Things like:
If we don't know what it is, we err on the side of sucking it brains out with a vacuum or pulling it apart? If we don't know what it is, why in the world do we have fetal homicide laws? If Obama wants to reduce abortions like he says he does, then the next question has to be, WHY? If it's not wrong to kill whatever "it" is in a woman's uterus, why limit that constitutional right? He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth here. Can we not see that? He is trying to straddle the fence but checks his brain at the door for the sake of political expediency.
Again, I am not posting this because I give one rip about politics, because I honestly don't. But caring for the weak and defenseless is a HUGE thrust of Biblical ethics thus abortion has to be on the front burner.
My Biblical Ethics professor, David Jones, says this in this lecture:
We (pro-life persons) don’t have to establish the burden of proof. Pro-choice people have the burden of proof. If human life is held at some point to be valuable, but not from conception when a new biological organism comes into being, then the burden of proof falls on those who would say that we can inflict death at some point. They have to show that the point when you would inflict death is not arbitrary but is grounded on something in reality.Don't drink the Kool-Aid on this one folks. I also greatly appreciate Greg's comments about adoption in the first video. Please watch him break it down for us.
(HT: Carlos)
40 comments:
May I presume to beg the question of whether these comments are missing the forest for the trees without sounding judgmental? It seems to me that Obama's comment, while potentially revealing, has been subject to more equivocal politically-charged rhetoric than true Christian discernment. The true people at stake in this argument seem to be like the infant brought before Solomon by the disputed mothers. In their obsession over having the moral high ground, both sides seem willing to (as one of the proverbial mothers did) kill the baby. Or (I apologize for the pun), throw out out the baby with the bath water.
I like the comment that the burden of proof is on the pro-choice side.
Isn't God really pro-choice? Can we expect non-Spirit filled people to make godly choices? Can we really mandate matters of sin and the heart? What if it's already legal? Should you not vote for that person because they are pro-choice? What about unjust war? Isn't that a "life" issue just like abortion?
These are just some rambling questions I have when abortion is the only issue some people vote on.
Amy,
Thanks for the comments.
Is God pro-choice? Certainly not in the way it is framed by Democrats. But I would like to hear more about what you mean by that.
I would also submit that we are all one issue voters at some level. Would you not be a one-issue vote if a president was a political genius, but was racist? Would not his racism disqualify him? How is abortion different?
Here is also why I am a one issue voter on abortion: I would never vote for a president that was pro-infanticide (someone being in favor of a parent's right to kill a baby after it was born, say within 28 days of it's life outside the womb). It wouldn't matter what else they had going for them. Pro-infanticide = never get my vote.
Ok, that seems clear right? Now the burden of proof is on us to demonstrate what the difference is between infanticide and abortion if we are going to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. My conclusion is that there is no difference. Can you think of the difference? Is it location of the baby? Size of the baby? Level of dependency of the baby? What is the difference between infanticide and abortion that would warrant legalized killing of a baby?
I don't see one, and thus I want to be consistent in the way I vote, but if you can think of a difference I would love to hear from you.
Does all that make sense? Does that follow?
z
I agree, Zach. I have a physical disability and currently live below the poverty line, and when I consider who to vote for, if she/she is pro-"abortion rights," then I don't care where that person stands on helping disabled or poor people-- no vote from me!
I don't say that lightly. It's not always easy living with a physical disability. In addition to the basic, everyday physical challenges, statistics say that 75% of us in America are unemployed. It's also hard to be a "poor person," even by American standards. However, the lives of unborn human persons trump anything else that a politician will claim to do to help me. Period.
I certainly don't mean that God is pro-choice in the way that the world is. However, abortion IS already legal. It's done. So why vote ONLY on that? I agree, it's abhorrant and disgusting to kill a child that the Lord has made, but candidates don't (presumably) do the aborting; some just give people the choice to do it or not.
My bottom line is that this is not the only issue and that candidates, other than republicans, have things to offer which would fall under Jesus' commands in the New Testament.
Yes, God IS pro-choice--He gives us the choice to sin or not, to accept Christ or not. Abortion is such a "hot" issue that there will never be a meeting of minds on this issue. On one hand you have Christ-indwelt people who hate murder because God said it's wrong. One the other hand you have sin-filled people who do selfish things for mere convenience. Abortion will NEVER be outlawed. We've had Bush for 8 years and abortions have not been outlawed. Not to mention the unjust war he has taken us into under false pretenses.
Blah...sorry for rambling. We're politial junkies in my house.
A
Amy,
You write that the political candidates don't do the aborting; they "just" give people the choice to do it or not. That's a very, very big "just," my sister in Christ.
You're right that we've had Bush for 8 years, and abortion is still legal. Did you truly expect him to be able to completely have abortion outlawed in 8 years? He did appoint two pro-life judges to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the outlawing of partial-birth abortion. This is a *great* step forward for the rights of unborn human persons.
Obama would never do anything of the sort though, because he has consistently voted not only "pro-choice," but pro-infanticide! See "Born Alive Infant Protection Act." Obama voted against it.
Amy,
I also think it's important to address what I said about abortion vs. infanticide. Do you think there is any difference?
Also, you said - "On one hand you have Christ-indwelt people who hate murder because God said it's wrong. One the other hand you have sin-filled people who do selfish things for mere convenience." - this is true, but we have to have laws for all people, Christian or not. For example we have laws against stealing even though Christians and non-Christians steal. Why not have abortion laws as well?
z
Listen, you guys have to know that I hate abortion or killing of any kind. To me abortion and infantacide are pretty much the same thing.
Bottom line is that I cannot vote for someone for only one issue. What about Iraq? Have you considered the impact of this war in light of the killing that is going on? Or of the lies it took to take us there?
Amy,
So do you see the inconsistency of your position if abortion and infanticide are basically the same thing? Check it out:
Pro-infanticide president = never get my vote, but...
Pro-abortion president = will get my vote.
Based on this alone, don't you think you should never vote for Obama?
We would all be one issue voters for presidents if the issue was racism, or legalized drug use, etc...
We could talk about other issues all day long, but that doesn't have much to do with Obama and his stance on abortion. I am trying to demonstrate that we all would be one-issue voters in certain circumstances and abortion should be one of those.
You get what I am saying?
z
There is no inconsistancy on my arguement. I never said Pro-infanticide president = never get my vote, but...
Pro-abortion president = will get my vote.
BTW, do people realize that abortions went DOWN under the Clinton presidency, and UP under the Bush presidency? That teen pregnancies went UP during the Bush presidency? President Clinton had a quote when asked a question about abortion once that was something like "look, no one wants more abortions".
I am NOT a Clinton fan or a registered Democrat, but my point remains, I will not vote solely on the abortion issue.
Amy,
A pro-infanticide president could potentially get your vote? Are you serious?
z
Amy,
In 2005, during President Bush, Jr.'s second term, abortion rates hit a thirty year low. If you're interested in reading more about it, the information is here (and there is also a link, within the blog entry, to an article on the subject at US News and World Report):
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/08/abortion-rates-thirty-year-low.html
About the Iraq War, almost everyone, Democrat and Republican, voted to go to war based on the intelligence that was there at the time. Whether the was was/is "unjust" is something that is obviously up for debate, but I am sure that a great many of the women of Iraq (if not most of them) are very happy that Saddam Hussein and his brothers are no longer around to torture them. Have you read about the brothers' "torture rooms" for women? It's chilling. Thanks to President Bush, Jr., they no longer exist.
I have serious qualms about the Iraq war and some of the tactics used in it, *in the past,* but people fight and die in wars. That's the sad nature of war. With abortion, *defenseless unborn human persons* are killed. As horrible as war is, it is not a moral equivalent to legal abortion (and infanticide, if Obama had his way).
Amy,
I'm sorry-- the link to the "thirty year low for abortions" blog entry is apparently too long to fit here. Please go to http://theologica.blogspot.com/, and do a search for it. It's listed under Monday, August 18, 2008.
Amy,
Just copy and paste this:
http://theologica.blogspot.com/search?q=Abortion+Rate
What "Amy" provides is the penultimate example of political rationalization. She desperately wants to vote for Obama, and thus will jump through whatever mental hoops she has to to get to that place.
In so doing, she'll make herself "feel" good, but will make it easier for the pro-abortion lobby to become further entrenched in American culture, when Obama appoints his first of perhaps two ardent abortion defenders to the Supreme Court.
She'll "feel good" about it, but it merely aids and abets true evil (infanticide) to become more entrenched in American society.
A few more comment and then I'll be done. I desperately don't want to vote for more Bush regime. I have wrestled with this decision for a long time...it's not an easy one to just flip and take the new guy.
Racism is horrible, but it's legal. Abortion is more horrible, but it's legal.
Laura Bush is pro choice. George Bush, when asked how he would advise his daughter if she would become pregnant with an unwanted baby, said that would be her choice. Huh? THEY TELL YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR SO YOU'LL VOTE FOR THEM.
Lastly, and this is a sensitive one, but do christians consider what they're doing when they have their eggs fertilized and frozen and only use a few of them? Don't tell me, "oh, those little babies are given up for adoption and become 'snowflake babies'". A fraction of a percent of those are actually given a chance at life. Most are thrown away, yet bible believing, christian people practice this ALL THE TIME.
No, I don't desperately want to vote for Obama so therefore, I make it all right in my mind to do it. More than any thing, I pray that Christians won't pray, again, as they did 8 and 4 years ago, "Please God, give us this person" rather then "Please God, give us who you want". That scares me. So I pray, not my will, O Lord, but Yours be done.
Sife,
I'm not sure that I am comfortable stating unequivocally that Amy is engaging in political rationalization. That may be the case; in some ways, it appears to be the case. However, I don't know the depths of her heart. (*None* of us even knows the depths of *our* own heart!)
Maybe Amy is simply feeling herself pulled in different directions, as far as opposing different evils? I really don't know-- and I *must* say that, in honesty and humility, because I *don't* know what is happening in her heart.
I feel the same pull, as far as opposing different evils, myself at times, though I firmly believe that genocide based upon one's temporary location, as a fetus (which is what legal abortion is, plainly) is an even greater evil than that of war.
Sorry-- I posted twice by accident. Please delete one of them.
Sheesh, my heart is that I desperately want God's will done on earth and in my life. Just because I'm bold enough to wrestle with these issues doesn't mean that my heart is more wrong or bad than yours. Last election I didn't even vote at all, gasp, because I didn't know which one to vote for (lesser of two evils anyone?).
I like a good discussion but I get a little offended when my heart is on the line. Or when 'sife' said that it makes me feel good to be able to rationalize my vote. Gross. Let's keep it respectful, boys. :)
Amy,
I am sorry, and I sincerely apologize, if anything that I have written has seemed to be judging your heart. That has not truly been my intention.
I'm not "Sife" either-- I just wanted to apologize for even any perceived wrong on my part. I try to choose my words carefully. I could certainly do better at times, and I ask for your forgiveness for any failing of mine, in this way, in this conversation.
"Racism is horrible, but it's legal. Abortion is more horrible, but it's legal. "
Amy, I think this is kind of missing the point. I am not arguing that for what is horrible yet legal. What I am saying is that we all have trump card issues when voting. I assume you would never vote for a person running for office who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, right?
So would you ever (hypothetically speaking) ever vote for a pro-infanticide presidential candidate? You implied that you might, is that what you really mean?
z
uh, no.
Ok, so we are back to this right?:
Pro-infanticide president = never get my vote, but...
Pro-abortion president = will get my vote.
Inconsistent? Or explain the difference between infanticide and abortion.
z
As a Senator, Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The purpose of this bill was to protect infants who survived an attempted abortion. By voting against the bill, Obama voted to allow these infants to be taken, by nurses, to rooms to be left... to die. That is infanticide, and Obama voted in favor of it.
I believe no one is "PRO abortion" or "pro infanticide". They are pro giving people a choice. I know that seems like a fine line, but no one wants more abortions...see Bill Clinton's quote about "no one wants more abortions". No one is like "yeah, we get to kill more babies"! I still don't like the "pro choice" view, believe me.
Amy,
Seriously? 45 million babies murdered and no one is "pro-abortion"? You really think Obama wants to limit abortions? He is trying to walk the line to win an election. You need to watch this clip from this blog post (copy and paste it):
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-and-freedom-of-choice-act.html#comments
"They are pro giving people a choice." - you said. Here is the key question though, a choice to do what? What are they choosing to do? Can you name it?
Again, you want your tax payer money going to a president whose first act in office is to make abortion as legally as possible?
Again, if abortion is not wrong then why try and limit it? Please answer that for me as well.
Thanks.
z
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
Obama QandA
We've actually made progress over the last several years in reducing teen pregnancies, for example. And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children.
But we also recognize the importance of good medical care for women, that we're also recognizing the importance of age-appropriate education to reduce risks. I do believe that contraception has to be part of that education process.
And if we do those things, then I think that we can reduce abortions and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. If we put all of those things in place, then I think we will take some of the edge off the debate.
We're not going to completely resolve it. At some point, there may just be an irreconcilable difference. And those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008
I do believe that the woman who had an affair and is now pregnant is "pro abortion". I believe that the teenager who can't tell her parents that she's having sex is "pro abortion". I believe the football player who just got his girlfriend preg. is "pro abortion". That's where you get the 45 mil. Probably John Edwards was pro abortion when his mistress got preg. The couple who just had their amnio and found out their baby has down syndrome may be "pro abortion" It's all about the heart. It's selfish and dark...especially without Christ.
Amy,
I am confused. First you said no one is "pro abortion" and now you are saying something different...
z
no politician
Amy,
You said - "I still don't like the "pro choice" view, believe me."
But you must like it enough to have a vote that supports it right?
Let me lay it out like this. If you are willing to vote for abortion rights to continue, but you say you don't like it, there has to be some other issues that are more important than the basic human rights of babies.
In your mind, what are those issues that Obama stands for that are of more importance than the abortion issue? I would be curious to know what those are in your view.
Thanks for the dialogue.
z
Yes! Now we're getting somewhere. It's not that I don't care about babies, abortion is already legal.
I care ALSO a LOT about: the war in Iraq, health care, hurricane Katrina (50,000 families still living in FEMA trailers), education. These are also human life and death issues. Are you saying you'll vote for a pro-life candidate even if it means that a child will be born into abject poverty with no chance of a good education (because of where they live) or decent health care? Or knowing that your son or daughter will be one of the next generations to go to Iraq (because of McCain's 100 year plan)?
Should these issues matter at all?
"It's not that I don't care about babies, abortion is already legal."
Consider this logic with a different issue like slavery from 170 years ago. What would you say to someone who said "It's not that I don't care about black people, slavery is already legal"? Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's 1)right, 2)shouldn't be fought against, and 3)shouldn't be voted against for the sake of public policy and tax payer money.
You said "Are you saying you'll vote for a pro-life candidate even if it means that a child will be born into abject poverty with no chance of a good education (because of where they live) or decent health care? Or knowing that your son or daughter will be one of the next generations to go to Iraq (because of McCain's 100 year plan)?"
Ok, so using your logic we should allow kids that are (or potentially will be) poor and poorly educated to be killed? How about kids that are proven to have Downs Syndrome in the womb. Do we kill them too because most will never hold a job that supports the economy?
Furthermore, my son or daughter will have a choice (we don't have the draft anymore) whether they want to lay down their life for their country. That is very different from the holocaust on the unborn (who don't have a choice or voice) that we are dealing with in our country today.
Do you see why this logic does not work out?
z
Oh my word! You asked me what other issues I would be voting on! How could you even suggest that I meant that those people/children should be killed. Let's be grown ups here.
You asked:
"In your mind, what are those issues that Obama stands for that are of more importance than the abortion issue? I would be curious to know what those are in your view"
and I gave those issues.
Oh my word! You asked me what other issues I would be voting on! How could you even suggest that I meant that those people/children should be killed. Let's be grown ups here.
You asked:
"In your mind, what are those issues that Obama stands for that are of more importance than the abortion issue? I would be curious to know what those are in your view"
and I gave those issues.
oops posted twice.
also, men still have to register with selective service.
regarding the slavery issue, yes, abortion is legal (just as slavery once was) and yes, I still believe we (christians) should be fighting against it...regardless of the current administration.
Amy,
Please know that I don't believe that you actually think this, but I am just trying to demonstrate that your logic does not work out. I don't think you want to have those people killed, but why not? If we can kill them in the womb because they might have a hard life, then should we kill them after the womb if they will have a very hard life?
Those other issues you named are "life issues" but you would put them on the same plane as the holocaust of 45 million babies? I certainly can't.
I know this forum is not good for tone, but please know that I am not angry or whatever. Just want to push this conversation as far as it will go.
z
I, too, realize this is not a good forum. Maybe one day we'll talk face to face about it...hopefully. You misunderstand my point of view, but let's just drop it.
I'm not mad either, I just get fired up about this because I just can't stand the way Bush has run this country for the past 8 years.
For some reason, you added me as a "friend" on your Facebook like 2 weeks ago (I'm friends with Cara Ray), so that's why I started reading your blog. Thanks for giving me something interesting to read and think about.
Post a Comment