Obama's Step Backwards on Reducing Abortions by Steve Watters on 11/10/2008 at 2:38 PM

In September, Donald Miller made a stop in Colorado Springs in support of Barack Obama's campaign for President.  According to a Time magazine article last week, Miller's support for Obama may have contributed to moving enough Evangelicals his way to swing Colorado and other key battleground states.  Some of Miller's message in Colorado Springs was transcribed on the Burnside Writer's Blog.  One of his primary challenges was to win over Evangelicals who were skeptical about Obama's abortion policies.  Here's a portion of his comments on that topic:

Senator Obama is going to move us past the impasse in our cultural war, something I think of as a cultural Vietnam. On the issue of abortion, he is the only candidate who has a plan to reduce the number of abortions. John McCain's only plan is the same old trick: say that you are pro life and offer no plan at all other than to criminalize abortion. I simply think that plan hasn't worked, and we have to face that fact and look for other ways to make progress.

I realize this is controversial, that there are many who would rather vote for a pro-life candidate and keep the abortion rate the same, on principle. And like them I believe in the sanctity of life, I simply think we need to begin making progress, and Barack is offering progress. He is also standing up to his own party on the issue and moving the party forward to elevate the issue of the sanctity of life within the Democratic Party. I also see this as progress. I do wish we could end abortion completely, but the Republicans have not spelled out a realistic plan to do so, and until they do, I won't vote for a candidate who simply throws us a pro-life line and no plan. It seems insincere.

But let me add this: I do wish Obama were pro-life. His plan to reduce the rate of abortion is a great step for the party, but I also wish he would defend the unborn to a greater degree.

However, at this point, in this election, with these two candidates, I think progress will be made with Barack. Not enough progress, but some progress, especially within the Democratic party, who may soften their stand on the sanctity of life.

Now, consider the news today about immediate decisions Obama's team is considering:

Among Bush administration actions likely to be quickly rescinded:

• The prohibition on federal funding for international family-planning agencies that provide abortions -- or counseling and information about abortion -- even in countries where the procedure is legal. This policy, known as the Mexico City initiative, was initially put in place by Ronald Reagan and reaffirmed by the current president's father. Bill Clinton removed it in 1993; President Bush restored it two days after taking office in 2001.   ...
• The ban on federal funding for research on new lines of embryonic stem cells. In August 2001, Bush limited government funding to the embryonic stem cell lines then in existence and prohibited any funding for development of new embryonic stem cell lines. Proponents of such research -- including many Democrats and moderate Republicans -- have pointed to the potential for cures for such devastating illnesses as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, but many social and religious conservatives liken the use of such stem cells to abortion because it requires the destruction of an embryo.

I'm curious if Donald Miller categorizes this news as "some progress" or if he was truly disappointed to hear this.

Obama's Step Backwards on Reducing Abortions by Steve Watters on 11/10/2008 at 2:38 PM

In September, Donald Miller made a stop in Colorado Springs in support of Barack Obama's campaign for President.  According to a Time magazine article last week, Miller's support for Obama may have contributed to moving enough Evangelicals his way to swing Colorado and other key battleground states.  Some of Miller's message in Colorado Springs was transcribed on the Burnside Writer's Blog.  One of his primary challenges was to win over Evangelicals who were skeptical about Obama's abortion policies.  Here's a portion of his comments on that topic:

Senator Obama is going to move us past the impasse in our cultural war, something I think of as a cultural Vietnam. On the issue of abortion, he is the only candidate who has a plan to reduce the number of abortions. John McCain's only plan is the same old trick: say that you are pro life and offer no plan at all other than to criminalize abortion. I simply think that plan hasn't worked, and we have to face that fact and look for other ways to make progress.

I realize this is controversial, that there are many who would rather vote for a pro-life candidate and keep the abortion rate the same, on principle. And like them I believe in the sanctity of life, I simply think we need to begin making progress, and Barack is offering progress. He is also standing up to his own party on the issue and moving the party forward to elevate the issue of the sanctity of life within the Democratic Party. I also see this as progress. I do wish we could end abortion completely, but the Republicans have not spelled out a realistic plan to do so, and until they do, I won't vote for a candidate who simply throws us a pro-life line and no plan. It seems insincere.

But let me add this: I do wish Obama were pro-life. His plan to reduce the rate of abortion is a great step for the party, but I also wish he would defend the unborn to a greater degree.

However, at this point, in this election, with these two candidates, I think progress will be made with Barack. Not enough progress, but some progress, especially within the Democratic party, who may soften their stand on the sanctity of life.

Now, consider the news today about immediate decisions Obama's team is considering:

Among Bush administration actions likely to be quickly rescinded:

• The prohibition on federal funding for international family-planning agencies that provide abortions -- or counseling and information about abortion -- even in countries where the procedure is legal. This policy, known as the Mexico City initiative, was initially put in place by Ronald Reagan and reaffirmed by the current president's father. Bill Clinton removed it in 1993; President Bush restored it two days after taking office in 2001.   ...
• The ban on federal funding for research on new lines of embryonic stem cells. In August 2001, Bush limited government funding to the embryonic stem cell lines then in existence and prohibited any funding for development of new embryonic stem cell lines. Proponents of such research -- including many Democrats and moderate Republicans -- have pointed to the potential for cures for such devastating illnesses as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, but many social and religious conservatives liken the use of such stem cells to abortion because it requires the destruction of an embryo.

I'm curious if Donald Miller categorizes this news as "some progress" or if he was truly disappointed to hear this.

Comments

[1. Tom Neven said the following at 2:24 PM on Nov 10:]

1

He'll just drive around a while and then write a book about it. How about Blue Like ...Oops?

[2. Holly (the single, non-parent one) said the following at 2:35 PM on Nov 10:]

2

Steve, can you provide more information? This: "for international family-planning agencies that provide abortions -- or counseling and information about abortion" doesn't mean much. A good friend of mine requested and received information from FOTF when a friend's 16 year old got pregnant. It included a good deal of information *about* abortion - dangers, risks, aftermath, etc., but still, *about* abortion. Would FOTF be considered a "family planning agency that provides information about abortion?" Using FOTF resources, one can plan one's dating, courtship, engagement, marriage, parenting, etc. -- sounds like family planning to me! I'm not trying to be ridiculous here :-) just asking for more than knee-jerk talking points.

[3. Laura said the following at 2:37 PM on Nov 10:]

3

Your readers need to understand that the Mexico City Initiative had consequences far beyond its intentions. It caused the shuttering of hundreds of clinics in Africa that did not have anything to do with abortion because abortion is illegal in those countries. They simply offered family planning services to very, very poor populations, but because of their affiliations with Planned Parenthood, etc., they lost their funding.

By cutting funding to those clinics, the Bush administration caused many to be shuttered completely, which is a problem considering that in many areas they provided the only healthcare available at all. It's not very pro-life to shut down clinics that provide maternity and neo-natal services, is it?

It's not nearly as simple as it sounds.

[4. Adam said the following at 2:38 PM on Nov 10:]

4

First of all - nothing has happened yet! It's all discussion at this point. True: this is by the head of the Obama transition team, but we've known even VPs to spout off before on various issues that don't come to be.

Biden was talking off-script when pontificating on Obama being tested internationally within 6 months of taking office. Palin talked of expanding the federal government to create a program for parents of special-needs kids. This directly contradicted with McCain's across the board spending freeze.

Rescinding a ban of federal funds being used for something is not a mandate that they be used for that purpose. So I view the first issue as relatively minor.

Stem-cells are a different issue. Stem cell research does kill fertilized eggs. While it may be something with similar issues to abortion - it isn't actually abortion. Neither is capitol punishment. Neither is euthanasia. Each are distinct things that intentionally, pre-maturely end life. While it is fine to criticize Obama on the issue, it is slightly off-topic to bunch it in with abortion.

I seriously doubt that Donald Miller turned the election. I don't think he has that kind of influence at this point. He may have been a contributing factor though. At the same time, the "Values Voters Pledge" could be partly to blame as well. Why? Because the contents of the pledge eliminated McCain as a viable candidate for "values voters."

One more thing, I must strongly disagree with the slam on Donald Miller at the end of the post. It seems to attack his character without basis.

[5. Ryan said the following at 2:42 PM on Nov 10:]

5

I couldn't stand Miller's pretentious writing before, and now can't stand the man.

Makes me ashamed to be in the same Body as him.

[6. mk said the following at 3:01 PM on Nov 10:]

6

ouch. i really like donald miller. i've seen a lot of people come to know christ or have their relationships with god strengthened through his writings. a lot of people who can't be reached by christian bubble-types have been reached by miller and his friends at imago dei in portland.

and i'm guessing he is probably a little disappointed.

[7. notmyrealname said the following at 5:17 PM on Nov 10:]

7

Why the heck were we spending federal funding on international health issues in the first place? Shouldn't we spend OUR federal funding on OUR health issues? How outrageous.

And hooray for stem cell research! Recent breakthroughs may allow human ES cells to be made w/o destroying embryos, they will still be available for implantation, so the anti-stem-cell research folk will have to pipe down.

And, if any of you did actual science research or researched IVF clinics, you would know that the vast majority of embryos created for IVF are simple washed down the drain, or frozen and thawed so many times that they're no longer viable. We simply CANNOT use as many embryos as IVF generates. So why not do some lifesaving research?

As a scientist, I'll have to say ES cells will save way more lives than they'll "take."

[8. Kari said the following at 5:31 PM on Nov 10:]

8

hahaha-- this was a humerous point:
"This policy, known as the Mexico City initiative, was initially put in place by Ronald Reagan and reaffirmed by the current president's father. Bill Clinton removed it in 1993; President Bush restored it two days after taking office in 2001."... and now it will probably be removed by Obama. :(
Man, it's like a sick game of tug-of-war.

[9. Texas Craig said the following at 6:24 PM on Nov 10:]

9

So much sarcasm for Donald Miller. It seems like there is a Bible verse about this. I believe it is "Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only that which is useful for building up...." I do not see sarcasm about someone who is not even likely reading this blog as consistent with that directive. To a great degree, it is stuff like this that causes many young Christians to choose not to associate with more *traditional* parts of the body of Christ.

Dear brothers and sisters, let's try to unite and not attack one another.

Peace and grace.

[10. brx said the following at 7:07 PM on Nov 10:]

10

Re: Laura (#2);

I'd like to know more - where can I learn more details about how those facilities came to be after the Mexico City Initiative was rescinded in 1993, what happened to them after it was restored in 2001, and what the _current_ status is of health care in those areas of Africa. I believe the thinking behind the initiative was to be a good steward of the funds such that more total funding is available for constructive health services.

Regarding arguments to rescind the Mexico City Initiative, I hear the underlying belief that 'the ends justify the means'.

Seriously, I'm interested in more information, and especially the current state compared with 9 years ago.

Grace & peace

[11. pass the ammunition said the following at 7:25 PM on Nov 10:]

11

Also, the Mexico initiative even barred organizations from even warning women about the lethal dangers of illegal, unsafe abortions.

[12. Keith said the following at 7:46 PM on Nov 10:]

12

I don't understand the reason for the last sentense. Donald Miller has clearly demonstrated his firm commitment to reducing the murder rate of unborn children - Why question that?

I believe Donald Miller represents the voices of many evangelical Christians. They are disgusted at the practice of abortion, as he is, but they believe voting for a *certain* political party has not made things better. Frustrated, they are willing to try controversial alternatives.

Questioning the beliefs of others is not helpful. If a person says they are pro-life, take them at thier word.

I think we need to be patient. Barack Obama's first steps seem to be backwards, but maybe God is raising him up to end abortion, or at least change the heart of the Democratic Party. Let's wait and see, and keep him and his family in prayer.

[13. Stephen P said the following at 8:30 PM on Nov 10:]

13

You might want to consider the following:
Bush 43 had a Republican congress when his administration began. They could have acted on the abortion issue then, but chose not to. He could has issued an executive order to address the abortion issue, but didn't. The Republican platform that McCain/Palin ran on included language supporting a human life amendment to the constitution and yet, I don't remember hearing either McCain or Palin speak on the issue. Finally, according to a non-partisan poll (NBC News/Wall Street Journal) conducted in September 2008, approximately 49% of the poll respondents held pro-choice positions, 47% held pro-life positions and 4% were unsure (MOE 3.3%).
It’s been 35 years since Roe. A Republican (Nixon) was in office then and since, there have been four additional Republican presidents (Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 & Bush 43). While there are undoubtedly Republicans politicians who sincerely want to change the existing abortion laws, I think that most politicians use the issue to keep the base angry and motivated.
I believe that education is better than ignorance. Children need to be given reliable information regarding sex, including information on birth control (for both males and females). Abstinence is not enough. What if your son or daughter made the decision to be sexually active? How would you counsel them? Thinking in the abstract will not keep them virgins or prevent them from getting pregnant. I hope there is a re-introduction of sex education as part of our federal funding and I hope the number of abortions decreases.
Ryan: It seems to me (a sinner in daily need of God’s abundant grace) that to lament that a particular individual is part of the Body of Christ because you disagree with them is extremely contrary to what Jesus taught.

[14. DP said the following at 9:04 PM on Nov 10:]

14

Ryan #5

"Makes me ashamed to be in the same Body as him."

Let the grace rain down. Seriously, what is your problem?

Also, I can't take any article seriously that says that Donald Miller "swung states" to Obama.

[15. EconNicole said the following at 9:41 PM on Nov 10:]

15

Haven't weighed in for a while, but couldn't resist this. Besides, it's so much easier to talk politics when I can use names!

I would hope Donald Miller was disapointed, but at the same time I would hope he had done his homework enough to expect this.

I knew that both of those things would almost surely be changed with Obama.

I sincerely believe even worse is to come. He told Planned Parenthood, "The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do." So the news he would reverse the Mexico City initiative is certainly not a surpise (as Clinton did it, so will Obama -- and most likely any other democrat would do it).

And seriously, is anyone surprised about the stem cell research? People don't even seem to care that stem cells can be found in umbilical cords -- amazing amounts of them that could be used for research without taking life. And yet they insist on it. When someone starts thinking it is okay to kill a baby growing in the womb their lines of right and wrong grow incredible blurred if they even exist. Leads them to not even care when there are easy and clear alternatives.

So while I hope Miller is disapointed, I also think he's smart enough to have known this. That's why he lost my respect with his support for Obama.

By the way: http://www.fightfoca.com/

[16. Bruce said the following at 9:50 PM on Nov 10:]

16

Mr. Miller must have forgotten Obama's pro partial birth abortion vote in the Ill Senate and his rating as the 2nd most liberal voting Senator at the Federal level. Also, the damage Obama will inflict on the country with his choices of liberal Supreme and Federal Court justices will damage the anti-abortion movement more than the status quo Mr. Miller believes McCain stands for.
I don't see how any Spirit filled Christian can vote for someone who believes abortion is justified. On judgment day when we bow down before Jesus, I don't want to try to explain to Jesus that I voted for a person who was going to slow down the number of abortions. One abortion is too many. I'm glad it's not my call.
In closing, when I read about how the anti-christ will fool even the elite, I wondered how could that happen.(Contrary to some people, I don't believe Obama is the anti-christ) After Mr. Miller's comments and the number of professing Christians who voted for a pro-abortion cantidate, I now can see how it will happen.

[17. Leah said the following at 11:17 PM on Nov 10:]

17

I could be wrong here, as I don't know all of the respective parties' policies etc in the US, but from the reports I heard, nothing specified that the stem cell research Obama was encouraging was embyronic. Like I said, could be wrong.

I must say I quite agreed with Donald Miller's initial speech quoted above. I really have very little idea who Miller is, and have gathered from what I've read about him on this blog that I'm probably not supposed to like him, but that specific speech, I could identify with.

Adam - stem cell research kills nobody. You can get stem cells from adults (these stem cells are actually more useful in cures). It's embryonic stem-cell research which is the problem. Also, how is killing a fertilised egg not abortion? That's what abortion IS. If you kill a foetus in its early weeks of pregnancy, it's still a fertilised egg, and is VERY MUCH abortion.

[18. Terry said the following at 5:57 AM on Nov 11:]

18

Galatians 6:7
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

[19. niki said the following at 6:20 AM on Nov 11:]

19

My hope is that Obama and his admin will be investing in our country's adoption system. I'd bet that's the most effective measure in bringing down the abortion rate. In the meantime, I wouldn't worry about anything until it's actually happening. We all know that politicians talk a lot.

[20. Zach Pate said the following at 6:24 AM on Nov 11:]

20

I don't think it is a good argument by Mr. Miller to say that President Elect Obama is going to line up with the evangelicals better that John McCain. President Elect Obama sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act (S. 1173) last year. This legislation would guarantee the right to have an abortion (like free speech). As Christians, I think that it is important to realize that Biblical values are not too popular in today's society, so we shouldn't be surprised when we are faced with adversity for majoring on issues like abortion over issues that might be popular in society.

[21. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:24 AM on Nov 11:]

21

Holly: It's far more than simply "providing information" about abortion; after all, every Christian-based crisis pregnancy center in America does that (and without federal funding).

The Mexico City Policy also includes (a) promoting "family planning" methods--including abortion--among Third World populations, as a means of "population control"; (b) referring clients for abortion services; (c) the provision of abortion services for said clients.

Along similar lines, within the United States, Reagan--and both Bushes--banned abortion providers (or referrers) from receiving federal monies. This is known as Title X restrictions.

When death becomes an economic commodity--even a voluntary one--it becomes forced upon those with little or no economic means. (The people are finding this out in Oregon, as the state health care system is refusing to pay for cancer treatments while offering to pay for physician-assisted suicide.)

Whenever someone tells you about "family planning" efforts in "developing countries", it is nothing more than flagrant eugenics, if not outright genocide.

As for Miller, I'd like to see where he stands 4 years from now.

The larger issue here is why we are using taxpayer money to promote activities that will only add to our long-term economic calamity.

Seriously....there are three fundamental economic factors of production:

(1) Land
(2) Labor
(3) Capital

By employing "population control", we are adversely impacting labor and capital, which are absolutely essential to a society's capacity to create wealth and maintain a taxpayer base that can support the governmental structure we have erected for ourselves.

We are attempting to cover that gap by bringing in more immigrants--many illegal--and that is creating a set of problems all its own, especially as we are eschewing assimilation in the name of "cultural diversity".

(And less you think I'm being rough on immigrants, my father is an Iranian immigrant who came here with a valid visa, worked hard for a living, received no welfare, learned English, and became a naturalized U.S. Citizen through legal means. While he is not a Christian, he is very much in the pro-assimilation camp, and even rejects "dual citizenship".)

[22. Josh Stevenson said the following at 7:29 AM on Nov 11:]

22

Anyone who thinks that Obama is actually going to try to reduce the number of Abortion in this country is greatly deceived. Miller is deceived. Obama's voting record on abortion speaks for itself. He has vowed to sign the "Freedom of Choice" act into law. He is by no means pro-life, which even Miller admits. This "progress" that Obama offers that Miller so obviously has bought into includes no protection for infants who have actually survived abortions. Millers reasons for not voting republican are pathetic at best.

There's no shame in being proud to be democrat or left wing, just admit it Miller. Don't give us some weak justification for voting supposedly reluctantly for a far-left, anti-life, moral relativist.

[23. Rich Z said the following at 7:53 AM on Nov 11:]

23

Spurgeon wrote "If we were more like Christ, we should be more hated by his enemies. It were a sad dishonour to a child of God to be the world's favourite. It is a very ill omen to hear a wicked world clap its hands and shout 'Well done' to the Christian man."

I'm sorry to say that my observation of Obama is that he does not honor all of God's Word. He chooses passages that fit a secular agenda but he has belittled other passages that don't fit the world's view.

In Paul's second letter to Timothy, he warns "the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth..." Paul calls these people "impostors."

[24. Mary Hale said the following at 7:59 AM on Nov 11:]

24

I like James Dobson and a host of others were sick at heart to hear of mr. Obama's election..and I'm a Canadian..after hearing much talk about "Republicans" talk about issue's, I find that they are not so much about being Conservative but more liberal then they used to be..they have lost the edge..I so much like Sarah Palin and the values she stands for and she's not afraid to voice her faith in God..
I really believe because of Mr. Obama's associations with radicals and Harvard University not allowing his records to be revealed or his birth certificate or his health records, sounds like a big coverup of something sinister..Many of the worlds terrorists were educated at Harvard University..I really believe that America will suffer under this man especially unborn children..we already have an enormous holocaust to account for and his election will escalate that. Despite thousands of people fasting and praying, God has allowed this man to come on the scene..Maranatha.. Father, send Jesus, quickly..May God have mercy on America and Canada..and the world.

[25. Paul said the following at 8:39 AM on Nov 11:]

25

The stance that many in what is called the conservative right have taken against the President Elect Barack Obama is rather sad. I wonder why credible ministers such as TD Jakes and Shirley Caesar and entire congregations are jubilant about this election and other predominantly white republican leaning conservative ministers are grieving and petulant.

Why would a christian organization ask God to rain on the Democratic Conference? Was the disruption of the Republican conference by a hurricane God's answer?

Acts 5:38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”

I submit that the conservative right need to check with God and not their opinions on this issue.

The blind support for the republican platform that has displaced many of our brothers and sister believers in Iraq is mind boggling to me.

I took time to ask God what His choice was for this election. He clearly indicated that it would be Barack Obama. And He added that he would be his instrument to bring peace especially in the 10/40 window which would greatly enhance evangelism to those millions and billions of souls locked up behind the Islamic Iron Curtain. He is uniquely placed to do this.

I am aware that lying can take one to Hell. I am telling the truth. I heard from God on this.

Selah

And Yes I am Black.

Paul

[26. Karen said the following at 9:11 AM on Nov 11:]

26

Obama's stance on abortion is the least of my worries. I'm more concerned about what he's going to do with the ecomomy, foreign policy esp the war on terror, and securing the boarders. I don't vote on social issues. I'm more of a fiscal conservative. Go ahead send the hate mail my way.

[27. Chad said the following at 9:29 AM on Nov 11:]

27

As a North Carolinian, I'm really confused how anyone thought the President-elect was more pro-life or would do more to slow abortion since he ran a commercial here for a few weeks with a female voice saying, "I'm voting for change because it's my body."

[28. Jo said the following at 10:07 AM on Nov 11:]

28

Like Adam I really disliked the tone of the final line of the post, which made me think Steve's view of the comments he quoted was coloured by a previously formed view of Miller. I on the other hand don't know offhand who Donald Miller is, so my comment is based purely on the comments in this post.

I think he makes a lot of sense here. It makes sense to vote for a candidate who you believe has a plan for reducing the number of abortions despite his pro-choice stance, as opposed to a pro-life candidate who you perceive as having no coherent plan to change the abortion stats at all. It makes sense to say that claiming to be pro-life while never doing much about it seems insincere.

I don't know enough about Bush to judge whether he's done enough about abortion, or enough about McCain or Obama to know whether I would agree with Miller that Obama has the most potential to reduce abortion. But in principle, I think Miller's way of assessing the issue is a good one.

And I don't necessarily think the points Steve made in the post imply that Obama won't take steps to reduce abortion. As I understand it, his stance is that the healthcare and social help should be put in place to lessen the 'necessity' of abortion, but that abortion should still be available for those situations where it is 'necessary'. Nothing in this post is inconsistent with that stance. I disagree with his stance, but that doesn't mean his measures won't reduce abortion. I hope they do.

[29. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:53 AM on Nov 11:]

29

Leah: Bad news on that front. The only stem-cell research impacted by the Bush ban on federal funding was embryonic, not adult stem cells.

The latter are not at the center of controversy, and in fact have received federal funding for decades, and have even shown success.

Embryonic, on the other hand, is not only controversial due to the destruction of embryos; it has yet to yield tangible results.

This is why the big investment banks--so needy of projects that will provide a return--won't even touch it.

[30. To Jo said the following at 11:02 AM on Nov 11:]

30

You said, "those situations where it [abortion] is 'necessary'.
When is murder necessary? Abortion is seen as an entity these days: ways to control it, uphold it,create alternatives to. At the end of the day, abortion is murder, no matter how many coins you flip.

[31. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:11 AM on Nov 11:]

31

Jo: Here's the problem. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to make the practice illegal, or at least give states the capacity to do this. History bears this out, as the abortion picture--pre and post Roe v. Wade--reflects that.

Whenever someone says, "we must not criminalize" abortion, they are in fact trivializing it. Given that we have performed over 50 million of them in America since 1973, we either have (a) the greatest advancement in human rights in world history, or (b) a mass slaughter that is on the same level with Mao Tse-Tung. Which is it?

If it is the latter, then Miller trivializes the act; if it is the former, then why is reducing their number so important?

If abortion is tantamount to murder, then why ought the issue carry less importance than economics?

After all, I would defy any of you to show me where the Prophets railed against poor economic policy to the exclusion of the practice of sacrificing children to Molech.

[32. DP said the following at 11:12 AM on Nov 11:]

32

"Obama's stance on abortion is the least of my worries. I'm more concerned about what he's going to do with the ecomomy, foreign policy esp the war on terror, and securing the boarders. I don't vote on social issues. I'm more of a fiscal conservative. Go ahead send the hate mail my way."

Finally someone will come out and admit it. I've thought all along this election, that the Obama hate was less about abortion and more about taxes, gun rights, and national security. Somehow those have become "Christian" political positions, which is why I am happy to see the demise of the Republican Party. (Note: I do not think that Democratic positions are "Christian" either)

[33. IMO said the following at 11:12 AM on Nov 11:]

33

Paul, not to pick a bone, but I thought ministers weren't allowed to endorse candidates or speak about politics with their congregation? Unless of course you go to a church that pays taxes.

[34. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:37 AM on Nov 11:]

34

DP says:

Finally someone will come out and admit it. I've thought all along this election, that the Obama hate was less about abortion and more about taxes, gun rights, and national security. Somehow those have become "Christian" political positions, which is why I am happy to see the demise of the Republican Party. (Note: I do not think that Democratic positions are "Christian" either)

Most Christian conservatives I know are pro-life first and foremost, and--while supporting other causes (guns, straight marriage, low taxes), abortion is at the top of the list.

While I support lower taxes, gun rights, and national security--all of which are generally good for a nation--I'm first and foremost a hardcore pro-life voter. Support of the former issues does not guarantee my vote; support of abortion rights guarantees that he or she will NOT get my vote.

And--as a John Birch libertarian--I'm happy to see the demise of the GOP, but for far different reasons than you are.

[35. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:50 AM on Nov 11:]

35

To Jo says:

When is murder necessary? Abortion is seen as an entity these days: ways to control it, uphold it,create alternatives to. At the end of the day, abortion is murder, no matter how many coins you flip.

Actually, in cases of danger to the woman's life, it is classifiable as medically necessary, and is not murder.

Abortion has always been legal in such cases--examples include certain cancers that, during pregnancy, metastasize rapidly if abortion is not performed.

Such abortions--a very miniscule number in both volume and percentage--were legal even before Roe, and there is ample grounds for its legality in such cases. After all, we allow killing in cases of self-defense.

If an intruder breaks into your home and threatens to kill you, and you take him out of the gene pool with Uncle Mossberg, you will face no charges. Not even in D.C. This is because, while killing another human being is a tragic matter, it is justifiable in that the circumstances represented an exigent threat to your life.

Same concept with abortion: in cases where the woman's LIFE (not "quality of life", mind you) is in danger, abortion has always been legal. No pro-life legislation that is on the table--or has been on the table--would impact abortion in those cases.

[36. Michael said the following at 11:51 AM on Nov 11:]

36

Do not be seduced by Obama...he is a follower of a New Age movement headed and funded through Oprah. So anything he speaks is venomous. This movement believe there is no right or wrong, and that there are many paths to God. Do your research before endorsing this man. Pray now that Gods people will wake up and get on their knees in fervent prayer for this nation and the world.

[37. IMO said the following at 11:58 AM on Nov 11:]

37

"Questioning the beliefs of others is not helpful. If a person says they are pro-life, take them at thier word."

Take the politician on his voting record, not his word.

On a side note: We can talk about what is best for our economy, our policies, how to run our government even, how to take care of the poor among...there is room for disagreement for the best way to handle things.

BUT Scripture is black and white about abortion, regardless of the legislation. It's like talking about crime. Yes we want to minimize it and work on legislation that deals with the crime issues. But crime is still illegal. Crime is still sin.

One more side note: I have not read ONE post about FATHERS as related to abortion. Not one post!
Why?

[38. Leeandra said the following at 11:59 AM on Nov 11:]

38

@Poster #21--Sorry, I'm gonna have to disagree with you that "family planning" efforts in developing countries are necessarily tantamount to eugenics.

There are places in the world where it's quite common for children to die of starvation, yet the average woman gives birth 6, 7, or even 8 times in her lifetime. There are places where the majority of girls are married mothers--sometimes of several children--before they turn 18, even though nearly all doctors and health organizations agree that it's healthiest for both women AND babies if the mother is at least 20 years old at the time of her first childbirth and if there are gaps of at least two or three years between the births of her children.

The number of children women consider as "ideal" varies from culture to culture and woman to woman, but no one considers it ideal for women to 1.) bear so many children that they can't afford to feed them all or 2.) bear children before they are physically capable of getting through pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing without ill effects on their own health.

Even the very, very anti-abortion and anti-artifical contraception Catholic Church acknowledges this and supports efforts to teach natural family planning methods to populations that want them.

[39. Ryan said the following at 12:14 PM on Nov 11:]

39

DP (#14)--

My "problem" arises from the (increasing number?) of Christians who voted for Obama in the first place.

Those that did have blood on their hands.

Period.

Why show "grace" toward Miller? He legitimizes liberalism, which is wholly unChristian.

No one can look at liberalism honestly and not see moral relativism all over it.

This moral equivalence is sickening as well, in thinking that people cutting down trees are more important than saving babies, and then voting accordingly.

I'm ashamed of where the Church is right now. My generation especially.

[40. BDB said the following at 12:23 PM on Nov 11:]

40

IMO - the specific rules involve non-profit organizations - specifically 501(c)3 organizations, that endorse specific candidates for office, especially in the 60 days before an election.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that 501(c)3 organizations can talk about issues, and they CAN name the candidates and their stand on those issues.

Churches are covered by section 508 of the Internal Revenue code, so the rules are a bit different. But many churches, like mine, go the 501(c)3 route as a religious organization anyway because it's easier to get state nonprofit organization status after getting federal 501(c)3 status.

As for Paul's hearing from God on Barak Obama - well, out here in California, it's those extra Obama voters that turned out who also voted for traditional marriage. If black voters hadn't turned out in large numbers for Obama - and voted 70% in favor of Proposition 8, it would have failed. I DO think God is trying to get the attention of white religious conservatives.

Keep in mind that the most liberal justice on the court, Stevens was appointed by Republican President Ford. He's 88, and I expect him to retire during the Obama administration. Justice Souter has also drifted to the left since being appointed by Bush I.

[41. Jo said the following at 12:30 PM on Nov 11:]

41

'To Jo' #30 said:
"You said, "those situations where it [abortion] is 'necessary'.
When is murder necessary? Abortion is seen as an entity these days: ways to control it, uphold it,create alternatives to. At the end of the day, abortion is murder, no matter how many coins you flip."

Sigh. So many times I try to reduce the length of my posts (with minimal success, admittedly) by cutting out convoluted explanations which seem unnecessary, and then someone challenges the very thing I thought didn't need clarification.

I am pro-life. I believe abortion is murder. I was stating OBAMA's viewpoint, not my own, which is why I put 'necessary' in quotation marks (twice!). I made it clear that I disagreed with his stance. The quotation marks were meant to signify my rejection of 'necessity' as an acceptable justification for abortion.

Amir said:
"Jo: Here's the problem. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to make the practice illegal..."

I really really doubt whether that would be possible do achieve democratically in the current culture. I can't imagine any politician seriously attempting to outlaw abortion at this stage. Even the Republicans didn't promise it.

"...or at least give states the capacity to do this."

Granted. I'm not saying that I support the FOCA. But Obama's viewpoint, though wrong, is not logically inconsistent. He wants to reduce abortion overall but he also wants to make sure the choice is available in the situations where he deems it acceptable. Therefore he will be working towards both those aims simultaneously. That could turn out to be a disaster, but I think it's reasonable to wait and see, and not to write off his potential for positive progress based on these early pro-choice measures.

[42. Joel said the following at 2:40 PM on Nov 11:]

42

Paul. Just curious, you said God spoke to you and said, "He clearly indicated that it would be Barack Obama. And He added that he would be his instrument to bring peace". Didn't God say that in the last days everyone (I'm paraphrasing) would be talking about peace, but there would be none. As a matter of fact the only time that there is going to be peace is when the antichrist comes and creates a psudopeace for 3.5 years. Humm. I'm not saying that Barak is the antichrist, I don't believe that, but maybe you should look beyond what is said, the color of skin, and only look at the facts. i.e.; voting record, personal affiliations, what is done and said off camera, etc...

You also said,"I wonder why credible ministers such as TD Jakes and Shirley Caesar and entire congregations are jubilant about this election and other predominantly white republican leaning conservative ministers are grieving and petulant." I have no idea who these people are. I looked them up, and I still have no idea who they are. I argue that they are only caught up in racial pride, and have not examined the issues that Barak stands for, and against (judeochristian values).

[43. Joel said the following at 2:41 PM on Nov 11:]

43

You also said,"I wonder why credible ministers such as TD Jakes and Shirley Caesar and entire congregations are jubilant about this election and other predominantly white republican leaning conservative ministers are grieving and petulant." I have no idea who these people are. I looked them up, and I still have no idea who they are. I argue that they are only caught up in racial pride, and have not examined the issues that Barak stands for, and against (judeochristian values).

[44. farmer Tom said the following at 3:19 PM on Nov 11:]

44

So, Obama is going to advocate for more abortions, color me surprised!! Not!!

In about 3 years, we will be having all these same discussions again, and some of you will still think that because Obama has darker pigment in his skin, and makes a nice speech, that we should give him a pass on his contempt for the Constitution and human life. And the other half of you mind numbed brainless "conservatives" will be telling us how wonderful Mitt Romney is, how he helped move the gay agenda forward in Massachusetts, how he started a mandatory healthcare program, which includes $50 dollar abortions.

When will those of you who claim the name of Jesus Christ quit falling for the dialectic??? When will you take a stand to vote only for me of absolute impeccable moral character, men who love the Constitution of the United States of America and will take the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution with a hand on the very Word of God, and not be lying about it.

Then and only then will we see a return to government that respects life and family first and foremost, but alas, I'm betting you will choose the lesser of two evils again next time and lament the evil of the winner.

[45. Sara said the following at 3:22 PM on Nov 11:]

45

Paul,
I'm going to relate your post to something more shallow, but I want to hear your feedback on this. Your post reminded me of when I read Joni Eareckson's book (you know, the quadriplegic Christian speaker): she writes about how, after the story of her accident and of her incredible spirit went public, she received *multiple* contacts from men who were fully and prayerfully convinced--to the point of risking risking rejection and humilation--that God was leading them to marry her.

Now, surely you're not going to put your own convictions above that of other people who are just as convinced of having received spiritual guidance as you are. Wouldn't you agree that being fully convinced of something (be it a philosophical truth, or the fact that you're able to receive Spiritual communication) says more about your own state than it necessarily says about the state of a Holy Spirit?

Don't you think that it's possible for two people to be fully convinced--to the point of risking humiliation or death--of opposing things? I don't understand how people can think that being convinced of something Spiritual, or being convinced of the power of faith, exempts that very thought or belief from skepticism. People say, "I know X because I have Spirit-given faith", but I don't see how this differs from "I [merely] *believe or feel* that it's possible to have Spirit-given faith and knowledge".

(I'm just talking in theory here; I'm pro-Obama too)

[46. Texas Craig said the following at 3:29 PM on Nov 11:]

46

I know these topics are good for Boundless because they get people "worked up" and lead to a lot of back-and-forth discussions (and, too frequently, attacks). But, I genuinely imagine that our Lord is often saddened by them. We are a body that likes to attack each other.

For example, no one can seriously dispute that Donald Miller is pro-life. The dispute is with the method to accomplish a reduction in abortions. That is fine to debate, but when we start questioning the character and motives of those who disagree on the best method to accomplish a goal, we have stopped showing love to one another. "By this all men shall know you are my disciples, that you have love for one another."

I personally am a huge fan of Donald Miller's books. And, you know what, I am also fiercely evangelical. Crazy, huh? In the last six months alone, I have seen three people I have been witnessing to become new Christians and get baptized. Crazy that God can work through such a "liberal" like me? It just goes to show that God can use all kinds. As I get ready to go on my third mission trip to China in the last three years, I take heart in that point. It is God who works in and through us. And, as hard as it may be to believe, that same God that is working in any of you who are believers is also at work in someone like Donald Miller.

I believe that scripture is our highest authority. I believe that the gospel of Jesus is not simply about what we believe. Rather, in shaping what we believe, the entire way we live our lives should be transformed. I applaud those who are vocally pro-life on here, just as I have consistently challenged them to back up their strong words with strong actions in their life to go out and stop abortions from occurring.

No everyone is called to devote their time and attention to that issue, however, just as not everyone is called to go to China to evangelize, nor is everyone called to go to Africa to take the gospel and medicine for people dying from AIDS. The body is made up of many parts. Let's stop engaging in self-mutilation and start encouraging each other to love and good deeds.

Peace and GRACE!

[47. Jim H. said the following at 4:20 PM on Nov 11:]

47

Paul #25,
I too am disillusioned with the Republican party as they have not adhered to conservative principles.

But regarding your statement:
"I took time to ask God what His choice was for this election. He clearly indicated that it would be Barack Obama."

I would like to know specifically how God indicated to you that Obama was His choice for President? Did you hear an audible voice?

In a sense Obama WAS God's choice because we know the outcome and we know that God is sovereign. But alarm bells go off anytime I see a claim of new direct reveleation in the form of "God told me.." or words to that effect.

[48. Nat said the following at 5:06 PM on Nov 11:]

48

I think that the United States government's commitment to health care in other countries- primarily through USAID and various NGOs- shows an unfortunate emphasis on family planning. We spend about $10 million worldwide on malaria every year, and many times that on family planning. The former secretary of the Kenyan Medical Association, Stephen Karanja, had this to say, "Our health sector is collapsed. Thousands of the Kenyan people will die of malaria, the reatment for which costs a few cents, in health facilities whose shelves are stocked to the ceiling with millions of dollars worth of pills, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-Provera, and so on, most of which are supplied with American money." We've funded abortions, and forced tubal ligations (in Peru), too. Steven Mosher's book, "Population Control: real costs, illusory benefits", p.161 is the source for the quote

[49. Leah said the following at 6:00 PM on Nov 11:]

49

Amir: yes, I know adult stem cell research has been very successful. It's been used in over 70 treatments for various diseases. I really don't see why scientists are so determined to use embryonic stem cells... it clearly upsets a lot of people, and they've made nowhere near the progress with embryonic stem cells as they have with adult ones.

"To Jo": Abortion does not equate to murder. It equates to killing. Murder and killing are two different things. If somebody threatens to shoot me and I shoot them first, have I murdered them or simply killed them? It's not murder. I'm of the opinion that in some cases (an extreme minority) abortion is justified because both mother and baby are in extreme danger of dying. In these cases- where it's a choice of letting both die, or killing one to save the other- I can concede that abortion is allowable. In these cases, it is not cold blooded murder. It's really self defence, the same as killing someone about to kill you.

Paul - I think there'll be many willing to hold you to that prophecy you made up there. You'd better hope Obama makes some serious progress in the 10/40 window, or else you're in trouble.

[50. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:01 PM on Nov 11:]

50

Paul says:

The stance that many in what is called the conservative right have taken against the President Elect Barack Obama is rather sad. I wonder why credible ministers such as TD Jakes and Shirley Caesar and entire congregations are jubilant about this election and other predominantly white republican leaning conservative ministers are grieving and petulant.

The latter are concerned over Obama's agenda, given that he is the most liberal member of the Senate and has a 100% pro-abortion voting record. The former are jubilant that a black man has been elected President.

If the latter was all that was at stake, then I, too, would be quite jubilant. That Americans can vote for a black man--liberal, conservative, or otherwise--says quite a bit about how open-minded we are as a society.

Paul continues:

Why would a christian organization ask God to rain on the Democratic Conference? Was the disruption of the Republican conference by a hurricane God's answer?

I don't know. Ask Pat Robertson.

Paul continues:

Acts 5:38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”

I submit that the conservative right need to check with God and not their opinions on this issue.

The blind support for the republican platform that has displaced many of our brothers and sister believers in Iraq is mind boggling to me.

Actually, the Gospel is being preached quite effectively in Kurdistan, even though--as you point out--Christians are getting displaced (and worse) in the Sunni and Shiite regions.

As for the support of the war, keep in mind that the war effort was endorsed by every Democrat leader at the time: Clinton (D-NY), Kerry (D-MA), Biden (D-DE), Daschle (D-SD), as well as an overwhelming majority of Americans. That support began to erode in 2004, and effectively collapsed in 2005 and 2006, but--when Bush was beating the drum--Americans were solidly behind him. Including the Democrat leaders.

Once the bullets start flying, we owe it to our country and our Soldiers to achieve a victory. Those floppers--like Biden and Kerry--are nothing more than cowards, as they refuse to own their support of the war.

As for whether the war was legitimate, that is a different matter.

As an American of Kurdish-Iranian descent, I have mixed feelings on the issue.

On one hand, the case can be made that we had to finish a job that we started in 1991--it was a matter of keeping our promises. (It is my view that the war in 1991 was illegitimate, as (1) it served absolutely no national security purpose, (2) it was undeclared, (3) it was waged under the umbrella of approval of the United Nations.)

On the other hand, Ron Paul (R-TX) was correct: there was no Constitutional basis for this war, given that (a) we did not establish that it was essential to our national security and (b) Bush did not go to Congress for a declaration of war.

I took time to ask God what His choice was for this election. He clearly indicated that it would be Barack Obama. And He added that he would be his instrument to bring peace especially in the 10/40 window which would greatly enhance evangelism to those millions and billions of souls locked up behind the Islamic Iron Curtain. He is uniquely placed to do this.

I am aware that lying can take one to Hell. I am telling the truth. I heard from God on this.

Can we stone you to death if you turn out to be wrong?

Selah

And Yes I am Black.

Irrelevant.

[51. LG said the following at 7:07 PM on Nov 11:]

51

I am disheartened to see that the hatred towards President-Elect Obama from those on the right. Disheartened but not surprised. I'm a huge Don Miller fan, and I'm a Christian, and yes, I voted for Obama. And I would do so again. This type of slanting does nothing but make me pity you. It's rather pathetic.

[52. Mike said the following at 8:23 PM on Nov 11:]

52

Amir (#29) -

THANK YOU!

I'm glad someone else out there has the clarity to tell the whole truth about the stem-cell issue.

A couple of years ago, I got my alumni magazine from the university, which also has a medical school and attendant research facility. In it was an article about stem-cell research, and the researchers were quite clear: adult stem cells show much greater promise than embryonic because of the absence of rejection issues. And, as a bonus, no embryos have to be destroyed.

One wonders: If embryonic stem-cell research is such a treasure trove of medical miracles, why is there no private money flocking to it? Last time I checked, the only thing embryonic stem-cell research has been able to produce is brain tumors in lab rats. Not exactly the sort of thing companies are jumping up and down to create...

[53. Chris said the following at 9:05 PM on Nov 11:]

53

Wow. We're not allowed to talk politics on Boundless Line, and here we are less than a week after a certain election talking about a certain winner (who has yet to be sworn in) and tossing about conspiracy theories about said candidate.

So, like, are the lawyers on vacation this week or something? I'd have thought they'd put the kibosh on some of the comments we've seen. Or is this rule only a guideline now that a certain candidate supported by a certain organization didn't win a certain election?

[54. Becca said the following at 9:46 PM on Nov 11:]

54

notmyrealname (#7),

Your points make a better argument against IVF than one in favor of human embryonic stem cell research. As a fellow scientist, I would never support the use of the embryos for research that would kill them, just as I would not support the harvesting of organs for transplant from patients in critical condition. Life, even life with a slim chance of survival, is sacred.

[55. Diane said the following at 4:29 AM on Nov 12:]

55

This election was all about stopping obama. I looked at his associations rather than rhetoric...I was not swayed by his very smooth speech, schooled by years of training to be a lawyer, and I went on his promises during the campaign he was determined to fulfill. Both candidates had a laundry list of to-dos. But, one stood out as utterly pernicious. See his promise to the radically racist, genocidal maniacs at planned parenthood? Yeah, that's him in the video, giving the rest his "brothers and sisters in Christ" of all races the middle finger for their work state by state to limit access to abortion legally while working to change minds freely on the subject.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8

This bill is the EXACT OPPOSITE from what he told Miller and christian community about his desire to decrease abortion. Christians were totally, utterly deceived.

You wanted change and hope, two nebulous terms uttered in speeches and propelled by charisma. You chose to listen to those words and were satisfied when he glossed over his ACTUAL RECORD on denial of care for babies born alive after abortions. Now, this champion of life has vowed to overturn the ban on PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION.

Who was he lying to? And, was this a risk we could have avoided taking for the sake of babies, possibly at the risk of our sacred coolness and desire for money?

I am praying that the Father removes Obama's heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh and that he repents of this. The church has no time to not be bold now. Wake up.

[56. Diane said the following at 4:46 AM on Nov 12:]

56

Paul # 25 You mentioned
TD Jakes and Shirley Caesar...

the theology is in question.

TD Jakes has an affinity for oneness theology...a heresy which was rejected in the early 1900's. He is not trinitarian. I realize this is a fuzzy little detail most think to be inconsequential, but, it is an outright denial of scripture and not accepted as true Christianity. Remember, just because they say "Jesus" and have a lot of church members does not good-theology make.

I think this is racism on the part of most African American people, as is their marriage to the democrat party, seemingly unaware of the party's racist roots or their need for a permanent underclass to further their political agenda. They have sadly nurtured grievance within the black community and this presidential race has, in actuality, only proven MLKJ's dream to be unfulfilled. This man is celebrated for his race...not his character. He is a good speaker, that is all. His record (albeit short and somewhat veiled) proves he is the common denominator amongst all of his marxist "pals," not a victim of circumstance or proximity.

[57. Jackie said the following at 6:22 AM on Nov 12:]

57

First of all. God is sovereign. Donald Miller was not in control of this election or the people he might of persuaded towards Obama."All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?" Daniel 4:35. Second, to NotMyRealName. Just because your in the science field does not make you more notably educated on this topic. Stem cells that saves lives does not justify stem cells that are discarded. They are human life- God's children; it is not our right to to play around with them as we please, even if they are still used to be implanted. And most cells that are tested and played with become very mutant cells- to the point that they cannot be used to create a new human life they are unable to sustain themselves, and if they did- who knows what these children would turn out to be. If you believe that more lives are saved than killed- does that make it okay?

[58. obewan said the following at 8:00 AM on Nov 12:]

58

The problem I see is WHO might be paying for an abortion should that be the decision made by a counselee at a "family planning clinic". If they give balanced advice, the federal money might even also pay for adoption services. If a person is planning to abort, they may do it anyway regardless of who pays. I have heard it costs as little as $500, and the father pays in many cases. So, IMHO the question of whether the rate will go up or down under Obama is still an open issue. It is very early to be making predictions. If he makes good on his promises to provide health care and help with adoptions, the net result may still end up more positive for pro-life than the current status quo of nothing from the repubs.

[59. Stephanie said the following at 8:20 AM on Nov 12:]

59

#33 IMO - Paul didn't say they endorsed a candidate, he said some ministers were happy when Obama won, others were petulant. There is a difference between endorsement and having personal opinions - some ministers gave their opinions outside the context of the church - they are allowed to do that, you know. And let's not pretend, we know that for the most part, the discussion in predominantly black churches was different than in predominantly white churches about Obama and McCain. And yes, I am black, and I attend a white church. And yes, our pastors were petulant when Obama won and said offensive things.

[60. Katrece said the following at 8:20 AM on Nov 12:]

60

#9: Before you scroll past what I am about to say, please read the justification for why I say that "...building up" includes judging those who are misguided/sinning and bringing about unity. Paul even tells us we are to judge those in the church.

Telling the truth is not an attack. If it is, I guess Paul must've been "attacking" Peter, in Acts, when Paul called him out on hypocrisy. Man, what's wrong with this Paul guy?! Did you read what he said to the Corinthians in his first letter to them?

Read chapter five. Let's quit being, as Paul wrote about the Corinthians response to sin (5:2), "arrogant and have not mourned, instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst...." We're to judge those in the church and God also judges those outside the church (vs. 12-13).

THEN, Paul tells them to forgive the man they righteously judged. They're commanded to love him b/c the person repented (II Corinthians).

Yes, there's a balance, and that includes judging people teaching something that goes against Scripture.

[61. Maggie said the following at 8:43 AM on Nov 12:]

61

I'm a little bit thrown by the lack of grace in this article, and the comments following.
I doubt that Miller spoke of the measures he felt would lower abortion rates, with some secret wish to increase them. He was speaking from his heart on what he thought would be best for the unborn.
If he ends up being wrong, which we have yet to see, I would hope that our Body would approach him with much more grace than displayed here. Much less cynicism, sarcasm, and attempts to bring him down.

I'm saddened, and have been for quite some time regarding the lack of grace presented here. We all make mistakes, we're all sinners, we're all supposed to respond in love regardless.

[62. Kim said the following at 9:43 AM on Nov 12:]

62

Re: Ryan (#5)

"Makes me ashamed to be in the same Body as him."

There are no words.

[63. IMO said the following at 10:12 AM on Nov 12:]

63

"We all make mistakes, we're all sinners, we're all supposed to respond in love regardless."

Agree.

Here's the question though, are we suppose to hold him accountable? Now I don't know anything about the man. But if he is a spiritual leader, he is accountable to God, first and firemost, more so than your average Christian layman. He has a responsiblity as a leader. So we'll just let God deal with him?
I don't know. I'm just asking.

[64. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:25 AM on Nov 12:]

64

Leeandra: The burden of proof is on the defender of the United Nations to prove that the "family planning" programs are anything close to humanitarian, as (a) the U.N. workers involved are notorious for sexual abuses that would make the Louisville Archdiocese blush, and (b) the record of success of such programs at fomenting economic prosperity is utterly dubious, and (c) taxpayer funding of such programs is unconstitutional.

Fact is, such "family planning" initiatives are ALWAYS targeting minorities, and are ALWAYS seeking to reduce the population, not merely its rate of growth.

That is genocide.

Moreover, promoting abortion for said populations is tantamount to signing off on mass slaughter--as every abortion victim is innocent--with American tax dollars.

That Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 chose not to fund such atrocities is perfectly understandable.

That Clinton allowed it, and Kerry promised support of it in 2004, and Obama promised support of it in 2008, speaks to their lack of regard for children in utero. Miller never took such factors into account, and it will be interesting to see how he reconciles this as the Obama Presidency unfolds (or becomes unhinged, depending on your take).

But back to the point raised by Holly: it is not merely about "information about abortion", it is about taxpayer funding regarding the provision of a whole host of services revolving around abortion.

This includes recommending--even providing--abortion as a means of "family planning" or "population control".

In America, every Planned Parenthood clinic has the First Amendment right to provide information about abortion, just as the CareNet Pregnancy Care centers do.

They are NOT, however, entitled to taxpayer funding.

That is what is at issue here.

Every Christian-based crisis pregnancy center in America understands this, as they provide "information about abortion" to clients every day.

And they do it WITHOUT taxpayer funding.

As for international "family planning" initiatives, please show me the place in the Constitution where it is the role of our government to subsidize "population control" efforts in Somalia.

I want Article and Section. Emanating penumbras don't count.

[65. To Jo said the following at 10:41 AM on Nov 12:]

65

Yes, on second reading of your comment, I realized I misunderstood you. My apologizes for that.

I do disagree with you when you say to "not write off his potential for positive progress based on these early pro-choice measures." As several posters have mentioned already, his voting record is also an important indicator to look at. And his voting is filled with all pro-choice measures. I would like to be optimistic and that's why I pray. If my prayers don't get answered "how I want them to", I know I have committed the issue to the Lord. He is the one that will work things out for His Glory and His Good. Scripture will guide me. I have read what God did in the OT through leaders (bad and good). And my faith is in God, not the government.

[66. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:52 AM on Nov 12:]

66

Jo says:

I really really doubt whether that would be possible do achieve democratically in the current culture. I can't imagine any politician seriously attempting to outlaw abortion at this stage. Even the Republicans didn't promise it.

Many said the same regarding the abolition of slavery, which was undertaken by the "religious right" of the day, and was waged against well-funded opposition by pro-slavery advocates, for decades.

But we didn't win by saying, "We need to reduce the number of slaves, but keep slavery legal."

But Obama's viewpoint, though wrong, is not logically inconsistent. He wants to reduce abortion overall but he also wants to make sure the choice is available in the situations where he deems it acceptable.

Given that he opposes requiring children that survive the abortion procedure to be given medical care, his window of "acceptability" negates any pretension he raises about his respect for human life.

[67. Stuart said the following at 11:27 AM on Nov 12:]

67

Do you seriously believe that Obama cares about reducing abortions? Regardless of where you stand on other issues, anyone who thinks Obama cares about reducing abortions has deluded themselves.

Obama has one of the, if not THE, worst voting records when it comes to pro-life issues, and he is a sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act which would remove any current restrictions on abortions. With Obama our president-elect and a near-super majority in the house and senate, it has good chance of being passed.

Young evangelicals that voted for Obama are more concerned with being perceived as cool and not one those "hateful conservative Christians", than voting to save the unborn.

[68. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:00 PM on Nov 12:]

68

Maggie:

Actually, Steve is expressing a line of questioning that is perfectly appropriate, given....

(1) The legalization of abortion has been the greatest contributor to its occurrence, as evidenced by the spike post-Roe.

(2) Our previous President provided the same rhetorical desire ("safe, legal, and rare") to reduce the number of abortions while keeping it legal, opposing even the ban on partial-birth abortion. The abortion rate did not decline substantially.

(Fuller professor Glen Stassen attempted to make the claim that abortions declined during the Clinton years, when in fact his analysis failed to demonstrate that. Not only that, Stassen flagrantly misrepresented the abortion rates under Bush, as--at the end of Bush's first term--abortions were at a 30-year-low.)

Clinton kept his promise on the legal part, and even the "safe" part (unless you are the child in utero), but definitely not the "rare" part.

(3) Obama opposes banning partial-birth abortions, and even requiring medical care for children who survive the abortion procedure.

So when Miller tells us that Obama's policies have better potential than McCain's--when in fact, historical evidence clearly shows that McCain's position (giving the states the ability to outlaw abortion) results in a greater decline, as evidenced by pre-Roe America versus post-Roe America--one is right to question the basis in fact on which he makes such an assertion.

Like I said before, either we have the greatest human rights advancement of all time, or we have a mass slaughter that rivals the evils of Stalin and Mao.

We would not tolerate slavery by saying, "We need to reduce the number of slaves, but we need to keep slavery legal."

Nor would we be right to say, "We need to reduce child trafficking, but we cannot impose our morality on the world."

Ergo, if abortion is in utero infanticide, then the "we must keep it legal, but look for ways to reduce its occurrence" line of reasoning ought to be dismissed for the doubletalk that it is.

[69. Katie P. said the following at 12:34 PM on Nov 12:]

69

Is anyone else a little outraged at how two-faced Obama is about this whole issue? He wants to reduce the number of abortions but make it easier for people to get them. Uh...how does this remotely make sense? Sounds like political doublespeak to me. I'd much rather have a president in office who hated abortion and made it a crime, rather than one like Obama who says he wants to "reduce the number of abortions" simply to raise his ratings and popularity, then turn around and undo all the measures that have been put in place to do the very thing he says he wants to do. Why does Miller think this is progress? Seriously. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[70. Katie P. said the following at 12:35 PM on Nov 12:]

70

Is anyone else a little outraged at how two-faced Obama is about this whole issue? He wants to reduce the number of abortions but make it easier for people to get them. Uh...how does this remotely make sense? Sounds like political doublespeak to me. I'd much rather have a president in office who hated abortion and made it a crime, rather than one like Obama who says he wants to "reduce the number of abortions" simply to raise his ratings and popularity, then turn around and undo all the measures that have been put in place to do the very thing he says he wants to do. Why does Miller think this is progress? Seriously. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[71. DP said the following at 1:09 PM on Nov 12:]

71

Ryan (#39) said:

"My "problem" arises from the (increasing number?) of Christians who voted for Obama in the first place. Those that did have blood on their hands. Period."

This is just crazy. Do you have blood on your hand for not going to the nearest abortion clinic and physically stopping the doctors from performig abortions? Do you have blood on your hands for voting for a president who invaded a nation which did not attack our own?

Ryan (#39) said:

"Why show "grace" toward Miller? He legitimizes liberalism, which is wholly unChristian. No one can look at liberalism honestly and not see moral relativism all over it."

Do you really think that conservatism is "Christian" and is in no way demonstrates moral relativism? Again, crazy.

Ryan (#39) said:

"I'm ashamed of where the Church is right now. My generation especially."

I'm ashamed that after 2000 years, we STILL do not understand the parable of the prodigal son. BTW, what are you doing to change the church? Voting for McCain? Posting on a blog? Good luck.

[72. Cassandra said the following at 1:15 PM on Nov 12:]

72

All these comments about showing grace are tiring. There are plenty of verses in the Bible about removing and chastising false teachers. Why are they consistently overlooked? Mark 13:22, 1 Tim 1:3, 2 Peter 2:1 among many others. We can't have all grace and no truth.

[73. To Leah said the following at 1:35 PM on Nov 12:]

73

ok let me rephrase that. Most abortions are murder.

[I would like to see the statistics of how many women get abortions due to their life being at risk. I say, it's very rare. But I don't have the data to back up my educated opinion].

I think this particular defn from American Heritage Dictionary fits abortion well.

"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

[74. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:52 PM on Nov 12:]

74

I am disheartened to see that the hatred towards President-Elect Obama from those on the right.

Hatred? Please provide the evidence. I merely am providing exception to his track record and his stated policies. Personally, I'll buy him a beer. He can eat and drink with me any time.

I have no desire to see him within a mile of the White House in any elected capacity, however.

Get it? The differences are over policy, not his own personhood.

Disheartened but not surprised. I'm a huge Don Miller fan, and I'm a Christian, and yes, I voted for Obama. And I would do so again. This type of slanting does nothing but make me pity you. It's rather pathetic.

I have no personal gripe with Miller, and even enjoyed Blue Like Jazz. It wasn't perfect, but he got most of the nuts and bolts right.

On the other hand, his sentiments about Obama's abortion agenda are higher on rhetoric than actual substance, as the rhetoric does not square with the facts of either Obama's track record or his stated policy plans.

Pointing out that lack of congruence is legitimate accountability, that you mistake for hatred.

[75. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:08 PM on Nov 12:]

75

Mike (#52):

And here's another kicker along those lines: researchers are now able to produce pluripotent stem cells without the destruction of embryos.

Ergo, all this push for funding embryonic stem cell research, is just a dishonest attempt to shove an murderous political agenda down our throats.

[76. Cassandra said the following at 2:34 PM on Nov 12:]

76

"All too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of others, such as the killing of the unborn, as well as the heresies and apostasies of theological liberals whose views have developed into “another gospel,” while we have condoned our own sins, turned a blind eye to our own vices, and lived captive to forces such as materialism and consumerism in ways that contradict our faith." - The "Evangelical Manifesto"

I know "fetus fatigue" has already been discussed on this blog, but I absolutely believe that The Social Gospel and liberal Christianity paved the way for the Obama presidency. I've been warning my friends in church about these authors for a while now (hence my moniker) and now we are possibly going to see the fruits of policy change as a result of this thinking. There's no way Obama could have gotten elected without the votes of Christians who think that poverty is the new pro-life issue, to the exclusion of the old life issue, life.

[77. Jo said the following at 2:39 PM on Nov 12:]

77

farmer Tom #44 said:
"When will you take a stand to vote only for me of absolute impeccable moral character"

I think you missed an 'n'. Was that a Freudian slip? You would make an great president... :P

With regards to your point though, what about King David? I'm not sure that men of impeccable moral character exist, and those that seem righteous all too often turn out to have particularly ugly skeletons in their closets. The man after God's own heart was guilty of adultery, cowardice, hypocrisy and murder. What do you think was God's criteria for choosing this deeply flawed man to be the leader of His people? What was it that made him different? And where can we see echoes of this in the candidates we vote for?

[78. Texas Craig said the following at 3:17 PM on Nov 12:]

78

Cassandra (#62):

Truth and grace are not mutually exclusive. Nor is biblical confrontation mutually exclusive with grace. However, we are called to share the truth in love. I can discipline my child and that is biblically acceptable and commanded. But, if I say things like "how do you like that, you weak little kid" while doing it, then I believe I am offending the heart of God.

Grace is all about our delivery. It is not about whether we choose to challenge or confront people. Moreover, when you talk about confronting false teachers, the Bible is talking about actually confronting those people. I hardly think talkaing negatively about them somewhere else (i.e., a blog) meets the biblical principle/directive. And, to the extent that you are talking about disagreeing with people posting on here, that is fine. But, it should still be done in love without rudeness or condescension. Health debate should focus on issues and not resort to personal attacks, name-calling, or sarcasm.

[79. Keisha said the following at 3:31 PM on Nov 12:]

79

I agree with Texas Craig. Specifically, I would like some advice on how to convince people that the fetus is in fact equivalent to a person, and not just a "clump of cells", as some would prefer to think. Most of the time I try to talk about how differently people act if the child is wanted versus unwanted... If it's a wanted pregnancy, I'm supposed to start congratulating the parents and buying baby clothes 6 weeks in, but if the pregnancy isn't wanted, then it's not a baby at all... any other suggestions?

[80. Texas Craig said the following at 3:31 PM on Nov 12:]

80

Amir (#64):

I think you make a valid point about being able to question Miller's actions. I think the frustration that I, and others, have expressed is that the article and some of the posters have appeared to be more negative about Miller himself, which would be inappropriate IMO.

Clearly, Ryan (#5) was intending to slam Miller personally. Tom Neven's initial comment could be construed as being condescending, although he may have just been trying to be funny. (FWIW, I did find his comment funny, although it also did leave me with the feeling that he does not care for Miller's works - maybe he can correct me if I am wrong in my perception).

The last sentence of Steve's initial article is a reasonable one, if he means it genuinely, without sarcasm or condescension. But, again, I sense that he was intending to get in a poke at Miller in asking the question. Only Steve knows his own heart and whether he had totally pure motives in asking it or not.

So, yes, people need to be able to have a good dialogue on these issues. But, we should be able to do it in love and without trying to take little pot shots at others. My perception (which may be wrong) is that Steve's comment and even Tom's are tainted with some dislike for Miller. But, I may be wrong and they can certainly correct me on that. If I am not wrong, and they were intending to get in little shots at Miller, then their words do not need to be defended by you.

[81. Texas Craig said the following at 3:46 PM on Nov 12:]

81

Katrece (#60):

Yes, we are supposed to confront people who are engaging in false teaching. How does blogging about someone, rather than going and confronting them, meet the standards of what the Bible tells us to do and what you are referencing? Biblical commands to speak truth should not ever mean we need to be rude or condescending. Further, such commands usually mean we are supposed to actually confront the person, rather than just say things about them to others. Certainly, there are exceptions, when we are trying to counteract some false teaching. But, what spiritual teaching are you or others claiming that Donald Miller was falsely teaching? Could he be wrong in how things played out? Sure, just like many believers were wrong about what they would see George Bush do. Being wrong does not equate to false teaching.

Too often people use "truth" verses or "confrontation verses" as carte blanche to be rude and mean-spirited, much the same way people use the "let me tell you about so-and-so so you can pray for them" when really they just want to gossip.

I have no qualms with people wishing to disagree with a point of another believer. But, if we are going to do that, let's make sure we are doing it in a biblical manner.

[82. Tom Neven said the following at 3:54 PM on Nov 12:]

82

Texas Craig (#80)

No, my initial comment (#1) was not meant to be condescending, but you're right in that I don't care for Miller's writing or his theology. The Jesus of his book is Jesus-lite, a good buddy to have a beer with but not the Creator and Lord of the universe and the ultimate Judge.

Miller was a plenary speaker during this year's Evangelical Press Association meeting in Portland, and I found I cared for his ideas even less after hearing him.

Trite. Obvious. Trendy. More concerned with what the culture thinks than with Truth.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

[83. Keisha said the following at 3:56 PM on Nov 12:]

83

Chris said:

"Wow. We're not allowed to talk politics on Boundless Line, and here we are less than a week after a certain election talking about a certain winner (who has yet to be sworn in) and tossing about conspiracy theories about said candidate."

I think that since the election is over, whatever is said now can't affect people's votes - so the articles and discussions on the website cannot be interpreted as political organizing in support of the Obama or McCain campaigns (because they don't exist anymore - thank goodness!). I don't work for Boundless, or the IRS, but I think this is the point of not allowing nonprofits to engage in political lobbying.

And DP said:

"BTW, what are you doing to change the church? Voting for McCain? Posting on a blog? Good luck."

Although this comment is kind of harsh... it's true. What are we doing here besides complaining about Obama to other people who already think that abortion on demand is murder? I would like it if this blog offered us more concrete ways to get involved, in real life not via the computer, in the fight against abortion. (If I missed these posts, can I have a link to them? Thanks.)

And Diane said:

"This man is celebrated for his race... not his character. He is a good speaker, that is all."

That was partially true on two days last week: Tuesday and Wednesday. By Thursday, the newspapers were back to coverage of the financial crisis and housing crisis and healthcare crisis and every other crisis facing this country... and were looking to Obama's actions (convening a press conference with panel of economic advisors, choosing cabinet members), not his race or his words.

[84. Jo said the following at 4:02 PM on Nov 12:]

84

"To Jo" #65:

Apology accepted. And you may be right, but it appears that for better or worse America is stuck with Obama now anyway - so you may as well be hopeful.

Oh also, it'd be simpler if you'd give yourself a name rather than 'To ____', which makes it a little confusing. But then I'm easily confused.

Amir '66:

Very good points. Time will tell. Incidentally I looked up the stats yesterday and was surprised to realise that the UK's abortion rate is about the same as yours (or possibly a fair bit higher depending on who you believe), and ours is going up while yours is slowly going down.

After researching the issue on Wikipedia (the source of all knowledge), I discovered that America has a history of debate on abortion whereas Britain has always allowed it to some degree, and it's never been a political divider like it is in the USA. And yet, it's illegal in Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) to this day. What's the best way of reducing/ending it? I don't know. But at least your stats are falling.

[85. A.M.C. said the following at 4:13 PM on Nov 12:]

85

Re: Keisha (#79)

I would like some advice on how to convince people that the fetus is in fact equivalent to a person, and not just a "clump of cells", as some would prefer to think.

Maybe this article would help?

[86. Al said the following at 5:09 PM on Nov 12:]

86

Texas Craig, I've really enjoyed your posts here for being nuanced and balanced and your encouragement for those here to speak truth in love. I suppose it helps that we seem to share some of the same tendencies-- being conservative and "evangelical" in theology and still deeply empathising with many of Miller's insights, which seems to be difficult for many for some reason. For all the distaste I notice here and elsewhere towards him for being "emergent", and even though I sometimes question his judgement, I think he gets a very central part of the gospel right in Blue Like Jazz. The problem isn't just the world and its systems-- "those liberals" or even "those self-righteous conservatives". The problem is me. I am the problem. His honesty and accurate insights do more to nudge me towards the heart of God than the finger wagging directed at him ever has.

Anyway, this wasn't meant to be a Miller love letter. I do appreciate your reasoned, measured posts here, and encouraging us to challenge teachings and publically stated ideas, all without slandering the character of others, especially those who are "brothers".

[87. Cassandra said the following at 5:30 PM on Nov 12:]

87

Texas Craig #81
"How does blogging about someone, rather than going and confronting them, meet the standards of what the Bible tells us to do and what you are referencing? Biblical commands to speak truth should not ever mean we need to be rude or condescending. Further, such commands usually mean we are supposed to actually confront the person, rather than just say things about them to others."

Keisha #83
"What are we doing here besides complaining about Obama to other people who already think that abortion on demand is murder?"

This is a blog, folks, a place to discuss ideas, to share our feelings, to get inspiration, before we go out into the world and take action. Much like reading the Bible or praying before we take the Gospel to the ends of the earth, or the intellectual debates Paul engaged in with the Areopagus. The interchange of ideas and opinions in forums like this is essential and harldy unBiblical.

Keisha, I suggest Abort73.com, as well as the many Crisis Pregnancy Centers where you may volunteer to counsel women considering abortion and where God has called many into ministry. God bless you for your heart for the unborn!

[88. farmer Tom said the following at 6:08 PM on Nov 12:]

88

56. Diane

That was awesome!!

A succinct and pithy rant, I wish I could do that.

77. Sorry, just a lousy typist.

It's easy to define men of moral character.

They obey God's law, and the Constitution, and when they are found to have violated either, they confess their sin, repeat and sin no more.

On the other hand men of low moral character knowingly chose to do that which violates God's law and the Constitution, while claiming all the while to be virtuous. Like "I'm opposed to abortion, but every one ought to be able to get one if they want to". Or in other words, so what if it's taking a human life, I am more concerned about my political career than a bunch of unborn babies.

[89. Texas Craig said the following at 7:25 PM on Nov 12:]

89

Tom:

Thanks for clarifying your views. I am sure it will come as no surprise that I disagree with your assessment of Donald Miller's writing. But, like they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am convinced that God uses different methods to reach different personalities. Donald Miller's style obviously rubs you wrong, and I can respect that. John Piper rubs me wrong frequently, but many love his stuff (I bet you are in that camp!). :-)

But, here's the thing: I would also imagine that if you and I lived next door to each other, we would be able to see that each of us are genuine Christ-followers, filled with the Holy Spirit, and used of God. That is the beauty of the body of Christ. God uses many different personalities and types to spread everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of Christ.

Peace and grace!

[90. Beau said the following at 12:23 AM on Nov 13:]

90

Two things . . .
1. If Miller didn't fully understand Obama's position on abortion, it doesn't matter. Ignorance is not bliss, especially in regards to presidentially election. If a person publicly endorses someone, especially on a specfic issue. They should have done some exahuastive HW. As far as if Miller did have extensive knowledge of Obama's views & intentions in regards to abortion and still advocated for Obama . . . very, very not cool.

[91. Beau said the following at 12:30 AM on Nov 13:]

91

2. Not matter what political idological affiliation we as Christians subscribe to. I think we need to remember that we don't wrestle with Flesh & blood, but principalities. So pray for our parents generation, our generation, and our kid's generation. We should pray our socks off.

[92. David said the following at 9:21 AM on Nov 13:]

92

We need to rewrite the bible so it specifically tells us to Support Homosexuals, Late term Abortion, and that Faith alone is not enough to get you to Heaven. Then all Obama Supporters can rest assured his views are Christian! Marry gays, Kill Babies, what the heck, with enemies like this, Satan needs no friends. Besides, who cares, Aren't we all Forgiven? Hippocrates would be proud!

[93. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:06 AM on Nov 13:]

93

I also nominate Farmer Tom for President.

[94. A.M.C. said the following at 10:32 AM on Nov 13:]

94

Re: Jo (#77), Amir (#93)

Regarding nominating Farmer Tom for president:

The question is whether he would be willing (and able) to run, and whether we can get his name on the ballot for all 50 states...

[95. farmer Tom said the following at 11:50 AM on Nov 13:]

95

Thank you all for the kind words, I must say I'm awed and flattered by such talk. However I must decline your nomination. My wife is rather emphatic that she does not what to be first lady. Something about pretentious snobs in Washington... Anyway for the sake of family harmony and for the welfare of my children I can not accept.

[96. BDB said the following at 12:22 PM on Nov 13:]

96

Well, first Farmer Tom and Gov. Palin can have a moose stew cook-off to see who is the better candidate...

[97. Texas Craig said the following at 12:37 PM on Nov 13:]

97

BDB (#96): That system is rigged against Farmer Tom. They do not have moose where he is from. Let him make something with corn, and he might have a fighting chance!

[98. Wes said the following at 12:41 PM on Nov 13:]

98

This is an example of argument without nuance. Mr Miller's comments are valid and I believe represent a growing portion of the Christian community. The Stem Cell argument in particular is insane. These stem cells are being destroyed every day at fertilization clinics across the nation. Why not use them for a constructive purpose?

[99. DP said the following at 1:13 PM on Nov 13:]

99

David #92:

Can I say that you "support" adultery because you didn't vote for a candidate who wants to abolish it? Just wondering...

Why so choosey on which Christian values we need to have in America's law? Or do we need to "rewrite" more of the Bible?

[100. DP said the following at 1:16 PM on Nov 13:]

100

I like how moral character is now measured by not only 'following God's law' but also the Constitution. What a joke.

[1. Tom Neven said the following at 2:24 PM on Nov 10:]

1

He'll just drive around a while and then write a book about it. How about Blue Like ...Oops?

[2. Holly (the single, non-parent one) said the following at 2:35 PM on Nov 10:]

2

Steve, can you provide more information? This: "for international family-planning agencies that provide abortions -- or counseling and information about abortion" doesn't mean much. A good friend of mine requested and received information from FOTF when a friend's 16 year old got pregnant. It included a good deal of information *about* abortion - dangers, risks, aftermath, etc., but still, *about* abortion. Would FOTF be considered a "family planning agency that provides information about abortion?" Using FOTF resources, one can plan one's dating, courtship, engagement, marriage, parenting, etc. -- sounds like family planning to me! I'm not trying to be ridiculous here :-) just asking for more than knee-jerk talking points.

[3. Laura said the following at 2:37 PM on Nov 10:]

3

Your readers need to understand that the Mexico City Initiative had consequences far beyond its intentions. It caused the shuttering of hundreds of clinics in Africa that did not have anything to do with abortion because abortion is illegal in those countries. They simply offered family planning services to very, very poor populations, but because of their affiliations with Planned Parenthood, etc., they lost their funding.

By cutting funding to those clinics, the Bush administration caused many to be shuttered completely, which is a problem considering that in many areas they provided the only healthcare available at all. It's not very pro-life to shut down clinics that provide maternity and neo-natal services, is it?

It's not nearly as simple as it sounds.

[4. Adam said the following at 2:38 PM on Nov 10:]

4

First of all - nothing has happened yet! It's all discussion at this point. True: this is by the head of the Obama transition team, but we've known even VPs to spout off before on various issues that don't come to be.

Biden was talking off-script when pontificating on Obama being tested internationally within 6 months of taking office. Palin talked of expanding the federal government to create a program for parents of special-needs kids. This directly contradicted with McCain's across the board spending freeze.

Rescinding a ban of federal funds being used for something is not a mandate that they be used for that purpose. So I view the first issue as relatively minor.

Stem-cells are a different issue. Stem cell research does kill fertilized eggs. While it may be something with similar issues to abortion - it isn't actually abortion. Neither is capitol punishment. Neither is euthanasia. Each are distinct things that intentionally, pre-maturely end life. While it is fine to criticize Obama on the issue, it is slightly off-topic to bunch it in with abortion.

I seriously doubt that Donald Miller turned the election. I don't think he has that kind of influence at this point. He may have been a contributing factor though. At the same time, the "Values Voters Pledge" could be partly to blame as well. Why? Because the contents of the pledge eliminated McCain as a viable candidate for "values voters."

One more thing, I must strongly disagree with the slam on Donald Miller at the end of the post. It seems to attack his character without basis.

[5. Ryan said the following at 2:42 PM on Nov 10:]

5

I couldn't stand Miller's pretentious writing before, and now can't stand the man.

Makes me ashamed to be in the same Body as him.

[6. mk said the following at 3:01 PM on Nov 10:]

6

ouch. i really like donald miller. i've seen a lot of people come to know christ or have their relationships with god strengthened through his writings. a lot of people who can't be reached by christian bubble-types have been reached by miller and his friends at imago dei in portland.

and i'm guessing he is probably a little disappointed.

[7. notmyrealname said the following at 5:17 PM on Nov 10:]

7

Why the heck were we spending federal funding on international health issues in the first place? Shouldn't we spend OUR federal funding on OUR health issues? How outrageous.

And hooray for stem cell research! Recent breakthroughs may allow human ES cells to be made w/o destroying embryos, they will still be available for implantation, so the anti-stem-cell research folk will have to pipe down.

And, if any of you did actual science research or researched IVF clinics, you would know that the vast majority of embryos created for IVF are simple washed down the drain, or frozen and thawed so many times that they're no longer viable. We simply CANNOT use as many embryos as IVF generates. So why not do some lifesaving research?

As a scientist, I'll have to say ES cells will save way more lives than they'll "take."

[8. Kari said the following at 5:31 PM on Nov 10:]

8

hahaha-- this was a humerous point:
"This policy, known as the Mexico City initiative, was initially put in place by Ronald Reagan and reaffirmed by the current president's father. Bill Clinton removed it in 1993; President Bush restored it two days after taking office in 2001."... and now it will probably be removed by Obama. :(
Man, it's like a sick game of tug-of-war.

[9. Texas Craig said the following at 6:24 PM on Nov 10:]

9

So much sarcasm for Donald Miller. It seems like there is a Bible verse about this. I believe it is "Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only that which is useful for building up...." I do not see sarcasm about someone who is not even likely reading this blog as consistent with that directive. To a great degree, it is stuff like this that causes many young Christians to choose not to associate with more *traditional* parts of the body of Christ.

Dear brothers and sisters, let's try to unite and not attack one another.

Peace and grace.

[10. brx said the following at 7:07 PM on Nov 10:]

10

Re: Laura (#2);

I'd like to know more - where can I learn more details about how those facilities came to be after the Mexico City Initiative was rescinded in 1993, what happened to them after it was restored in 2001, and what the _current_ status is of health care in those areas of Africa. I believe the thinking behind the initiative was to be a good steward of the funds such that more total funding is available for constructive health services.

Regarding arguments to rescind the Mexico City Initiative, I hear the underlying belief that 'the ends justify the means'.

Seriously, I'm interested in more information, and especially the current state compared with 9 years ago.

Grace & peace

[11. pass the ammunition said the following at 7:25 PM on Nov 10:]

11

Also, the Mexico initiative even barred organizations from even warning women about the lethal dangers of illegal, unsafe abortions.

[12. Keith said the following at 7:46 PM on Nov 10:]

12

I don't understand the reason for the last sentense. Donald Miller has clearly demonstrated his firm commitment to reducing the murder rate of unborn children - Why question that?

I believe Donald Miller represents the voices of many evangelical Christians. They are disgusted at the practice of abortion, as he is, but they believe voting for a *certain* political party has not made things better. Frustrated, they are willing to try controversial alternatives.

Questioning the beliefs of others is not helpful. If a person says they are pro-life, take them at thier word.

I think we need to be patient. Barack Obama's first steps seem to be backwards, but maybe God is raising him up to end abortion, or at least change the heart of the Democratic Party. Let's wait and see, and keep him and his family in prayer.

[13. Stephen P said the following at 8:30 PM on Nov 10:]

13

You might want to consider the following:
Bush 43 had a Republican congress when his administration began. They could have acted on the abortion issue then, but chose not to. He could has issued an executive order to address the abortion issue, but didn't. The Republican platform that McCain/Palin ran on included language supporting a human life amendment to the constitution and yet, I don't remember hearing either McCain or Palin speak on the issue. Finally, according to a non-partisan poll (NBC News/Wall Street Journal) conducted in September 2008, approximately 49% of the poll respondents held pro-choice positions, 47% held pro-life positions and 4% were unsure (MOE 3.3%).
It’s been 35 years since Roe. A Republican (Nixon) was in office then and since, there have been four additional Republican presidents (Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 & Bush 43). While there are undoubtedly Republicans politicians who sincerely want to change the existing abortion laws, I think that most politicians use the issue to keep the base angry and motivated.
I believe that education is better than ignorance. Children need to be given reliable information regarding sex, including information on birth control (for both males and females). Abstinence is not enough. What if your son or daughter made the decision to be sexually active? How would you counsel them? Thinking in the abstract will not keep them virgins or prevent them from getting pregnant. I hope there is a re-introduction of sex education as part of our federal funding and I hope the number of abortions decreases.
Ryan: It seems to me (a sinner in daily need of God’s abundant grace) that to lament that a particular individual is part of the Body of Christ because you disagree with them is extremely contrary to what Jesus taught.

[14. DP said the following at 9:04 PM on Nov 10:]

14

Ryan #5

"Makes me ashamed to be in the same Body as him."

Let the grace rain down. Seriously, what is your problem?

Also, I can't take any article seriously that says that Donald Miller "swung states" to Obama.

[15. EconNicole said the following at 9:41 PM on Nov 10:]

15

Haven't weighed in for a while, but couldn't resist this. Besides, it's so much easier to talk politics when I can use names!

I would hope Donald Miller was disapointed, but at the same time I would hope he had done his homework enough to expect this.

I knew that both of those things would almost surely be changed with Obama.

I sincerely believe even worse is to come. He told Planned Parenthood, "The first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do." So the news he would reverse the Mexico City initiative is certainly not a surpise (as Clinton did it, so will Obama -- and most likely any other democrat would do it).

And seriously, is anyone surprised about the stem cell research? People don't even seem to care that stem cells can be found in umbilical cords -- amazing amounts of them that could be used for research without taking life. And yet they insist on it. When someone starts thinking it is okay to kill a baby growing in the womb their lines of right and wrong grow incredible blurred if they even exist. Leads them to not even care when there are easy and clear alternatives.

So while I hope Miller is disapointed, I also think he's smart enough to have known this. That's why he lost my respect with his support for Obama.

By the way: http://www.fightfoca.com/

[16. Bruce said the following at 9:50 PM on Nov 10:]

16

Mr. Miller must have forgotten Obama's pro partial birth abortion vote in the Ill Senate and his rating as the 2nd most liberal voting Senator at the Federal level. Also, the damage Obama will inflict on the country with his choices of liberal Supreme and Federal Court justices will damage the anti-abortion movement more than the status quo Mr. Miller believes McCain stands for.
I don't see how any Spirit filled Christian can vote for someone who believes abortion is justified. On judgment day when we bow down before Jesus, I don't want to try to explain to Jesus that I voted for a person who was going to slow down the number of abortions. One abortion is too many. I'm glad it's not my call.
In closing, when I read about how the anti-christ will fool even the elite, I wondered how could that happen.(Contrary to some people, I don't believe Obama is the anti-christ) After Mr. Miller's comments and the number of professing Christians who voted for a pro-abortion cantidate, I now can see how it will happen.

[17. Leah said the following at 11:17 PM on Nov 10:]

17

I could be wrong here, as I don't know all of the respective parties' policies etc in the US, but from the reports I heard, nothing specified that the stem cell research Obama was encouraging was embyronic. Like I said, could be wrong.

I must say I quite agreed with Donald Miller's initial speech quoted above. I really have very little idea who Miller is, and have gathered from what I've read about him on this blog that I'm probably not supposed to like him, but that specific speech, I could identify with.

Adam - stem cell research kills nobody. You can get stem cells from adults (these stem cells are actually more useful in cures). It's embryonic stem-cell research which is the problem. Also, how is killing a fertilised egg not abortion? That's what abortion IS. If you kill a foetus in its early weeks of pregnancy, it's still a fertilised egg, and is VERY MUCH abortion.

[18. Terry said the following at 5:57 AM on Nov 11:]

18

Galatians 6:7
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

[19. niki said the following at 6:20 AM on Nov 11:]

19

My hope is that Obama and his admin will be investing in our country's adoption system. I'd bet that's the most effective measure in bringing down the abortion rate. In the meantime, I wouldn't worry about anything until it's actually happening. We all know that politicians talk a lot.

[20. Zach Pate said the following at 6:24 AM on Nov 11:]

20

I don't think it is a good argument by Mr. Miller to say that President Elect Obama is going to line up with the evangelicals better that John McCain. President Elect Obama sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act (S. 1173) last year. This legislation would guarantee the right to have an abortion (like free speech). As Christians, I think that it is important to realize that Biblical values are not too popular in today's society, so we shouldn't be surprised when we are faced with adversity for majoring on issues like abortion over issues that might be popular in society.

[21. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:24 AM on Nov 11:]

21

Holly: It's far more than simply "providing information" about abortion; after all, every Christian-based crisis pregnancy center in America does that (and without federal funding).

The Mexico City Policy also includes (a) promoting "family planning" methods--including abortion--among Third World populations, as a means of "population control"; (b) referring clients for abortion services; (c) the provision of abortion services for said clients.

Along similar lines, within the United States, Reagan--and both Bushes--banned abortion providers (or referrers) from receiving federal monies. This is known as Title X restrictions.

When death becomes an economic commodity--even a voluntary one--it becomes forced upon those with little or no economic means. (The people are finding this out in Oregon, as the state health care system is refusing to pay for cancer treatments while offering to pay for physician-assisted suicide.)

Whenever someone tells you about "family planning" efforts in "developing countries", it is nothing more than flagrant eugenics, if not outright genocide.

As for Miller, I'd like to see where he stands 4 years from now.

The larger issue here is why we are using taxpayer money to promote activities that will only add to our long-term economic calamity.

Seriously....there are three fundamental economic factors of production:

(1) Land
(2) Labor
(3) Capital

By employing "population control", we are adversely impacting labor and capital, which are absolutely essential to a society's capacity to create wealth and maintain a taxpayer base that can support the governmental structure we have erected for ourselves.

We are attempting to cover that gap by bringing in more immigrants--many illegal--and that is creating a set of problems all its own, especially as we are eschewing assimilation in the name of "cultural diversity".

(And less you think I'm being rough on immigrants, my father is an Iranian immigrant who came here with a valid visa, worked hard for a living, received no welfare, learned English, and became a naturalized U.S. Citizen through legal means. While he is not a Christian, he is very much in the pro-assimilation camp, and even rejects "dual citizenship".)

[22. Josh Stevenson said the following at 7:29 AM on Nov 11:]

22

Anyone who thinks that Obama is actually going to try to reduce the number of Abortion in this country is greatly deceived. Miller is deceived. Obama's voting record on abortion speaks for itself. He has vowed to sign the "Freedom of Choice" act into law. He is by no means pro-life, which even Miller admits. This "progress" that Obama offers that Miller so obviously has bought into includes no protection for infants who have actually survived abortions. Millers reasons for not voting republican are pathetic at best.

There's no shame in being proud to be democrat or left wing, just admit it Miller. Don't give us some weak justification for voting supposedly reluctantly for a far-left, anti-life, moral relativist.

[23. Rich Z said the following at 7:53 AM on Nov 11:]

23

Spurgeon wrote "If we were more like Christ, we should be more hated by his enemies. It were a sad dishonour to a child of God to be the world's favourite. It is a very ill omen to hear a wicked world clap its hands and shout 'Well done' to the Christian man."

I'm sorry to say that my observation of Obama is that he does not honor all of God's Word. He chooses passages that fit a secular agenda but he has belittled other passages that don't fit the world's view.

In Paul's second letter to Timothy, he warns "the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth..." Paul calls these people "impostors."

[24. Mary Hale said the following at 7:59 AM on Nov 11:]

24

I like James Dobson and a host of others were sick at heart to hear of mr. Obama's election..and I'm a Canadian..after hearing much talk about "Republicans" talk about issue's, I find that they are not so much about being Conservative but more liberal then they used to be..they have lost the edge..I so much like Sarah Palin and the values she stands for and she's not afraid to voice her faith in God..
I really believe because of Mr. Obama's associations with radicals and Harvard University not allowing his records to be revealed or his birth certificate or his health records, sounds like a big coverup of something sinister..Many of the worlds terrorists were educated at Harvard University..I really believe that America will suffer under this man especially unborn children..we already have an enormous holocaust to account for and his election will escalate that. Despite thousands of people fasting and praying, God has allowed this man to come on the scene..Maranatha.. Father, send Jesus, quickly..May God have mercy on America and Canada..and the world.

[25. Paul said the following at 8:39 AM on Nov 11:]

25

The stance that many in what is called the conservative right have taken against the President Elect Barack Obama is rather sad. I wonder why credible ministers such as TD Jakes and Shirley Caesar and entire congregations are jubilant about this election and other predominantly white republican leaning conservative ministers are grieving and petulant.

Why would a christian organization ask God to rain on the Democratic Conference? Was the disruption of the Republican conference by a hurricane God's answer?

Acts 5:38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”

I submit that the conservative right need to check with God and not their opinions on this issue.

The blind support for the republican platform that has displaced many of our brothers and sister believers in Iraq is mind boggling to me.

I took time to ask God what His choice was for this election. He clearly indicated that it would be Barack Obama. And He added that he would be his instrument to bring peace especially in the 10/40 window which would greatly enhance evangelism to those millions and billions of souls locked up behind the Islamic Iron Curtain. He is uniquely placed to do this.

I am aware that lying can take one to Hell. I am telling the truth. I heard from God on this.

Selah

And Yes I am Black.

Paul

[26. Karen said the following at 9:11 AM on Nov 11:]

26

Obama's stance on abortion is the least of my worries. I'm more concerned about what he's going to do with the ecomomy, foreign policy esp the war on terror, and securing the boarders. I don't vote on social issues. I'm more of a fiscal conservative. Go ahead send the hate mail my way.

[27. Chad said the following at 9:29 AM on Nov 11:]

27

As a North Carolinian, I'm really confused how anyone thought the President-elect was more pro-life or would do more to slow abortion since he ran a commercial here for a few weeks with a female voice saying, "I'm voting for change because it's my body."

[28. Jo said the following at 10:07 AM on Nov 11:]

28

Like Adam I really disliked the tone of the final line of the post, which made me think Steve's view of the comments he quoted was coloured by a previously formed view of Miller. I on the other hand don't know offhand who Donald Miller is, so my comment is based purely on the comments in this post.

I think he makes a lot of sense here. It makes sense to vote for a candidate who you believe has a plan for reducing the number of abortions despite his pro-choice stance, as opposed to a pro-life candidate who you perceive as having no coherent plan to change the abortion stats at all. It makes sense to say that claiming to be pro-life while never doing much about it seems insincere.

I don't know enough about Bush to judge whether he's done enough about abortion, or enough about McCain or Obama to know whether I would agree with Miller that Obama has the most potential to reduce abortion. But in principle, I think Miller's way of assessing the issue is a good one.

And I don't necessarily think the points Steve made in the post imply that Obama won't take steps to reduce abortion. As I understand it, his stance is that the healthcare and social help should be put in place to lessen the 'necessity' of abortion, but that abortion should still be available for those situations where it is 'necessary'. Nothing in this post is inconsistent with that stance. I disagree with his stance, but that doesn't mean his measures won't reduce abortion. I hope they do.

[29. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:53 AM on Nov 11:]

29

Leah: Bad news on that front. The only stem-cell research impacted by the Bush ban on federal funding was embryonic, not adult stem cells.

The latter are not at the center of controversy, and in fact have received federal funding for decades, and have even shown success.

Embryonic, on the other hand, is not only controversial due to the destruction of embryos; it has yet to yield tangible results.

This is why the big investment banks--so needy of projects that will provide a return--won't even touch it.

[30. To Jo said the following at 11:02 AM on Nov 11:]

30

You said, "those situations where it [abortion] is 'necessary'.
When is murder necessary? Abortion is seen as an entity these days: ways to control it, uphold it,create alternatives to. At the end of the day, abortion is murder, no matter how many coins you flip.

[31. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:11 AM on Nov 11:]

31

Jo: Here's the problem. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to make the practice illegal, or at least give states the capacity to do this. History bears this out, as the abortion picture--pre and post Roe v. Wade--reflects that.

Whenever someone says, "we must not criminalize" abortion, they are in fact trivializing it. Given that we have performed over 50 million of them in America since 1973, we either have (a) the greatest advancement in human rights in world history, or (b) a mass slaughter that is on the same level with Mao Tse-Tung. Which is it?

If it is the latter, then Miller trivializes the act; if it is the former, then why is reducing their number so important?

If abortion is tantamount to murder, then why ought the issue carry less importance than economics?

After all, I would defy any of you to show me where the Prophets railed against poor economic policy to the exclusion of the practice of sacrificing children to Molech.

[32. DP said the following at 11:12 AM on Nov 11:]

32

"Obama's stance on abortion is the least of my worries. I'm more concerned about what he's going to do with the ecomomy, foreign policy esp the war on terror, and securing the boarders. I don't vote on social issues. I'm more of a fiscal conservative. Go ahead send the hate mail my way."

Finally someone will come out and admit it. I've thought all along this election, that the Obama hate was less about abortion and more about taxes, gun rights, and national security. Somehow those have become "Christian" political positions, which is why I am happy to see the demise of the Republican Party. (Note: I do not think that Democratic positions are "Christian" either)

[33. IMO said the following at 11:12 AM on Nov 11:]

33

Paul, not to pick a bone, but I thought ministers weren't allowed to endorse candidates or speak about politics with their congregation? Unless of course you go to a church that pays taxes.

[34. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:37 AM on Nov 11:]

34

DP says:

Finally someone will come out and admit it. I've thought all along this election, that the Obama hate was less about abortion and more about taxes, gun rights, and national security. Somehow those have become "Christian" political positions, which is why I am happy to see the demise of the Republican Party. (Note: I do not think that Democratic positions are "Christian" either)

Most Christian conservatives I know are pro-life first and foremost, and--while supporting other causes (guns, straight marriage, low taxes), abortion is at the top of the list.

While I support lower taxes, gun rights, and national security--all of which are generally good for a nation--I'm first and foremost a hardcore pro-life voter. Support of the former issues does not guarantee my vote; support of abortion rights guarantees that he or she will NOT get my vote.

And--as a John Birch libertarian--I'm happy to see the demise of the GOP, but for far different reasons than you are.

[35. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:50 AM on Nov 11:]

35

To Jo says:

When is murder necessary? Abortion is seen as an entity these days: ways to control it, uphold it,create alternatives to. At the end of the day, abortion is murder, no matter how many coins you flip.

Actually, in cases of danger to the woman's life, it is classifiable as medically necessary, and is not murder.

Abortion has always been legal in such cases--examples include certain cancers that, during pregnancy, metastasize rapidly if abortion is not performed.

Such abortions--a very miniscule number in both volume and percentage--were legal even before Roe, and there is ample grounds for its legality in such cases. After all, we allow killing in cases of self-defense.

If an intruder breaks into your home and threatens to kill you, and you take him out of the gene pool with Uncle Mossberg, you will face no charges. Not even in D.C. This is because, while killing another human being is a tragic matter, it is justifiable in that the circumstances represented an exigent threat to your life.

Same concept with abortion: in cases where the woman's LIFE (not "quality of life", mind you) is in danger, abortion has always been legal. No pro-life legislation that is on the table--or has been on the table--would impact abortion in those cases.

[36. Michael said the following at 11:51 AM on Nov 11:]

36

Do not be seduced by Obama...he is a follower of a New Age movement headed and funded through Oprah. So anything he speaks is venomous. This movement believe there is no right or wrong, and that there are many paths to God. Do your research before endorsing this man. Pray now that Gods people will wake up and get on their knees in fervent prayer for this nation and the world.

[37. IMO said the following at 11:58 AM on Nov 11:]

37

"Questioning the beliefs of others is not helpful. If a person says they are pro-life, take them at thier word."

Take the politician on his voting record, not his word.

On a side note: We can talk about what is best for our economy, our policies, how to run our government even, how to take care of the poor among...there is room for disagreement for the best way to handle things.

BUT Scripture is black and white about abortion, regardless of the legislation. It's like talking about crime. Yes we want to minimize it and work on legislation that deals with the crime issues. But crime is still illegal. Crime is still sin.

One more side note: I have not read ONE post about FATHERS as related to abortion. Not one post!
Why?

[38. Leeandra said the following at 11:59 AM on Nov 11:]

38

@Poster #21--Sorry, I'm gonna have to disagree with you that "family planning" efforts in developing countries are necessarily tantamount to eugenics.

There are places in the world where it's quite common for children to die of starvation, yet the average woman gives birth 6, 7, or even 8 times in her lifetime. There are places where the majority of girls are married mothers--sometimes of several children--before they turn 18, even though nearly all doctors and health organizations agree that it's healthiest for both women AND babies if the mother is at least 20 years old at the time of her first childbirth and if there are gaps of at least two or three years between the births of her children.

The number of children women consider as "ideal" varies from culture to culture and woman to woman, but no one considers it ideal for women to 1.) bear so many children that they can't afford to feed them all or 2.) bear children before they are physically capable of getting through pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing without ill effects on their own health.

Even the very, very anti-abortion and anti-artifical contraception Catholic Church acknowledges this and supports efforts to teach natural family planning methods to populations that want them.

[39. Ryan said the following at 12:14 PM on Nov 11:]

39

DP (#14)--

My "problem" arises from the (increasing number?) of Christians who voted for Obama in the first place.

Those that did have blood on their hands.

Period.

Why show "grace" toward Miller? He legitimizes liberalism, which is wholly unChristian.

No one can look at liberalism honestly and not see moral relativism all over it.

This moral equivalence is sickening as well, in thinking that people cutting down trees are more important than saving babies, and then voting accordingly.

I'm ashamed of where the Church is right now. My generation especially.

[40. BDB said the following at 12:23 PM on Nov 11:]

40

IMO - the specific rules involve non-profit organizations - specifically 501(c)3 organizations, that endorse specific candidates for office, especially in the 60 days before an election.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that 501(c)3 organizations can talk about issues, and they CAN name the candidates and their stand on those issues.

Churches are covered by section 508 of the Internal Revenue code, so the rules are a bit different. But many churches, like mine, go the 501(c)3 route as a religious organization anyway because it's easier to get state nonprofit organization status after getting federal 501(c)3 status.

As for Paul's hearing from God on Barak Obama - well, out here in California, it's those extra Obama voters that turned out who also voted for traditional marriage. If black voters hadn't turned out in large numbers for Obama - and voted 70% in favor of Proposition 8, it would have failed. I DO think God is trying to get the attention of white religious conservatives.

Keep in mind that the most liberal justice on the court, Stevens was appointed by Republican President Ford. He's 88, and I expect him to retire during the Obama administration. Justice Souter has also drifted to the left since being appointed by Bush I.

[41. Jo said the following at 12:30 PM on Nov 11:]

41

'To Jo' #30 said:
"You said, "those situations where it [abortion] is 'necessary'.
When is murder necessary? Abortion is seen as an entity these days: ways to control it, uphold it,create alternatives to. At the end of the day, abortion is murder, no matter how many coins you flip."

Sigh. So many times I try to reduce the length of my posts (with minimal success, admittedly) by cutting out convoluted explanations which seem unnecessary, and then someone challenges the very thing I thought didn't need clarification.

I am pro-life. I believe abortion is murder. I was stating OBAMA's viewpoint, not my own, which is why I put 'necessary' in quotation marks (twice!). I made it clear that I disagreed with his stance. The quotation marks were meant to signify my rejection of 'necessity' as an acceptable justification for abortion.

Amir said:
"Jo: Here's the problem. The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to make the practice illegal..."

I really really doubt whether that would be possible do achieve democratically in the current culture. I can't imagine any politician seriously attempting to outlaw abortion at this stage. Even the Republicans didn't promise it.

"...or at least give states the capacity to do this."

Granted. I'm not saying that I support the FOCA. But Obama's viewpoint, though wrong, is not logically inconsistent. He wants to reduce abortion overall but he also wants to make sure the choice is available in the situations where he deems it acceptable. Therefore he will be working towards both those aims simultaneously. That could turn out to be a disaster, but I think it's reasonable to wait and see, and not to write off his potential for positive progress based on these early pro-choice measures.

[42. Joel said the following at 2:40 PM on Nov 11:]

42

Paul. Just curious, you said God spoke to you and said, "He clearly indicated that it would be Barack Obama. And He added that he would be his instrument to bring peace". Didn't God say that in the last days everyone (I'm paraphrasing) would be talking about peace, but there would be none. As a matter of fact the only time that there is going to be peace is when the antichrist comes and creates a psudopeace for 3.5 years. Humm. I'm not saying that Barak is the antichrist, I don't believe that, but maybe you should look beyond what is said, the color of skin, and only look at the facts. i.e.; voting record, personal affiliations, what is done and said off camera, etc...

You also said,"I wonder why credible ministers such as TD Jakes and Shirley Caesar and entire congregations are jubilant about this election and other predominantly white republican leaning conservative ministers are grieving and petulant." I have no idea who these people are. I looked them up, and I still have no idea who they are. I argue that they are only caught up in racial pride, and have not examined the issues that Barak stands for, and against (judeochristian values).

[43. Joel said the following at 2:41 PM on Nov 11:]

43

You also said,"I wonder why credible ministers such as TD Jakes and Shirley Caesar and entire congregations are jubilant about this election and other predominantly white republican leaning conservative ministers are grieving and petulant." I have no idea who these people are. I looked them up, and I still have no idea who they are. I argue that they are only caught up in racial pride, and have not examined the issues that Barak stands for, and against (judeochristian values).

[44. farmer Tom said the following at 3:19 PM on Nov 11:]

44

So, Obama is going to advocate for more abortions, color me surprised!! Not!!

In about 3 years, we will be having all these same discussions again, and some of you will still think that because Obama has darker pigment in his skin, and makes a nice speech, that we should give him a pass on his contempt for the Constitution and human life. And the other half of you mind numbed brainless "conservatives" will be telling us how wonderful Mitt Romney is, how he helped move the gay agenda forward in Massachusetts, how he started a mandatory healthcare program, which includes $50 dollar abortions.

When will those of you who claim the name of Jesus Christ quit falling for the dialectic??? When will you take a stand to vote only for me of absolute impeccable moral character, men who love the Constitution of the United States of America and will take the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution with a hand on the very Word of God, and not be lying about it.

Then and only then will we see a return to government that respects life and family first and foremost, but alas, I'm betting you will choose the lesser of two evils again next time and lament the evil of the winner.

[45. Sara said the following at 3:22 PM on Nov 11:]

45

Paul,
I'm going to relate your post to something more shallow, but I want to hear your feedback on this. Your post reminded me of when I read Joni Eareckson's book (you know, the quadriplegic Christian speaker): she writes about how, after the story of her accident and of her incredible spirit went public, she received *multiple* contacts from men who were fully and prayerfully convinced--to the point of risking risking rejection and humilation--that God was leading them to marry her.

Now, surely you're not going to put your own convictions above that of other people who are just as convinced of having received spiritual guidance as you are. Wouldn't you agree that being fully convinced of something (be it a philosophical truth, or the fact that you're able to receive Spiritual communication) says more about your own state than it necessarily says about the state of a Holy Spirit?

Don't you think that it's possible for two people to be fully convinced--to the point of risking humiliation or death--of opposing things? I don't understand how people can think that being convinced of something Spiritual, or being convinced of the power of faith, exempts that very thought or belief from skepticism. People say, "I know X because I have Spirit-given faith", but I don't see how this differs from "I [merely] *believe or feel* that it's possible to have Spirit-given faith and knowledge".

(I'm just talking in theory here; I'm pro-Obama too)

[46. Texas Craig said the following at 3:29 PM on Nov 11:]

46

I know these topics are good for Boundless because they get people "worked up" and lead to a lot of back-and-forth discussions (and, too frequently, attacks). But, I genuinely imagine that our Lord is often saddened by them. We are a body that likes to attack each other.

For example, no one can seriously dispute that Donald Miller is pro-life. The dispute is with the method to accomplish a reduction in abortions. That is fine to debate, but when we start questioning the character and motives of those who disagree on the best method to accomplish a goal, we have stopped showing love to one another. "By this all men shall know you are my disciples, that you have love for one another."

I personally am a huge fan of Donald Miller's books. And, you know what, I am also fiercely evangelical. Crazy, huh? In the last six months alone, I have seen three people I have been witnessing to become new Christians and get baptized. Crazy that God can work through such a "liberal" like me? It just goes to show that God can use all kinds. As I get ready to go on my third mission trip to China in the last three years, I take heart in that point. It is God who works in and through us. And, as hard as it may be to believe, that same God that is working in any of you who are believers is also at work in someone like Donald Miller.

I believe that scripture is our highest authority. I believe that the gospel of Jesus is not simply about what we believe. Rather, in shaping what we believe, the entire way we live our lives should be transformed. I applaud those who are vocally pro-life on here, just as I have consistently challenged them to back up their strong words with strong actions in their life to go out and stop abortions from occurring.

No everyone is called to devote their time and attention to that issue, however, just as not everyone is called to go to China to evangelize, nor is everyone called to go to Africa to take the gospel and medicine for people dying from AIDS. The body is made up of many parts. Let's stop engaging in self-mutilation and start encouraging each other to love and good deeds.

Peace and GRACE!

[47. Jim H. said the following at 4:20 PM on Nov 11:]

47

Paul #25,
I too am disillusioned with the Republican party as they have not adhered to conservative principles.

But regarding your statement:
"I took time to ask God what His choice was for this election. He clearly indicated that it would be Barack Obama."

I would like to know specifically how God indicated to you that Obama was His choice for President? Did you hear an audible voice?

In a sense Obama WAS God's choice because we know the outcome and we know that God is sovereign. But alarm bells go off anytime I see a claim of new direct reveleation in the form of "God told me.." or words to that effect.

[48. Nat said the following at 5:06 PM on Nov 11:]

48

I think that the United States government's commitment to health care in other countries- primarily through USAID and various NGOs- shows an unfortunate emphasis on family planning. We spend about $10 million worldwide on malaria every year, and many times that on family planning. The former secretary of the Kenyan Medical Association, Stephen Karanja, had this to say, "Our health sector is collapsed. Thousands of the Kenyan people will die of malaria, the reatment for which costs a few cents, in health facilities whose shelves are stocked to the ceiling with millions of dollars worth of pills, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-Provera, and so on, most of which are supplied with American money." We've funded abortions, and forced tubal ligations (in Peru), too. Steven Mosher's book, "Population Control: real costs, illusory benefits", p.161 is the source for the quote

[49. Leah said the following at 6:00 PM on Nov 11:]

49

Amir: yes, I know adult stem cell research has been very successful. It's been used in over 70 treatments for various diseases. I really don't see why scientists are so determined to use embryonic stem cells... it clearly upsets a lot of people, and they've made nowhere near the progress with embryonic stem cells as they have with adult ones.

"To Jo": Abortion does not equate to murder. It equates to killing. Murder and killing are two different things. If somebody threatens to shoot me and I shoot them first, have I murdered them or simply killed them? It's not murder. I'm of the opinion that in some cases (an extreme minority) abortion is justified because both mother and baby are in extreme danger of dying. In these cases- where it's a choice of letting both die, or killing one to save the other- I can concede that abortion is allowable. In these cases, it is not cold blooded murder. It's really self defence, the same as killing someone about to kill you.

Paul - I think there'll be many willing to hold you to that prophecy you made up there. You'd better hope Obama makes some serious progress in the 10/40 window, or else you're in trouble.

[50. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:01 PM on Nov 11:]

50

Paul says:

The stance that many in what is called the conservative right have taken against the President Elect Barack Obama is rather sad. I wonder why credible ministers such as TD Jakes and Shirley Caesar and entire congregations are jubilant about this election and other predominantly white republican leaning conservative ministers are grieving and petulant.

The latter are concerned over Obama's agenda, given that he is the most liberal member of the Senate and has a 100% pro-abortion voting record. The former are jubilant that a black man has been elected President.

If the latter was all that was at stake, then I, too, would be quite jubilant. That Americans can vote for a black man--liberal, conservative, or otherwise--says quite a bit about how open-minded we are as a society.

Paul continues:

Why would a christian organization ask God to rain on the Democratic Conference? Was the disruption of the Republican conference by a hurricane God's answer?

I don't know. Ask Pat Robertson.

Paul continues:

Acts 5:38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it—lest you even be found to fight against God.”

I submit that the conservative right need to check with God and not their opinions on this issue.

The blind support for the republican platform that has displaced many of our brothers and sister believers in Iraq is mind boggling to me.

Actually, the Gospel is being preached quite effectively in Kurdistan, even though--as you point out--Christians are getting displaced (and worse) in the Sunni and Shiite regions.

As for the support of the war, keep in mind that the war effort was endorsed by every Democrat leader at the time: Clinton (D-NY), Kerry (D-MA), Biden (D-DE), Daschle (D-SD), as well as an overwhelming majority of Americans. That support began to erode in 2004, and effectively collapsed in 2005 and 2006, but--when Bush was beating the drum--Americans were solidly behind him. Including the Democrat leaders.

Once the bullets start flying, we owe it to our country and our Soldiers to achieve a victory. Those floppers--like Biden and Kerry--are nothing more than cowards, as they refuse to own their support of the war.

As for whether the war was legitimate, that is a different matter.

As an American of Kurdish-Iranian descent, I have mixed feelings on the issue.

On one hand, the case can be made that we had to finish a job that we started in 1991--it was a matter of keeping our promises. (It is my view that the war in 1991 was illegitimate, as (1) it served absolutely no national security purpose, (2) it was undeclared, (3) it was waged under the umbrella of approval of the United Nations.)

On the other hand, Ron Paul (R-TX) was correct: there was no Constitutional basis for this war, given that (a) we did not establish that it was essential to our national security and (b) Bush did not go to Congress for a declaration of war.

I took time to ask God what His choice was for this election. He clearly indicated that it would be Barack Obama. And He added that he would be his instrument to bring peace especially in the 10/40 window which would greatly enhance evangelism to those millions and billions of souls locked up behind the Islamic Iron Curtain. He is uniquely placed to do this.

I am aware that lying can take one to Hell. I am telling the truth. I heard from God on this.

Can we stone you to death if you turn out to be wrong?

Selah

And Yes I am Black.

Irrelevant.

[51. LG said the following at 7:07 PM on Nov 11:]

51

I am disheartened to see that the hatred towards President-Elect Obama from those on the right. Disheartened but not surprised. I'm a huge Don Miller fan, and I'm a Christian, and yes, I voted for Obama. And I would do so again. This type of slanting does nothing but make me pity you. It's rather pathetic.

[52. Mike said the following at 8:23 PM on Nov 11:]

52

Amir (#29) -

THANK YOU!

I'm glad someone else out there has the clarity to tell the whole truth about the stem-cell issue.

A couple of years ago, I got my alumni magazine from the university, which also has a medical school and attendant research facility. In it was an article about stem-cell research, and the researchers were quite clear: adult stem cells show much greater promise than embryonic because of the absence of rejection issues. And, as a bonus, no embryos have to be destroyed.

One wonders: If embryonic stem-cell research is such a treasure trove of medical miracles, why is there no private money flocking to it? Last time I checked, the only thing embryonic stem-cell research has been able to produce is brain tumors in lab rats. Not exactly the sort of thing companies are jumping up and down to create...

[53. Chris said the following at 9:05 PM on Nov 11:]

53

Wow. We're not allowed to talk politics on Boundless Line, and here we are less than a week after a certain election talking about a certain winner (who has yet to be sworn in) and tossing about conspiracy theories about said candidate.

So, like, are the lawyers on vacation this week or something? I'd have thought they'd put the kibosh on some of the comments we've seen. Or is this rule only a guideline now that a certain candidate supported by a certain organization didn't win a certain election?

[54. Becca said the following at 9:46 PM on Nov 11:]

54

notmyrealname (#7),

Your points make a better argument against IVF than one in favor of human embryonic stem cell research. As a fellow scientist, I would never support the use of the embryos for research that would kill them, just as I would not support the harvesting of organs for transplant from patients in critical condition. Life, even life with a slim chance of survival, is sacred.

[55. Diane said the following at 4:29 AM on Nov 12:]

55

This election was all about stopping obama. I looked at his associations rather than rhetoric...I was not swayed by his very smooth speech, schooled by years of training to be a lawyer, and I went on his promises during the campaign he was determined to fulfill. Both candidates had a laundry list of to-dos. But, one stood out as utterly pernicious. See his promise to the radically racist, genocidal maniacs at planned parenthood? Yeah, that's him in the video, giving the rest his "brothers and sisters in Christ" of all races the middle finger for their work state by state to limit access to abortion legally while working to change minds freely on the subject.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8

This bill is the EXACT OPPOSITE from what he told Miller and christian community about his desire to decrease abortion. Christians were totally, utterly deceived.

You wanted change and hope, two nebulous terms uttered in speeches and propelled by charisma. You chose to listen to those words and were satisfied when he glossed over his ACTUAL RECORD on denial of care for babies born alive after abortions. Now, this champion of life has vowed to overturn the ban on PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION.

Who was he lying to? And, was this a risk we could have avoided taking for the sake of babies, possibly at the risk of our sacred coolness and desire for money?

I am praying that the Father removes Obama's heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh and that he repents of this. The church has no time to not be bold now. Wake up.

[56. Diane said the following at 4:46 AM on Nov 12:]

56

Paul # 25 You mentioned
TD Jakes and Shirley Caesar...

the theology is in question.

TD Jakes has an affinity for oneness theology...a heresy which was rejected in the early 1900's. He is not trinitarian. I realize this is a fuzzy little detail most think to be inconsequential, but, it is an outright denial of scripture and not accepted as true Christianity. Remember, just because they say "Jesus" and have a lot of church members does not good-theology make.

I think this is racism on the part of most African American people, as is their marriage to the democrat party, seemingly unaware of the party's racist roots or their need for a permanent underclass to further their political agenda. They have sadly nurtured grievance within the black community and this presidential race has, in actuality, only proven MLKJ's dream to be unfulfilled. This man is celebrated for his race...not his character. He is a good speaker, that is all. His record (albeit short and somewhat veiled) proves he is the common denominator amongst all of his marxist "pals," not a victim of circumstance or proximity.

[57. Jackie said the following at 6:22 AM on Nov 12:]

57

First of all. God is sovereign. Donald Miller was not in control of this election or the people he might of persuaded towards Obama."All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?" Daniel 4:35. Second, to NotMyRealName. Just because your in the science field does not make you more notably educated on this topic. Stem cells that saves lives does not justify stem cells that are discarded. They are human life- God's children; it is not our right to to play around with them as we please, even if they are still used to be implanted. And most cells that are tested and played with become very mutant cells- to the point that they cannot be used to create a new human life they are unable to sustain themselves, and if they did- who knows what these children would turn out to be. If you believe that more lives are saved than killed- does that make it okay?

[58. obewan said the following at 8:00 AM on Nov 12:]

58

The problem I see is WHO might be paying for an abortion should that be the decision made by a counselee at a "family planning clinic". If they give balanced advice, the federal money might even also pay for adoption services. If a person is planning to abort, they may do it anyway regardless of who pays. I have heard it costs as little as $500, and the father pays in many cases. So, IMHO the question of whether the rate will go up or down under Obama is still an open issue. It is very early to be making predictions. If he makes good on his promises to provide health care and help with adoptions, the net result may still end up more positive for pro-life than the current status quo of nothing from the repubs.

[59. Stephanie said the following at 8:20 AM on Nov 12:]

59

#33 IMO - Paul didn't say they endorsed a candidate, he said some ministers were happy when Obama won, others were petulant. There is a difference between endorsement and having personal opinions - some ministers gave their opinions outside the context of the church - they are allowed to do that, you know. And let's not pretend, we know that for the most part, the discussion in predominantly black churches was different than in predominantly white churches about Obama and McCain. And yes, I am black, and I attend a white church. And yes, our pastors were petulant when Obama won and said offensive things.

[60. Katrece said the following at 8:20 AM on Nov 12:]

60

#9: Before you scroll past what I am about to say, please read the justification for why I say that "...building up" includes judging those who are misguided/sinning and bringing about unity. Paul even tells us we are to judge those in the church.

Telling the truth is not an attack. If it is, I guess Paul must've been "attacking" Peter, in Acts, when Paul called him out on hypocrisy. Man, what's wrong with this Paul guy?! Did you read what he said to the Corinthians in his first letter to them?

Read chapter five. Let's quit being, as Paul wrote about the Corinthians response to sin (5:2), "arrogant and have not mourned, instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst...." We're to judge those in the church and God also judges those outside the church (vs. 12-13).

THEN, Paul tells them to forgive the man they righteously judged. They're commanded to love him b/c the person repented (II Corinthians).

Yes, there's a balance, and that includes judging people teaching something that goes against Scripture.

[61. Maggie said the following at 8:43 AM on Nov 12:]

61

I'm a little bit thrown by the lack of grace in this article, and the comments following.
I doubt that Miller spoke of the measures he felt would lower abortion rates, with some secret wish to increase them. He was speaking from his heart on what he thought would be best for the unborn.
If he ends up being wrong, which we have yet to see, I would hope that our Body would approach him with much more grace than displayed here. Much less cynicism, sarcasm, and attempts to bring him down.

I'm saddened, and have been for quite some time regarding the lack of grace presented here. We all make mistakes, we're all sinners, we're all supposed to respond in love regardless.

[62. Kim said the following at 9:43 AM on Nov 12:]

62

Re: Ryan (#5)

"Makes me ashamed to be in the same Body as him."

There are no words.

[63. IMO said the following at 10:12 AM on Nov 12:]

63

"We all make mistakes, we're all sinners, we're all supposed to respond in love regardless."

Agree.

Here's the question though, are we suppose to hold him accountable? Now I don't know anything about the man. But if he is a spiritual leader, he is accountable to God, first and firemost, more so than your average Christian layman. He has a responsiblity as a leader. So we'll just let God deal with him?
I don't know. I'm just asking.

[64. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:25 AM on Nov 12:]

64

Leeandra: The burden of proof is on the defender of the United Nations to prove that the "family planning" programs are anything close to humanitarian, as (a) the U.N. workers involved are notorious for sexual abuses that would make the Louisville Archdiocese blush, and (b) the record of success of such programs at fomenting economic prosperity is utterly dubious, and (c) taxpayer funding of such programs is unconstitutional.

Fact is, such "family planning" initiatives are ALWAYS targeting minorities, and are ALWAYS seeking to reduce the population, not merely its rate of growth.

That is genocide.

Moreover, promoting abortion for said populations is tantamount to signing off on mass slaughter--as every abortion victim is innocent--with American tax dollars.

That Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 chose not to fund such atrocities is perfectly understandable.

That Clinton allowed it, and Kerry promised support of it in 2004, and Obama promised support of it in 2008, speaks to their lack of regard for children in utero. Miller never took such factors into account, and it will be interesting to see how he reconciles this as the Obama Presidency unfolds (or becomes unhinged, depending on your take).

But back to the point raised by Holly: it is not merely about "information about abortion", it is about taxpayer funding regarding the provision of a whole host of services revolving around abortion.

This includes recommending--even providing--abortion as a means of "family planning" or "population control".

In America, every Planned Parenthood clinic has the First Amendment right to provide information about abortion, just as the CareNet Pregnancy Care centers do.

They are NOT, however, entitled to taxpayer funding.

That is what is at issue here.

Every Christian-based crisis pregnancy center in America understands this, as they provide "information about abortion" to clients every day.

And they do it WITHOUT taxpayer funding.

As for international "family planning" initiatives, please show me the place in the Constitution where it is the role of our government to subsidize "population control" efforts in Somalia.

I want Article and Section. Emanating penumbras don't count.

[65. To Jo said the following at 10:41 AM on Nov 12:]

65

Yes, on second reading of your comment, I realized I misunderstood you. My apologizes for that.

I do disagree with you when you say to "not write off his potential for positive progress based on these early pro-choice measures." As several posters have mentioned already, his voting record is also an important indicator to look at. And his voting is filled with all pro-choice measures. I would like to be optimistic and that's why I pray. If my prayers don't get answered "how I want them to", I know I have committed the issue to the Lord. He is the one that will work things out for His Glory and His Good. Scripture will guide me. I have read what God did in the OT through leaders (bad and good). And my faith is in God, not the government.

[66. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:52 AM on Nov 12:]

66

Jo says:

I really really doubt whether that would be possible do achieve democratically in the current culture. I can't imagine any politician seriously attempting to outlaw abortion at this stage. Even the Republicans didn't promise it.

Many said the same regarding the abolition of slavery, which was undertaken by the "religious right" of the day, and was waged against well-funded opposition by pro-slavery advocates, for decades.

But we didn't win by saying, "We need to reduce the number of slaves, but keep slavery legal."

But Obama's viewpoint, though wrong, is not logically inconsistent. He wants to reduce abortion overall but he also wants to make sure the choice is available in the situations where he deems it acceptable.

Given that he opposes requiring children that survive the abortion procedure to be given medical care, his window of "acceptability" negates any pretension he raises about his respect for human life.

[67. Stuart said the following at 11:27 AM on Nov 12:]

67

Do you seriously believe that Obama cares about reducing abortions? Regardless of where you stand on other issues, anyone who thinks Obama cares about reducing abortions has deluded themselves.

Obama has one of the, if not THE, worst voting records when it comes to pro-life issues, and he is a sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act which would remove any current restrictions on abortions. With Obama our president-elect and a near-super majority in the house and senate, it has good chance of being passed.

Young evangelicals that voted for Obama are more concerned with being perceived as cool and not one those "hateful conservative Christians", than voting to save the unborn.

[68. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:00 PM on Nov 12:]

68

Maggie:

Actually, Steve is expressing a line of questioning that is perfectly appropriate, given....

(1) The legalization of abortion has been the greatest contributor to its occurrence, as evidenced by the spike post-Roe.

(2) Our previous President provided the same rhetorical desire ("safe, legal, and rare") to reduce the number of abortions while keeping it legal, opposing even the ban on partial-birth abortion. The abortion rate did not decline substantially.

(Fuller professor Glen Stassen attempted to make the claim that abortions declined during the Clinton years, when in fact his analysis failed to demonstrate that. Not only that, Stassen flagrantly misrepresented the abortion rates under Bush, as--at the end of Bush's first term--abortions were at a 30-year-low.)

Clinton kept his promise on the legal part, and even the "safe" part (unless you are the child in utero), but definitely not the "rare" part.

(3) Obama opposes banning partial-birth abortions, and even requiring medical care for children who survive the abortion procedure.

So when Miller tells us that Obama's policies have better potential than McCain's--when in fact, historical evidence clearly shows that McCain's position (giving the states the ability to outlaw abortion) results in a greater decline, as evidenced by pre-Roe America versus post-Roe America--one is right to question the basis in fact on which he makes such an assertion.

Like I said before, either we have the greatest human rights advancement of all time, or we have a mass slaughter that rivals the evils of Stalin and Mao.

We would not tolerate slavery by saying, "We need to reduce the number of slaves, but we need to keep slavery legal."

Nor would we be right to say, "We need to reduce child trafficking, but we cannot impose our morality on the world."

Ergo, if abortion is in utero infanticide, then the "we must keep it legal, but look for ways to reduce its occurrence" line of reasoning ought to be dismissed for the doubletalk that it is.

[69. Katie P. said the following at 12:34 PM on Nov 12:]

69

Is anyone else a little outraged at how two-faced Obama is about this whole issue? He wants to reduce the number of abortions but make it easier for people to get them. Uh...how does this remotely make sense? Sounds like political doublespeak to me. I'd much rather have a president in office who hated abortion and made it a crime, rather than one like Obama who says he wants to "reduce the number of abortions" simply to raise his ratings and popularity, then turn around and undo all the measures that have been put in place to do the very thing he says he wants to do. Why does Miller think this is progress? Seriously. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[70. Katie P. said the following at 12:35 PM on Nov 12:]

70

Is anyone else a little outraged at how two-faced Obama is about this whole issue? He wants to reduce the number of abortions but make it easier for people to get them. Uh...how does this remotely make sense? Sounds like political doublespeak to me. I'd much rather have a president in office who hated abortion and made it a crime, rather than one like Obama who says he wants to "reduce the number of abortions" simply to raise his ratings and popularity, then turn around and undo all the measures that have been put in place to do the very thing he says he wants to do. Why does Miller think this is progress? Seriously. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[71. DP said the following at 1:09 PM on Nov 12:]

71

Ryan (#39) said:

"My "problem" arises from the (increasing number?) of Christians who voted for Obama in the first place. Those that did have blood on their hands. Period."

This is just crazy. Do you have blood on your hand for not going to the nearest abortion clinic and physically stopping the doctors from performig abortions? Do you have blood on your hands for voting for a president who invaded a nation which did not attack our own?

Ryan (#39) said:

"Why show "grace" toward Miller? He legitimizes liberalism, which is wholly unChristian. No one can look at liberalism honestly and not see moral relativism all over it."

Do you really think that conservatism is "Christian" and is in no way demonstrates moral relativism? Again, crazy.

Ryan (#39) said:

"I'm ashamed of where the Church is right now. My generation especially."

I'm ashamed that after 2000 years, we STILL do not understand the parable of the prodigal son. BTW, what are you doing to change the church? Voting for McCain? Posting on a blog? Good luck.

[72. Cassandra said the following at 1:15 PM on Nov 12:]

72

All these comments about showing grace are tiring. There are plenty of verses in the Bible about removing and chastising false teachers. Why are they consistently overlooked? Mark 13:22, 1 Tim 1:3, 2 Peter 2:1 among many others. We can't have all grace and no truth.

[73. To Leah said the following at 1:35 PM on Nov 12:]

73

ok let me rephrase that. Most abortions are murder.

[I would like to see the statistics of how many women get abortions due to their life being at risk. I say, it's very rare. But I don't have the data to back up my educated opinion].

I think this particular defn from American Heritage Dictionary fits abortion well.

"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

[74. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:52 PM on Nov 12:]

74

I am disheartened to see that the hatred towards President-Elect Obama from those on the right.

Hatred? Please provide the evidence. I merely am providing exception to his track record and his stated policies. Personally, I'll buy him a beer. He can eat and drink with me any time.

I have no desire to see him within a mile of the White House in any elected capacity, however.

Get it? The differences are over policy, not his own personhood.

Disheartened but not surprised. I'm a huge Don Miller fan, and I'm a Christian, and yes, I voted for Obama. And I would do so again. This type of slanting does nothing but make me pity you. It's rather pathetic.

I have no personal gripe with Miller, and even enjoyed Blue Like Jazz. It wasn't perfect, but he got most of the nuts and bolts right.

On the other hand, his sentiments about Obama's abortion agenda are higher on rhetoric than actual substance, as the rhetoric does not square with the facts of either Obama's track record or his stated policy plans.

Pointing out that lack of congruence is legitimate accountability, that you mistake for hatred.

[75. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:08 PM on Nov 12:]

75

Mike (#52):

And here's another kicker along those lines: researchers are now able to produce pluripotent stem cells without the destruction of embryos.

Ergo, all this push for funding embryonic stem cell research, is just a dishonest attempt to shove an murderous political agenda down our throats.

[76. Cassandra said the following at 2:34 PM on Nov 12:]

76

"All too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of others, such as the killing of the unborn, as well as the heresies and apostasies of theological liberals whose views have developed into “another gospel,” while we have condoned our own sins, turned a blind eye to our own vices, and lived captive to forces such as materialism and consumerism in ways that contradict our faith." - The "Evangelical Manifesto"

I know "fetus fatigue" has already been discussed on this blog, but I absolutely believe that The Social Gospel and liberal Christianity paved the way for the Obama presidency. I've been warning my friends in church about these authors for a while now (hence my moniker) and now we are possibly going to see the fruits of policy change as a result of this thinking. There's no way Obama could have gotten elected without the votes of Christians who think that poverty is the new pro-life issue, to the exclusion of the old life issue, life.

[77. Jo said the following at 2:39 PM on Nov 12:]

77

farmer Tom #44 said:
"When will you take a stand to vote only for me of absolute impeccable moral character"

I think you missed an 'n'. Was that a Freudian slip? You would make an great president... :P

With regards to your point though, what about King David? I'm not sure that men of impeccable moral character exist, and those that seem righteous all too often turn out to have particularly ugly skeletons in their closets. The man after God's own heart was guilty of adultery, cowardice, hypocrisy and murder. What do you think was God's criteria for choosing this deeply flawed man to be the leader of His people? What was it that made him different? And where can we see echoes of this in the candidates we vote for?

[78. Texas Craig said the following at 3:17 PM on Nov 12:]

78

Cassandra (#62):

Truth and grace are not mutually exclusive. Nor is biblical confrontation mutually exclusive with grace. However, we are called to share the truth in love. I can discipline my child and that is biblically acceptable and commanded. But, if I say things like "how do you like that, you weak little kid" while doing it, then I believe I am offending the heart of God.

Grace is all about our delivery. It is not about whether we choose to challenge or confront people. Moreover, when you talk about confronting false teachers, the Bible is talking about actually confronting those people. I hardly think talkaing negatively about them somewhere else (i.e., a blog) meets the biblical principle/directive. And, to the extent that you are talking about disagreeing with people posting on here, that is fine. But, it should still be done in love without rudeness or condescension. Health debate should focus on issues and not resort to personal attacks, name-calling, or sarcasm.

[79. Keisha said the following at 3:31 PM on Nov 12:]

79

I agree with Texas Craig. Specifically, I would like some advice on how to convince people that the fetus is in fact equivalent to a person, and not just a "clump of cells", as some would prefer to think. Most of the time I try to talk about how differently people act if the child is wanted versus unwanted... If it's a wanted pregnancy, I'm supposed to start congratulating the parents and buying baby clothes 6 weeks in, but if the pregnancy isn't wanted, then it's not a baby at all... any other suggestions?

[80. Texas Craig said the following at 3:31 PM on Nov 12:]

80

Amir (#64):

I think you make a valid point about being able to question Miller's actions. I think the frustration that I, and others, have expressed is that the article and some of the posters have appeared to be more negative about Miller himself, which would be inappropriate IMO.

Clearly, Ryan (#5) was intending to slam Miller personally. Tom Neven's initial comment could be construed as being condescending, although he may have just been trying to be funny. (FWIW, I did find his comment funny, although it also did leave me with the feeling that he does not care for Miller's works - maybe he can correct me if I am wrong in my perception).

The last sentence of Steve's initial article is a reasonable one, if he means it genuinely, without sarcasm or condescension. But, again, I sense that he was intending to get in a poke at Miller in asking the question. Only Steve knows his own heart and whether he had totally pure motives in asking it or not.

So, yes, people need to be able to have a good dialogue on these issues. But, we should be able to do it in love and without trying to take little pot shots at others. My perception (which may be wrong) is that Steve's comment and even Tom's are tainted with some dislike for Miller. But, I may be wrong and they can certainly correct me on that. If I am not wrong, and they were intending to get in little shots at Miller, then their words do not need to be defended by you.

[81. Texas Craig said the following at 3:46 PM on Nov 12:]

81

Katrece (#60):

Yes, we are supposed to confront people who are engaging in false teaching. How does blogging about someone, rather than going and confronting them, meet the standards of what the Bible tells us to do and what you are referencing? Biblical commands to speak truth should not ever mean we need to be rude or condescending. Further, such commands usually mean we are supposed to actually confront the person, rather than just say things about them to others. Certainly, there are exceptions, when we are trying to counteract some false teaching. But, what spiritual teaching are you or others claiming that Donald Miller was falsely teaching? Could he be wrong in how things played out? Sure, just like many believers were wrong about what they would see George Bush do. Being wrong does not equate to false teaching.

Too often people use "truth" verses or "confrontation verses" as carte blanche to be rude and mean-spirited, much the same way people use the "let me tell you about so-and-so so you can pray for them" when really they just want to gossip.

I have no qualms with people wishing to disagree with a point of another believer. But, if we are going to do that, let's make sure we are doing it in a biblical manner.

[82. Tom Neven said the following at 3:54 PM on Nov 12:]

82

Texas Craig (#80)

No, my initial comment (#1) was not meant to be condescending, but you're right in that I don't care for Miller's writing or his theology. The Jesus of his book is Jesus-lite, a good buddy to have a beer with but not the Creator and Lord of the universe and the ultimate Judge.

Miller was a plenary speaker during this year's Evangelical Press Association meeting in Portland, and I found I cared for his ideas even less after hearing him.

Trite. Obvious. Trendy. More concerned with what the culture thinks than with Truth.

Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

[83. Keisha said the following at 3:56 PM on Nov 12:]

83

Chris said:

"Wow. We're not allowed to talk politics on Boundless Line, and here we are less than a week after a certain election talking about a certain winner (who has yet to be sworn in) and tossing about conspiracy theories about said candidate."

I think that since the election is over, whatever is said now can't affect people's votes - so the articles and discussions on the website cannot be interpreted as political organizing in support of the Obama or McCain campaigns (because they don't exist anymore - thank goodness!). I don't work for Boundless, or the IRS, but I think this is the point of not allowing nonprofits to engage in political lobbying.

And DP said:

"BTW, what are you doing to change the church? Voting for McCain? Posting on a blog? Good luck."

Although this comment is kind of harsh... it's true. What are we doing here besides complaining about Obama to other people who already think that abortion on demand is murder? I would like it if this blog offered us more concrete ways to get involved, in real life not via the computer, in the fight against abortion. (If I missed these posts, can I have a link to them? Thanks.)

And Diane said:

"This man is celebrated for his race... not his character. He is a good speaker, that is all."

That was partially true on two days last week: Tuesday and Wednesday. By Thursday, the newspapers were back to coverage of the financial crisis and housing crisis and healthcare crisis and every other crisis facing this country... and were looking to Obama's actions (convening a press conference with panel of economic advisors, choosing cabinet members), not his race or his words.

[84. Jo said the following at 4:02 PM on Nov 12:]

84

"To Jo" #65:

Apology accepted. And you may be right, but it appears that for better or worse America is stuck with Obama now anyway - so you may as well be hopeful.

Oh also, it'd be simpler if you'd give yourself a name rather than 'To ____', which makes it a little confusing. But then I'm easily confused.

Amir '66:

Very good points. Time will tell. Incidentally I looked up the stats yesterday and was surprised to realise that the UK's abortion rate is about the same as yours (or possibly a fair bit higher depending on who you believe), and ours is going up while yours is slowly going down.

After researching the issue on Wikipedia (the source of all knowledge), I discovered that America has a history of debate on abortion whereas Britain has always allowed it to some degree, and it's never been a political divider like it is in the USA. And yet, it's illegal in Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) to this day. What's the best way of reducing/ending it? I don't know. But at least your stats are falling.

[85. A.M.C. said the following at 4:13 PM on Nov 12:]

85

Re: Keisha (#79)

I would like some advice on how to convince people that the fetus is in fact equivalent to a person, and not just a "clump of cells", as some would prefer to think.

Maybe this article would help?

[86. Al said the following at 5:09 PM on Nov 12:]

86

Texas Craig, I've really enjoyed your posts here for being nuanced and balanced and your encouragement for those here to speak truth in love. I suppose it helps that we seem to share some of the same tendencies-- being conservative and "evangelical" in theology and still deeply empathising with many of Miller's insights, which seems to be difficult for many for some reason. For all the distaste I notice here and elsewhere towards him for being "emergent", and even though I sometimes question his judgement, I think he gets a very central part of the gospel right in Blue Like Jazz. The problem isn't just the world and its systems-- "those liberals" or even "those self-righteous conservatives". The problem is me. I am the problem. His honesty and accurate insights do more to nudge me towards the heart of God than the finger wagging directed at him ever has.

Anyway, this wasn't meant to be a Miller love letter. I do appreciate your reasoned, measured posts here, and encouraging us to challenge teachings and publically stated ideas, all without slandering the character of others, especially those who are "brothers".

[87. Cassandra said the following at 5:30 PM on Nov 12:]

87

Texas Craig #81
"How does blogging about someone, rather than going and confronting them, meet the standards of what the Bible tells us to do and what you are referencing? Biblical commands to speak truth should not ever mean we need to be rude or condescending. Further, such commands usually mean we are supposed to actually confront the person, rather than just say things about them to others."

Keisha #83
"What are we doing here besides complaining about Obama to other people who already think that abortion on demand is murder?"

This is a blog, folks, a place to discuss ideas, to share our feelings, to get inspiration, before we go out into the world and take action. Much like reading the Bible or praying before we take the Gospel to the ends of the earth, or the intellectual debates Paul engaged in with the Areopagus. The interchange of ideas and opinions in forums like this is essential and harldy unBiblical.

Keisha, I suggest Abort73.com, as well as the many Crisis Pregnancy Centers where you may volunteer to counsel women considering abortion and where God has called many into ministry. God bless you for your heart for the unborn!

[88. farmer Tom said the following at 6:08 PM on Nov 12:]

88

56. Diane

That was awesome!!

A succinct and pithy rant, I wish I could do that.

77. Sorry, just a lousy typist.

It's easy to define men of moral character.

They obey God's law, and the Constitution, and when they are found to have violated either, they confess their sin, repeat and sin no more.

On the other hand men of low moral character knowingly chose to do that which violates God's law and the Constitution, while claiming all the while to be virtuous. Like "I'm opposed to abortion, but every one ought to be able to get one if they want to". Or in other words, so what if it's taking a human life, I am more concerned about my political career than a bunch of unborn babies.

[89. Texas Craig said the following at 7:25 PM on Nov 12:]

89

Tom:

Thanks for clarifying your views. I am sure it will come as no surprise that I disagree with your assessment of Donald Miller's writing. But, like they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am convinced that God uses different methods to reach different personalities. Donald Miller's style obviously rubs you wrong, and I can respect that. John Piper rubs me wrong frequently, but many love his stuff (I bet you are in that camp!). :-)

But, here's the thing: I would also imagine that if you and I lived next door to each other, we would be able to see that each of us are genuine Christ-followers, filled with the Holy Spirit, and used of God. That is the beauty of the body of Christ. God uses many different personalities and types to spread everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of Christ.

Peace and grace!

[90. Beau said the following at 12:23 AM on Nov 13:]

90

Two things . . .
1. If Miller didn't fully understand Obama's position on abortion, it doesn't matter. Ignorance is not bliss, especially in regards to presidentially election. If a person publicly endorses someone, especially on a specfic issue. They should have done some exahuastive HW. As far as if Miller did have extensive knowledge of Obama's views & intentions in regards to abortion and still advocated for Obama . . . very, very not cool.

[91. Beau said the following at 12:30 AM on Nov 13:]

91

2. Not matter what political idological affiliation we as Christians subscribe to. I think we need to remember that we don't wrestle with Flesh & blood, but principalities. So pray for our parents generation, our generation, and our kid's generation. We should pray our socks off.

[92. David said the following at 9:21 AM on Nov 13:]

92

We need to rewrite the bible so it specifically tells us to Support Homosexuals, Late term Abortion, and that Faith alone is not enough to get you to Heaven. Then all Obama Supporters can rest assured his views are Christian! Marry gays, Kill Babies, what the heck, with enemies like this, Satan needs no friends. Besides, who cares, Aren't we all Forgiven? Hippocrates would be proud!

[93. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:06 AM on Nov 13:]

93

I also nominate Farmer Tom for President.

[94. A.M.C. said the following at 10:32 AM on Nov 13:]

94

Re: Jo (#77), Amir (#93)

Regarding nominating Farmer Tom for president:

The question is whether he would be willing (and able) to run, and whether we can get his name on the ballot for all 50 states...

[95. farmer Tom said the following at 11:50 AM on Nov 13:]

95

Thank you all for the kind words, I must say I'm awed and flattered by such talk. However I must decline your nomination. My wife is rather emphatic that she does not what to be first lady. Something about pretentious snobs in Washington... Anyway for the sake of family harmony and for the welfare of my children I can not accept.

[96. BDB said the following at 12:22 PM on Nov 13:]

96

Well, first Farmer Tom and Gov. Palin can have a moose stew cook-off to see who is the better candidate...

[97. Texas Craig said the following at 12:37 PM on Nov 13:]

97

BDB (#96): That system is rigged against Farmer Tom. They do not have moose where he is from. Let him make something with corn, and he might have a fighting chance!

[98. Wes said the following at 12:41 PM on Nov 13:]

98

This is an example of argument without nuance. Mr Miller's comments are valid and I believe represent a growing portion of the Christian community. The Stem Cell argument in particular is insane. These stem cells are being destroyed every day at fertilization clinics across the nation. Why not use them for a constructive purpose?

[99. DP said the following at 1:13 PM on Nov 13:]

99

David #92:

Can I say that you "support" adultery because you didn't vote for a candidate who wants to abolish it? Just wondering...

Why so choosey on which Christian values we need to have in America's law? Or do we need to "rewrite" more of the Bible?

[100. DP said the following at 1:16 PM on Nov 13:]

100

I like how moral character is now measured by not only 'following God's law' but also the Constitution. What a joke.