up and say that abortion is wrong, though, is avoiding the issue.
I think we need to extend mercy and love to the women who are faced with decisions like abortion. But even having the best social programs available won't change the fact that the government of this country views the murder of pre-born children as a matter of privacy. That should be our first priority, not because the others aren't important, but because only once we've saved a life can we help that life thrive, and even more grievous than not supporting myriad social welfare issues is kicking women when they're down and letting them think that abortion is an easy answer. In the long-term abortion is rarely easy for any woman, and it should never be portrayed as the right answer.
This is a battle that we have to fight on many fronts, but the foundational issue is, I believe, the fact that abortion is still legal. If we can change that, then we can work to change the rest.
That's my $0.02. God bless.
20. LisaMarie Goetz said the following at 3:18 PM on Oct 31
Ted, in #16 you open with:
"A.M.C. (#8) -- Your comment is so full of inaccuracies, it's barely worth my time to address them.
But now that it's published, I have to."
...this is the kind of spirit I was discussing in my longer comment on the "Discarded Children" blog post (#4).
Why must we have this kind of attitude with one another when we talk about these issues? Would we say these things to these individuals were this interaction in person? This really hurts my heart, especially when I find that people from Boundless and Focus on the Family are initiating it as well.
I am not trying be holier-than-thou- I struggle with this myself for sure, and being in community with others and dealing with disagreements is extremely difficult...but what if, instead of making assumptions about one another and cutting each other down, we were to attempt to come from a place of love and mutual respect?
21. Ted Slater said the following at 3:34 PM on Oct 31
LisaMarie -- the comment did indeed contain inaccuracies, which I documented. I made no assumptions about A.M.C., as you imply that I did. I merely challenged the data provided by ORB's study.
I am passionate about truth, LisaMarie.
I'm especially passionate about invalid studies that slip through in Boundless Line comments. By allowing them to be referenced here, we lend them some credibility. And because they are identified as "studies," some of our readers may actually believe what they report.
That's why I responded so quickly and so firmly: To point out the illegitimacy of that study before anyone took it as valid.
22. Texas Craig said the following at 3:52 PM on Oct 31
I can appreciate the passion that some people feel about abortion. I understand that passion, although I do not feel it. I also have friends that are passionate about civil war or AIDS in Africa and the millions of people people dying there as a result of those two things. Certainly, we are called to seek justice and mercy for all who are oppressed, suffering, and dying.
Having said that, we also need to recognize that the next president is not likely to value the pro-life position and there may be significant changes in the law that may result in more abortions being performed. But, God is still on His throne and we are still called to be His people and be salt and light in the world. So, while it may be good to talk about "voting," that is not going to really affect change because at this point, I am quite confident of who the new president will be. We may not like it, but we need to get ready to shift our focus from the election to how we, as Chrisians, are to live in such a scenario. It really is not unusual in the course of history, either, because the early church was forged in a culture of murder and injustice, and the church in China has grown and remained strong in that environment for many years during the last century.
Voting is an important right in a democratic society, but the only hope for the world is God, living and working through the church by His Holy Spirit. So, let us live our lives every day as that light, regardless of what the political culture is.
23. DEH said the following at 4:05 PM on Oct 31
Ted, I have to respectfully agree with LisaMarie. Whether you intended it to come across the way it did or not is not the issue. The issue is that it did come across as rude and inconsiderate, which now more than one person has noted. I agree that we are called to proclaim the truth. But it's important that we proclaim the truth in love. And what baffles me is the fact that you blasted A.M.C. even though he/she was trying to prove the same point you have been trying to prove: that the lives lost to abortion is the single most important issue this election, even more important than the fact that many people have died in the Iraqi war. A.M.C. was right to use the statistics that he/she did because they make a point that cannot be argued with: even using the least conservative estimates of the lives lost to the war in Iraq, abortion in the U.S. still leads to the most lives lost per year. Yes, A.M.C.'s math was a little off (as he/she admitted), and yes, maybe he/she should have made it clear from the start why those particular stats were being used, but the point was well made nonetheless.
I think it's important to remember that what we say matters just as much as how we say it. Our love for each other sends a message to the rest of the world: that we belong to Christ (see John 13:35). If we cannot stand for the truth in love even with each other, then we are not being the best witnesses that we can be for Christ, and we can hardly hope to win anyone else's heart on this or any other issue.
24. BDB said the following at 4:12 PM on Oct 31
Hmmm...though Ted, A.M.C. actually seems to be arguing the pro-Life position - using the most absurd study on Iraqi casualties to show that even compared to the absurd numbers, Abortion is a much bigger death toll.
Personally, I'm convinced that we had to do something. No country was ever attacked for being too strong. Perhaps the two Iraq wars would not have been necessary if the U.S. had responded more forcefully to the attack on USS Stark and 9/11 might not have happened if we responded forcefully to the attack on USS Cole. Perhaps the Holocaust in WWII would not have happened if the U.S. hadn't turned away the SS St. Louis. There are lots of points of history where failure take action when a small amount of people died was interpreted by other countries as a lack of U.S. resolve - and triggered a much bigger fight later on.
25. Adam said the following at 4:52 PM on Oct 31
Hey Everyone!
Gotta agree with Ted on this one. It is really hard to believe that we live in a society that values their pocket books over the protection of the innocent. The reason they keep harping on this is because we have a society that does not seem to get it. The whole "single issue voter" thing is coming back again. Let me tell you, if someone were running or president, and was a member of the KKK, I can guarantee you that everyone would be a one issue voter! Likewise, this issue is fundamental.
Many people have brought up the war in Iraq. I, likewise, do not believe we should be in Iraq, but keep in mind that the people over in Iraq are trained military officers. While we certainly need to protect their life as well, when we talk about infants in the womb, we are talking about a totally different issue. We are talking about people who cannot defend themselves, being wrent limb from limb, burned alive in their mother's womb, or having their brains sucked out of them. It is one of the most violent deaths to people who are utterly defenseless. We cannot say that for people in Iraq. While I agree that Candice's exegesis of that passage in Deuteronomy was sloppy, here are a few texts that should speak more directly to this issue:
Jeremiah 5:26-31 'For wicked men are found among My people, They watch like fowlers lying in wait; They set a trap, They catch men. 27 'Like a cage full of birds, So their houses are full of deceit; Therefore they have become great and rich. 28 'They are fat, they are sleek, They also excel in deeds of wickedness; They do not plead the cause, The cause of the orphan, that they may prosper; And they do not defend the rights of the poor. 29 'Shall I not punish these people?' declares the LORD, 'On a nation such as this Shall I not avenge Myself?' 30 "An appalling and horrible thing Has happened in the land: 31 The prophets prophesy falsely, And the priests rule on their own authority; And My people love it so! But what will you do at the end of it?
Notice how God holds the people of Israel accountable for defending those who have no defense. Yet, we as a society wrend defenseless babies limb from limb in the most grotesque fashion for no good reason whatsoever, and yet, we expect God to just sit in heaven and do nothing because of a woman's "right to choose."
Exodus provides an even stronger statement:
Exodus 21:22-25 "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
So severe was the penalty against killing a woman's unborn child that it has the longest exposition of the lex talionis in the Hebrew Bible. It appears that we are to be careful to protect the life of an unborn baby even to the point of executing anyone whose carelessness results in the death of an unborn child. It is interesting that, in the light of this, we actually go in and murder the unborn intentionally.
I also find it interesting that liberals who talk about social justice so much do not speak about social justice on this issue. They would never leave it as the governments "right to choose" whether they persecute blacks, or rape women. Yet, when it comes to the unborn, they seem to say that people should have the right to choose to engage in all the social injustice they want.
I am happy to say that I am unashamedly a one issue voter.
God Bless,
Adam
26. Jo said the following at 4:56 PM on Oct 31
BDB in #4: Amen.
Jennifer in #5: Also amen.
Yes, I do think everybody here 'gets it'. Getting it, ie understanding it, does not necessarily lead to agreeing with it, and many people have given valid and reasonable defenses of their alternative views. The sheer quantity of articles here saying essentially the same thing is not going to persuade them.
I don't find it helpful, in fact I find it offensive, to read posts that claim that anyone who votes for a pro-choice candidate will be "judged" by God for it. I put judged in inverted commas because the clear implication is that these people will be rebuked or even condemned, and that voting for a pro-choice candidate is not only a sin, but a sin so serious that in the eyes of some it seems to call their very salvation into question.
It is not for FOTF, or the Boundless team, or me, or anyone else to tell ANY Christian how they should vote. It is absolutely fine to set out the issues, give personal opinions and promote discussion, but it is NOT fine to tell someone they would be wrong to vote a particular way. It is also not fine to take passages out of scripture to try and support such an unbiblical mandate. That is not right. We are all capable of thinking for ourselves, praying sincerely and following the Spirit's leading in these things. If someone ignores the issues God has laid on their heart then yes, they will be rebuked for that. But if someone loses confidence in what God is saying to them because they read these articles and get scared, who will be at fault then?
27. NeedACatchyName said the following at 5:19 PM on Oct 31
I'll try to keep this as vague as possible, but if it violates the rule about talking politics, feel free not to post it...
So what if you have a situation where you have two candidates who have a realistic shot of winning (major party candidates) that aren't truly pro-life? I define pro-life as not merely stating your objection to abortion, but having a willingness to pursue ending abortion through all legal means necessary as your top priority once in office. Now, suppose there are one or more minor party candidates who do have a much stronger pro-life stance, but realistically have no shot at winning.
So...do you vote for the major party candidate who's closest to the pro-life viewpoint even though you really don't think it's doing enough, in an effort to reduce (but probably not sublimate) abortion? Or do you vote for the minor party candidate who has a much stronger pro-life stance but isn't going to win, so that you can stand by your convictions and hope to influence future elections?
(obviously, this is a very pertinent question for this year's presidential election, but at the same time, I think this same question could apply to a lot of other races, both on November 4 and in the future.)
28. Chris said the following at 8:09 PM on Oct 31
Ted writes:
When it comes to one post-birth pro-life issue, we at Boundless are emphatically pro-life. From womb to tomb, as they say.
Why, then, is Focus on the Family Action supporting a ballot initiative in Arkansas that would prohibit the adoption of children by unmarried couples?
Seems that pro-life position only goes so far......
(To be honest, I'm not sure if this will get through due to these vague "no political statements" rules, but I feel it does bear on the above statement.)
29. Al said the following at 8:35 PM on Oct 31
As someone who is "pro-life" (and voting that way, because I'm fortunate enough to agree with one candidate on more than a single issue and because I actually like the man), I am also somewhat bothered by the tone that comes across, whether intentional or not, in some of the articles and responses by the Boundless editors when it comes to this topic. I'm glad that they are proclaiming truth. But even as someone who agrees with them, I shirk reading the phrases others here have already noted.
Frankly, I think tone is exceptionally important, *especially* when we are passionate about a subject. Reading how these arguments are phrased, I can't help but feel that the only people convinced will be those who already agree, and those who lean towards voting for the pro-choice candidate will only read into these articles the lack of compassion (here for their readers) they accuse conservatives of. Even if their analysis is incorrect, I think it counterproductive to speak in ways that affirm their suspicions. And though I agree with the authors in principle, I think it may be more productive to show compassion in ways a reader can understand-- by the very words spoken to them, before we redefine what "compassion" should mean when applied to the abortion issue.
I also hope the editors can benefit from these observations: Ted, out of your understandable passion, you did come across as somewhat reactive and a bit dismissive and disrespectful to A.M.C., especially since A.M.C. was actually arguing your position. I have to say that if I held even a slightly pro-choice view, your response, intentional or not, may have primed me to dismiss your argument before I could even begin to digest it. I also have to note that the times I've seen boundless editors respond to commenters in what seemed like harsh or unflattering tones, I have seen a few defenses and clarifications, but I have not yet seen an apology to a reader. Granted it doesn't happen often, but it does happen somewhat regularly.
If we allow our passions to excuse our language, and our language actually serves do disuade rather than persuade, then we allow our very passion to defeat our cause.
And I'm also bothered by the somewhat loose use of scripture here to support the pro-life stance today.
The quote from Deuteronomy to "Choose life" has much less to do with the life of the unborn than it has to do with the life that God's commandments and God *himself* brings, and the death that is the inevitable consequence of rejecting Him. A much better verse would be to quote Psalm 139, "For you created my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother's womb..." than to force a pro-life interpretation on "Choose life", if only because we do violence to scripture when we replace the value of God with the value of something else-- even the life of the unborn.
Somewhat less objectionable is the quote in James, "Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God means caring for orphans and widows in their distress." I suppose the argument could be made that the unborn are essentially orphaned by their parents in intent, but I am uncomfortable with using it as a slam-dunk pro-life proof text, saying that the pre-born are the "classic" orphans, as they are not. The classic orphans are those very suffering orphans James is speaking of within his community. I do agree that vying for the life of the unborn can be extrapolated from the verse-- but choosing to adopt (which I know many Boundless editors have), is a much, much more direct application of the verse.
We should never let our passion for specific issues, even when they are correct, override a passion for bibilical accuracy.
30. Ted Slater said the following at 8:58 PM on Oct 31
A.M.C. -- I apologize for the harsh tone of my comment to you. I snapped at you and treated you disrespectfully.
I tend to have a trigger-reaction to suspect studies, and find that it often takes longer to provide information that debunks them than it does for someone to reference them. I lost my patience with you and I'm sorry.
Let me re-do my comment here, OK?
A.M.C. -- I appreciate your by-the-numbers approach to this problem. You illustrate well how the number of those killed through abortion eclipses even the most liberal figures given for those killed during the war in Iraq.
That said, I have to point out that the study by Opinion Research Business is extremely flawed -- in methodology, sample ... and consequently in their findings. More reliable figures place the number of killed closer to 1/10th that given by ORB.
In the end, of course, Christians should be concerned about both the pre-born who die during abortions and the post-born who die during war. We should advocate caution and care and precision during just military actions, as well as love for both mommy and child during abortion considerations.
(A thought I just had: God commanded the Israelites to go into war; did He ever command them to kill their own children?)
31. A.M.C. said the following at 10:17 PM on Oct 31
Re: Ted Slater (#28)
Actually, I wouldn't blame you for the harsh response-- I expected no less from the Boundless staff in terms of being straightforward in their opinion :-) Besides, that's nothing compared to the criticism that I hear from the pro-choice camp about the pro-life position.
==> Given the benefit of hindsight, I can see how my first post gave the message that the results of the calculation could be inconclusive; in fact, the comment could have been said by someone who's pro-choice, to argue AGAINST the pro-life position. But again, that was partly due to my math error: dividing the inflated ORB figure by 4.333 would lead to the result that the Iraq War is only 39.3% as lethal as the underestimated CDC figure for abortions, which is enough to lead to the desired conclusion without even having to use the more reliable numbers (say, from Iraq Body Count).
* Having said that, all I was trying to do was to find a way to argue for the pro-life position using only actual statistics, so that it can be more easily shared with non-Christian friends (who may find our decision to vote single-choice against abortions to be absurd). The calculation is only meant to supplement the argument for the pro-life position from biblical principles, never to replace it.
==============================
As for the last part of your message:
* I do agree with you that the Israelites were never commanded to kill their own children. So, I'll reiterate a philosophical question that I've raised earlier in the "Single-Issue Voting" thread:
Given that abortion is so wrong, should Christians consider tampering with the democratic process as a last resort in order to save the unborn?
==> Obviously, rigging the election in favor of pro-life candidates or preventing pro-choice people from voting would definitely be illegal. In addition, it fails the Golden Rule; I would argue that it also violates "love your neighbor as yourself." But can't a Christian defend such actions by pointing out that "You shall not murder" is more important, and that we're supposed to obey God if His will conflicts with that of worldly leadership?
32. Boston Matt said the following at 10:52 PM on Oct 31
I have to admit that I'm a little shocked at some of the attitudes on here. Just get over it? Have you even looked at the pictures? Get over it? How does clothing children even compare with killing them? Why even clothe them then?
This has nothing to do with the argument presented!
Poor people are always going to exist, and if we were going to go by this poor argument (no pun intended) of some supposed innocent life being taken somewhere else then NO humane movement should ever start! There was just to much wrong, why even try!
The Iraq war, while a sad thing when innocent life is taken, still does not justify ignoring the innocent life here being taken! Womb to Tomb, no matter where. Iraq or Fetus! You can't have it both ways! "I'm against abortion, but I won't take a stand on it, but I'm concerned about Iraq". Does anyone else see how that is duplistious in the worse way!
How much more innocent life would be lost if we pulled out prematurely, or did nothing at all? I find it interesting the only innocent life talked about with Iraq is the recent war but no one mentions the rape rooms, the torture chambers, and the gassing of innocent people or what Saddam did to the Kuwaitese. Guess those people aren't as innocent then? Consistency with an argument is something much needed, thank you for the many who have done just that!
33. DJS said the following at 11:25 PM on Oct 31
Wow, everyone is pretty up in arms about this subject! I would not be considered a single issue voter, especially since I believe there is one candidate who has many policies that go directly against the Scriptural mandate and purpose of government. However, let me say why abortion should immediately decide the way Christians vote.
People too often tend to lump the government of our country into a moral and Biblical entity. That is simply not the case. Our government exists to protect and enforce laws here in America. Only then does it begin to spread its influence and power across the world. The Church is an entity that is international and not limited by national boundaries.
My point here is that if our government's primary role lies here in America, then we should vote with that purpose in mind. As Christians, we can then choose to help other countries through independant agencies or any other means at our disposal. To vote for a candidate who has shown an utter disregard for protecting the Biblical definition of life, life here in America, is unthinkable.
The argument that a pro-life candidate may have policies that would harm people in other countries sounds convincing, but thankfully in this election I do not believe that we need to worry about that conundrum.
People in other countries have their governments that are supposed to be protecting them, however, if our American government does not protect the unborn, who will?
34. Joshua said the following at 3:29 AM on Nov 1
The Lord has been dealing with me this week on the proper attitude we must have towarsds our elections. First, we should not wait every four years to start praying. That only leaves us at square one every four years. Secondly, we must hate evil. We must engage evil in violent prayer to remove and destroy evil in our midst. Politicians that spread evil must be prayed out and actioned out of office ASAP, not in four or six years. Judges do not have to be there for life. You can pray them off the bench. Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. Thirdly, When the enemy comes in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord will raise up a standard (Lead an army) against it. We are that army. If you destroy satan's chances four years ahead of time, you will be free to vote for righteousness. In Jesus' name I bind the forces of evil that are trying to take over this country. I render them impotent to turn the course of our nation toward evil. I scatter and cunfuse and disarm and dismantle their demonic networks now!I bind the spirit of Jezebel, the spirit of rebellion (change) ant the spirit of showmanship that seduces the populace. And I decree that righteousness be established in this nation from now on, to November 4th, 2008 and beyond in Jesus' name. The adversary's ballot boxes empty and the ballot boxes of the righteous are full In Jesus' name.
35. Ashley said the following at 7:00 AM on Nov 1
Ted- if you want to use the OT to say the Iraq war is alright, perhaps you should consider some other thoughts the OT has on war. Maybe we are just going about things all wrong and should re-consider how we wage war:
Numbers 31:13-18 re: war against Midians
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
sounds like rape and pillage to me. Pretty sure that Jesus preached peace but demanded holiness and following God. Furthermore, what we take from the OT should be tempered with the NT.
36. Charles H. said the following at 8:42 AM on Nov 1
Ted #28 - Although I agree with you that the ORB numbers were mainly a PR stunt by the antiwar crowd, I think you have to be careful with the "God commanded the Israelites to go into war" line of reasoning. There is no contemporary equivalent of Moses leading the Israelites.
And as for the comments that seem to consider pro-life articles a boost for one particular candidate, does that end up being a commentary on the articles or on the choice of candidates? Personally I'd say the latter; there are plenty of races where both major candidates are pro-life.
When someone says I'm a single-issue voter, I like to ask how many issues a voter should have kept in mind if voting on a new German leader in 1944. Well, this one wants to stop killing the Jews, but I don't really agree with him on tax policy or healthcare...
37. Louise, 43 said the following at 11:42 AM on Nov 1
Comment 5,
I do agree with you about "overkill", but the bloggers on this site have a marked tendency to multiple-post on issues about which they feel strongly.
In Oct. 2007 there were several essays about the harmfulness/ungodliness of Halloween.
A year later it's the presidential election/abortion issue.
Hey, none of us have to read/comment on here if we dislike the blog content.
:)
38. Laura said the following at 1:00 PM on Nov 1
Ted, I didn't mean to imply that anyone at Boundless or Focus doesn't care about children after they are born. What I mean is it's a fallacy to say that Christians should only be single-issue voters, because the fact is that NO candidate from ANY party is consistenly pro-life in every sense. I think it's irresponsible to single out abortion as the only important factor when life is affected in so many ways by so many decisions made by whomever is elected president.
And enough with the calculations. It doesn't matter if one baby dies or a million. Each life is precious to God, and we ought to behave that way.
39. BDB said the following at 2:16 PM on Nov 1
Ted (#28) was a great response!
40. Texas Craig said the following at 11:04 PM on Nov 1
NeedaCatchyName (#26):
While I think you raise an interesting question, I do not think it matters too much. Pick whichever approach you feel most comfortable with. I think either selection is justified and principled. Personally, I choose to stand by my convictions and vote for the person I think is the best candidate of all options - even if it is a write-in candidate! Now, if God clearly told me to vote for someone, then I would obey Him. But, otherwise, I will vote my conscience for the best possible candidate and let God be the kingmaker.
41. Texas Craig said the following at 11:26 PM on Nov 1
A.M.C. - you raise an interesting question at the end of your email regarding the steps Christians should take in regard to abortion. I just posted on the "Discarded Children" thread a similar question. It seems odd to me that we honor so many different groups who have broekn the law in the past (i.e., the underground railroad for slaves, the civil disobedience of the civil rights movement, the people who hid Jews in World War II, the people who violate non-proseletyzing laws of other countries to share the gospel), yet we do not see a cry for the same thing in regard to abortion - even by those who claim to be passionate about it or cry out how horrific it is and how it is murder. This always seemed odd to me. It seems that if it is truly grotesque murder, then that demands the utmost action from Christians to stop it - even to the point of civil disobedience. There are some that do this, but not nearly as many as claim to feel strongly about it. I do not feel as strongly about it, so it does not present a conflict for me. But, I would love to hear the thoughts from those that do. And, I am not looking to get flamed about this - I am just looking for an honest dialogue on why there are not cries for civil disobedience by those who consider it truly horrific.
42. Roger in South Carolina said the following at 5:40 AM on Nov 2
If we are deciding on the main political office in the US (the Presidency) then we have far greater concerns as Christians than just the pro life issue. The next president may very well place 2 0r 3 people into the highest position in the US: a Supreme Court Justice seat. This is the ultimate seat(s) that will determine whether we go back to what America was founded upon and be blessed by God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit or become like other nations.
43. Cathy S said the following at 8:12 AM on Nov 2
*(A thought I just had: God commanded the Israelites to go into war; did He ever command them to kill their own children?)*
In Exodus 32:27 - 29 the Levites were told to kill their family. And Moses said they were blessed for killing their sons.
44. DannieA said the following at 11:17 AM on Nov 2
Ted:
I'm with Laura...I hope you received the message I sent back via boundless...it was not an intent to say either/or
45. BDB said the following at 6:45 PM on Nov 2
I came across this verse this evening. I think it is relevant to the discussion. Malachi 3:5
And I will come near you for judgement; I will be a swift witness
Against sorcerers,
Against adulterers,
Against perjurers,
Against those who exploit wage earners and widows and the fatherless,
And against those who turn away an alien--
Because they do not fear Me,
Says the Lord of hosts.
46. IMO said the following at 9:15 AM on Nov 3
"In Exodus 32:27 - 29 the Levites were told to kill their family. And Moses said they were blessed for killing their sons."
Not sure if you were just answering the question or if you were trying to prove a point.
This Exodus passage (like all other passages in the bible) need to be read in the context of the chapter.
Just sayin'
47. DJS said the following at 9:39 AM on Nov 3
40. Cathy S
I sincerely hope that you are being sarcastic when using that passage from Exodus. Did you read the whole chapter? The Israelites have just finished creating the golden calf, while Moses was up on the mountain meeting God and receiving the Ten Commandments. Moses then gives the people a choice: 26 So he stood at the entrance to the camp and said, "Whoever is for the LORD, come to me." And all the Levites rallied to him.
The rest of the people have consciously rejected God and He commanded the Levites to take up their swords and punish the people for this sin.
To use this passage where the Israelites made a obvious decision to sin and reject God, in an attempt to say that God commands people to kill their own children is ludicrous! When a child is aborted they are completely innocent. They have a sin nature, but have never had the opportunity to sin or make any decisions. The Israelites in Exodus make a choice and they were punished by their Levite priests for rejecting God.
Please look at the entire context of a passage before using to argue a point.
48. NeedACatchyName said the following at 9:59 AM on Nov 3
To answer my own question at #27 (first comment page)...
After giving it some thought, I'm voting third party. Now, let me preface this by saying that a primary driver of this decision is the fact that I live in a very red state. If I lived in a swing state, I might vote differently. But since it's not, I'm going to use the opportunity to vote for the candidate that I feel is best for the job, even though they don't have any chance of winning.
(I won't say which third party, however, because of the political comment policy, so don't ask)
49. IMO said the following at 1:00 PM on Nov 3
Ashley,
God does not contradict himself. Jesus does not contradict God the Father. The OT does not contradict the NT.
So then, what exactly are you trying to say?
PS. You said, "Pretty sure that Jesus preached peace but demanded holiness and following God."
What are you trying to prove with this sentence?
50. .j said the following at 3:06 PM on Nov 3
In the face of all of this, I've got to wonder: how many pro-life politicians have we elected that have done ZILCH? I'm not super into politics so if any big changes have been made or ground has been gained, feel free to note such. However, It seems as if politicians are more apt to wave the "pro-life flag" to get votes than to sincerely make an effort at change.
51. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:19 PM on Nov 3
Ted (concering your response to Lauren and DannieA),
I know that the conservative stance is to NOT have social programs sponsored by the federal or state government for the caring of orphans (and other unfortunates).
Because I've always wanted to start my own personal, private orphanage (but realize that my skill set and fundraising abilities are woefully absent), I did a google search for CHURCH run orphanages that I could either financially support or actually volunteer at.
I found nothing.
Would you by any chance know of any?
52. Al said the following at 3:57 PM on Nov 3
Ted, thank you for your latest reply to A.M.C. It was encouraging to see an editor and informal teacher here on Boundless demonstrate fairness and humility in this community. So, thanks again.
53. Mark said the following at 10:40 PM on Nov 3
In light of the upcoming election, I wanted to respond to the idea of being a "single issue voter." While it is certainly honorable to passionately stand up what you believe in, also understand that there is much more at stake than just one single issue in an election. I speak as one who is pro-life, but I also believe that it's important to understand that there are other issues that will have a profound impact on our country as well. We've had a pro-life president in office for the past 8 years, a president who although is pro-life, has done very little to even reduce the number of abortions taking place in our country. This does not negate the importance of the issue by any means, but we must also take into consideration a candidate's other policies. A candidate's economic policy will affect employment levels, it will affect the number of homeless and the number of people living in poverty in our country. A candidate's view on education will determine the future of our country, and our ability to receive a quality education. A candidate's position on the war will determine how many men and women are losing their lives fighting for our country and for peace and justice in the world. A candidate's position on gun control policy will affect how many people are murdered and killed as a result of easy access to handguns. A candidate's investment in environmental research and sustainability will enable us to better take care of mother nature, which has been entrusted into our care by God. A candidate's treatment of medical research and government aid to the poor in other countries will affect millions of people's lives who are suffering from very treatable diseases and are in need of access to clean water in other countries. Voting for a candidate who is pro-choice does not make you pro-choice, nor does it mean you support abortion. If in light of all the other issues at stake in the election, a voter still feels the one issue of abortion outweighs the rest, then by all means vote in favor of the candidate who is pro-life. But let's not reduce ourselves to one issue - let's be wise and discerning with respect to our vote, and let's acknowledge that what it means to be pro-life extends far beyond the bounds of abortion. I acknowledge that as Christians, the issue of abortion should be an issue of grave importance to us all(since it is an issue on God's heart as well), but let's also acknowledge that all of these other issues at stake in the election are also issues that matter very dearly to God as well.
54. DannieA said the following at 10:18 AM on Nov 4
To Ted and Christina (in green)
That's my point exactly. If we are going to wholeheartedly support from womb to tomb which I THINK WE SHOULD and was a little hurt that I got chastized for my comment when what I wanted to do was to start a positive conversation about what to do in a healthy sense as a church community...then how do we start if our churches and communities are not helping. This is why many people then go to social programs...what can we do TODAY!
I voted....you all should too!
55. Ted Slater said the following at 1:35 PM on Nov 4
Christina (comment #1) -- I appreciate your desire to serve orphans through the church. It seems that there are fewer orphanages here in the States than there used to be, foster care taking many of the children. I guess we figured living with families is better than living in an institution.
That said, I did find some church-based orphanages here in the States. Go here and scroll down to "America/North America" -- you'll see a few denominational orphanages.
Also, check out "Cry of the Orphan," a ministry that Focus on the Family is involved with, for more service opportunities.
Finally, "I Care About Orphans" offers additional suggestions on how to help.
56. Sharon said the following at 12:45 AM on Nov 5
Most of my extended family is pro choice and they nag me about my conservative views. It's just hard for me to understand how I'm supposed to vote for someone who can justify murder.
57. Gloria said the following at 4:39 PM on Nov 5
What will making abortion illegal do to stop abortions from occuring?
It's an honest question.
I do not agree with the practice of abortion. However, I don't believe legislation is the answer, and therefore I vote for the candidate I think will do the most to a) reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and b) reform the system so that girls and women faced with unwanted pregnancies are presented with more than one feasible option.
The majority of young girls and women who have abortions are lower-class. Why is that? What can we do to address this and make it so that fewer and fewer girls and women feel an abortion is their only option? How can we reform the adoption system so more competent and willing adults are able to raise babies born out of an unwanted pregnancy?
There are too many other atrocities going on in our country and world right now for me to focus on one issue - as horrendous as the statistics are. I'm glad there are other people whose primary passion is for eliminating abortion. I can't champion every cause, and God has given me a passion to speak for other causes. Let's all work together to do our part to make sure we are embracing, uplifting, and preserving life in all stages, as God has called us to do.
58. Cathy S said the following at 9:08 PM on Nov 5
Sorry, I should have clarified more. The Exodus verse was just an answer to the question.
Abortion is absolutely wrong.
Forgive me for my late night typing without explaining myself.