These are thoughts penned in response to those who vote based on abortion policies alone (as I once did), feeling that to cast a vote in any other direction would be participating in the death of unborn babies:
When the Nazi’s forced all the Jews to live and starve in the ghetto’s, it was BAD. But when the Nazi’s purposely killed the Jews, it was worse.
Same with abortion, in my mind (and in the minds of those who believe that the unborn baby is a human being). Anytime we’re killing eachother, it’s generally not a good sign—and for the sake of those with their heads on the chopping block who cannot speak out in defense, we need to be a voice on their behalf. I’m ALL for speaking out for the unborn babe—-passionately so. Killing is horrific and needs to be opposed, but let’s do so WITHOUT forgetting the living unwanted ones still “confined to the ghettos,” as it were.
If life is precious, then downtrodden people everywhere need us to speak up on their behalf (and to consider policy-making in light of their needs), and that this is no less working-for-Life than fighting abortion is. When we vote someone in who is “anti-abortion” but is PRO all sorts of other policies that HARM life, how are we really helping to promote Life…?
Posted by chewymom on February 1, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Oooh Molly, I’ve been posting on abortion several times recently. In fact, I linked to an EXCELLENT blog post from One Salient Oversight–I really think you would love his post. I have no clue how to put a link in your comments, so you’ll just have to click over to my bloggy and scroll down to Jan 29.
Oh yeah, I did your book meme!
Posted by chewymom on February 1, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Oh, and can I add that having a son with Down syndrome who will be 18 before too long, the issue of standing up for the downtrodden, or for those who have no voice, has become a huge issue for me that goes beyond unborn babies. I have had to really mull some long-held views over in my mind to figure out what I am comfortable with, but I am at peace with my views now, and with where they lead me politically.
Posted by Kievas Fargo on February 1, 2008 at 6:43 pm
I’d add also the life of human beings in various parts of the world (and those of our own men and women) that are destroyed by war.
Posted by Nathan Bubna on February 1, 2008 at 7:20 pm
In general, i must agree. But take care which arguments you pick. This one has me lean *toward* voting on abortion alone, since far more lives are being taken by abortion yearly than by our wasteful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What keeps me from voting on the issue of abortion alone, is the fact that no anti-abortion president has been able to stop it yet. I feel abortion is in most ways the most dire problem and worth grave consideration, but i am not willing to continue sacrificing all other issues for the slim hopes this one seems to continually have. A pro-life stance is definitely a big plus in my book for any candidate, but until i’m convinced that there’s a real shot at stopping most of these abortions it will not be the sole factor in my vote.
Posted by SB on February 2, 2008 at 4:19 am
The thing about voting on abortion stance alone is it saves one a lot of time thinking about all of the other policies that kill. And most of the pro-life candidates are also pro-war, pro-death penalty, anti-illegal immigrant, anti-environmental projection, anti-social services to the poor. If you say “don’t choose on abortion alone” you are committing yourself to learning something else about the candidates, which could be dangerous, because you will see how hypocritical their views are. From my perspective, which is probably a very different one than yours, the sticker “pro-life” in a candidate’s portfolio is often a coverup for all kinds of other nasty things–and ironic, in that it uses the image of innocents to cover up policies that are anything but innocent. JMO.
Posted by Joanna on February 2, 2008 at 5:02 am
I’ve had the same thoughts as you in this area, and have come to the view of a “consistent ethic of life” – being pro-life not only for the lives of unborn children, but “for life” and “for quality life” for the innocents in war, AIDS sufferers, the poor and marginalized, criminals, the elderly, the alien and widow and single mom and broken, hurting, and forgotten people all over the globe. I plan on voting with a consistent ethic of life, rather than on strict anti-abortion lines, where these other lives are not as talked-about. Other Christians who have heard me talk about it think its heresy. I think it’s logically consistent… I’m glad to hear someone else is thinking along the same lines.
Posted by pistolpete on February 2, 2008 at 5:21 am
I just wrote a post in which I suggest a Huckabee-Obama co-Presidency would be the best way to promote quality of life in all its forms, in all circumstances. It’s too bad partisan politics seem to prevent a candidate with a consistent pro-life ethic to emerge.
Thanks for the post.
Posted by jewlsntexas on February 2, 2008 at 7:36 am
Yes, yes, yes – if ALL life doesn’t have meaning – then NO life has meaning!
I wrote blogged something on a similar train of thought the other day if you wanted to check it out –
http://jewlsntexas.blogspot.com/2008/01/political-ramblings.html
I am so glad to have stumbled upon some great new blogs -
Posted by Atlantic on February 2, 2008 at 8:04 am
I nearly agree with Nathan. Abortion is intrinsically evil and must not be supported. But so many “pro-life” politicians seems to be pro-life in name only, it gets very discouraging.
.
However, the problem with the so-called “consistent ethic of life” or “seamless garment” view is that it elevates matters of prudential judgment to the same level as intrinsic evils. It has also provided a cover for pro-choice politicians to be able to claim falsely to be following a consistent Christian life ethic.
Posted by molleth on February 2, 2008 at 11:14 am
Good thoughts, all. I like that term, Joanna: a consistant ethic of life. Life isn’t only for the unborn, but also for those already breathing. A million different Bible passages come to mind there…
The danger, it seems, is that many think if one starts voting for life in other areas, then abortion will be forgotten.
But I think that if the underlying principle is Life and the nurturing and treasuring of it, then abortion could NEVER be forgotten. (Is the only effective way to fight abortion that of closing off our hearts to the lives of those already breathing)?
Posted by Mrs. Taft on February 3, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Go Ron Paul WOO!
I’ll never vote for a candidate that is pro-choice, period, end of story. But if a candidate is also repugnant in almost every other way, I’ll write in a different one or abstain.
Posted by MInTheGap on February 4, 2008 at 6:29 am
Hard question. I’m definitely not voting for someone who is pro-choice/pro-abortion. I mean, we’re slaughtering millions of innocents a year– and that’s different than any harm we may possibly be inflicting on adults.
Posted by chewymom on February 4, 2008 at 7:04 am
Mrs. Taft and MlnTheGap, I have always held the stand that you do…until the last few years. One thing I am wondering now is, in what way do you see voting against pro-choice candidates as affecting abortion? Do you believe that change is being made in that area? If so, why did we not see anything change when we had a Republican controlled White House and congress?
I guess I’m at the point where I have to say, I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don’t realistically think any law is going to be made that will revoke abortion rights. It seems to be an issue that is being used by the “right” in order to gain voters, but it is disingenuous, because they know they will not truly be able to do a darned thing. (Do I sound a little cynical?)
So now I wonder if people who still are staunchly voting on one issue only truly believe this is a law that will ever be changed? And if so, what do you think the consequence will be? Everyone living at peace with the law? Civil war? Immediate lawsuits to overturn the law?
I’m not trying to be snarky on Molly’s blog–I really would love to dialog about this!
Posted by molleth on February 4, 2008 at 10:55 am
Be snarky, be snarky…
.
I’m so busy right now that I have very little time to blog, but am interested in this conversation and would love to listen in.
Posted by tiffany on February 4, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I think an inaccurate assumption is being made here. Just because there are many people who will not vote for someone who is pro-choice does not make them one issue voters. Yes, that might be a deal breaker (being pro-choice) but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t looking into other issues and the candidates records and everything else.
.
I’m especially frustrated by the comments made by SB above. The implication being that if you say “yes a candidate must be pro-life in order to get my vote” some how means that you haven’t thought about anything else? Really? That is rude for starters, and inaccurate for most people to boot.
.
I am all for a consistent life ethic. I think that is a really great way of looking at it. But there is no way to claim that a candidate has a consistent life ethic if they are pro-choice. If they are campaigning with the claim that they are the more “pro-abortion rights candidate” then no matter how anti-war, pro downtrodden of the world they are, they still do not have a consistent life ethic. Wanting to end war does not negate the damage of being OK with killing the most vulnerable member of society.
.
To partly answer Chewymom’s question- do I see voting pro-life candidates as effecting change? Yes and no. First, I won’t ever vote for someone who will pass legislation that is pro-choice. Period. I think when it comes to voting you must vote with morality. It is not ok to kill babies. It isn’t a gray issue. So I think a candidate who recognizes that is more likely to recognize other moral truth as well. And although I’m not for a theocracy, our nation will do better if we are acting in ways that are in line with God’s universal truth. So, I guess in many ways I see a person’s belief on abortion as a litmus test for indicating their ability to judge right from wrong. Now, could they be lying through their teeth and just saying they are pro-life to get votes? Of course. And I’m sure many do. It is politics after all. But at some point you have to decide to go with what a candidate says their position is (backed up of course by consistent proclamation of that position and voting/veto record that supports it.)
.
So I guess really what some of it comes down to (certainly not all of it though) is that I don’t think the leader of the most powerful nation in the world should be someone who thinks killing the unborn is a right. Does that mean they are always going to have a consistent life ethic and act in a moral way? No, probably not. But I think you stand a much better chance of getting someone who realizes that we need to protect the unborn to also realize that we need to protect the downtrodden and weak who are here, than you will be able to get someone who wants to keep the planet green or end the war in Iraq that we can’t keep on killing babies.
.
I think many (most?) people have certain issues they value the most. I think it has to be that way. You can’t equate Taxes, States Rights, Environment, Abortion, and Social Security on all fronts. Are they all important? yes. But do some out way the others? Certainly. It is just that for each person something different will make their number one spot.
.
In this election for example, in the republican primaries you have many candidates who are pro-life (I’m not aware of any in the democratic primaries). But from there, there are other issues that they don’t agree on. Like I mentioned before, I have NEVER heard (although I won’t out rule that is might exist) someone say “just tell me where they stand on abortion, the rest doesn’t matter”. I have heard people say that their first issue is abortion, but that doesn’t mean their second issue isn’t War or poverty or the environment.
.
Chewymom, I think your last paragraph deserves an answer, I just don’t have time to at the moment. It is a good question though. I shall try to come back and give my two cents worth on abortion legislation, pro-life politicians, and if I see any positive change happening.
Posted by Barb on February 4, 2008 at 12:26 pm
When I look at the Republicans and Democrats platforms I see the potential for corruption in both camps. I see Repub. standing for less government and for citizens relying on their own strength and temerity. When I look at Democrats I see greater involvement of government in citizens lives – for good and bad (financial assistance for getting out of a rut, but that tends to lead to a rut of receiving assistance and little growth toward self-sufficiency). I also see on the Repub. side a platform that leans toward pro-life but doesn’t dictate a members opinion (ie. Guiliani and Schwarzennegger). But on the Democrats platform pro-choice is an essential – in order to stand with the Democrats you have to be pro-abortion or your opinion, your platform is silenced. Abortion is a moral issue – yes, but it is also a legal issue, a medical issue, and economic issue.
I don’t think it’s fair to say if one is pro-life they must also be anti-war, pro-immigration, anti-death penalty, anti-oil drilling. Abortion (for sake of convenience, or a means of birth-control, Not a necessity in saving the mother’s life) is fairly black and white. I think Chewy’s right that the abortion laws will probably not go back to being illegal but, and you’ve probably heard this before, we can make abortion abhorrent. It would hard for a Democratic candidate (whose party platform so adamantly supports all abortions, any time) to practice their politics in a way to contribute to the reduction of abortions.
Posted by Mrs. Taft on February 4, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Yeah, pretty much what Tiffany said.
If I have a consistent life ethic, then yes, sometimes it is hard to see between the two platforms. But, things like war and social justice aren’t black and white, easy answers. Sometimes war is necessary…the loss of a few lives, however tragic, prevents the loss of millions. Abortion, on the other hand, is black and white. So while I would say that I am not pro-war, I not anti-war either. I am absolutely against the slaughter of innocents anywhere at any time, from the unborn to the children of Darfur. But tyrants don’t always play nice, or listen to reason. Unfortunately there are leaders in this world who would RATHER kill their OWN people to make a point than to sign a treaty and end hostilities.
Chewymom, I actually agree with you, that in some respects a “pro-life” platform in the Republican party is a red herring. VERY hard to overturn those laws effectively, nor do some WANT to because it keeps people voting Republican. Republicans are corrupt; but so are Democrats. Politicians are corrupt in general, methinks. When I vote for someone, though, I don’t just vote based on them SAYING they are pro-life. For instance, I could not vote for Romney because his voting record is NOT consistently pro-life.
Bush may not have lived up to his campaign promises, but you have to admit he did not TOTALLY disappoint the pro-lifers. He did push some good things. Probably the best thing he did was bring some balance to the Supreme Court. So that gives me some hope (and I’m not a Bush fan btw) that not all of the “pro-life” wielders are just using it to get votes and plan to do nothing.
Now, as for your last question: I DO think it’s possible for those laws to be overturned, but I’m not sure it would be effective until people really grasp what abortion IS and is not. If it happened right now, I don’t think it would last. I think the ACLU would be all up ins.
However, I don’t vote because I think everything is going to change and be fa la la when God’s truths and principles are intimated in our laws. I vote God’s principles because that issue is on my hands. The change I have to make, the voice I have to give, is my vote. So if I vote, ignoring the black and white, in favor of the gray, how is their blood less on my hands? Even if change will never come, I’d rather fail doing the right thing than fail utterly by voting for someone who would never even give it a chance.
Jesus said He did not come to make everyone hold hands and sing love songs. He came with a sword. His principles will always be in contention with the worlds. But avoiding that conflict is the same as condoning it. And that is just not something I’m prepared to answer for when I stand in front of Jesus at the end of my life and give an accounting for my choices. Neither party has a “consistent life ethic”. So in this case, I go with the obvious, the tried and true, the voiceless. There are other ways and means to help the poor and needy than by policy, but protecting the unborn is far more difficult without it.
Posted by chewymom on February 4, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Barb, I did want to point out that being “pro-choice” is not the same as being “pro-abortion.” That is a mistake I used to make in my Rush Limbaugh listening days. Honestly, I would now describe myself as pro-choice. I hate abortion–I really do. I have a son with Down syndrome, and the issue is personal to me. I am nervous about a government that can dictate to me either way what I must do with a pregnancy. I have a friend who got into an online debate with someone working for an insurance company while she was pregnant with a child with Down syndrome. This insurance person informed her that he was doing all he could to make it illegal to knowingly bring a disabled child into the world because of the burden to society (and to insurance companies). That’s alarming. I am more comfortable with a country that says “women have to make that decision,” and a church that says, “we are here to help you, and we really want you to choose life.”
And while I’m on a mild tangent, what exactly ARE the pro-life supporters doing to help curb abortions? Are they providing information about how to prevent abortion, should a teenager choose to be sexually active (which most do–even Christian teens)? Are they adopting the unwanted of society? Are they also voting in favor of helping unwed, poor mothers financially? I know lots volunteer at crisis pregnancy centers, and that’s great. But what beyond that? What about before the pregnancy begins or after the baby is born? In my neck of the woods, there’s a whole lot of talk about being pro-life, but I can list for you ONE family I know of who does a darned thing to help women in crisis pregnancy–they do foster care.
Posted by Andrea on February 4, 2008 at 3:17 pm
“I am more comfortable with a country that says “women have to make that decision,” and a church that says, “we are here to help you, and we really want you to choose life.””
.
I second that. I would want the right to CHOOSE to carry my child to term no matter what “abnormalities” might present themselves during the course of my pregnancy, and the possession of that right is so precious to me that I am supremely grateful to live in a country that permits me the option of choosing life, even if it does mean other women may choose otherwise. Therefore I do generally term myself pro-choice, and happily clarify my stance when people ask me to.
Posted by Barb on February 4, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I really can’t answer you chewymom – what pro-lifers are doing to curb abortion – on a grand, nation-wide scale. I know what folks are doing in my town – speaking to middle-schooler/high-schoolers about abstinence, coming along side teens who do end up pregnant and helping them through with either adoption or helping them raise their child. I hesitate moving in the direction of, well if kids are going to be promiscuous and they all are anyway let’s pass out the condoms. That’s selling our teens short. It encourages the teen-sex, doesn’t curb it. Abstinence works when encouraged and taught but it seems it’s not embrace by a non pro-life community because “we’ve got to be real and most kids are having sex anyway mentality”. Call me naive but I don’t buy that. It’s a cycle of irresponsibility – “teach the kids how to have safe-sex but tell them not to but pass out the condoms anyway because we know they’re going to do it anyway.”
I see partially what you’re saying about being pro-choice in regard to the insurance matter and making it harder for women to carry babies to term who would have physical problems outside the womb, but I hesitate to link myself to a pro-choice label because of the common understanding behind the term.
There’s a fantastic organization called Feminists for Life who is on college campuses across the nation advocating for women who for years have only had planned parenthood to turn to when faced with a pregnancy.
Posted by Psalmist on February 4, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Chewymom, I agree with you about there being a vast difference between being “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion.” I know plenty of people who are personally 100% against abortion, but who stop short of presuming to claim that under no circumstances whatsoever, should any woman be permitted to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy. I happen to be one of them. In my case, knowing about the tragic case of a family whose barely 14-year-old daughter was raped had me asking myself, “What if that were my child?” I simply couldn’t certain that terminating that pregnancy would be as wrong as forcing her to give birth at 14. And whatever I decided in my hypothetical situation, was a cheap decision to make.
I’d rather be actively involved in the lives of those most at risk of getting pregnant (and those most likely to make them pregnant), in the years when their decision-making abilities are being formed. I’d rather befriend a woman who’s been settling for sex when she’s looking desperately for love. Helping people get acquainted with the God who loves them is, I think, the best insurance against the desperation and/or the casual disregard for human life that lie behind the majority of abortions.
I don’t think it’s an entirely black-and-white issue, and I think the church is doing an abyssmal job of addressing it.
Posted by Mrs. Taft on February 5, 2008 at 12:12 am
Honestly, it’s BECAUSE of pro-choice legislation that we have even the thought that we could decide for a woman whether she has the right to carry a child to term who would be a burden to society or not. We PUT that legislation out and made termination of pregnancy a socially acceptable thing. If life was valuable, socially and legally, then we wouldn’t even consider such a proposal as anything more than what it was–eugenics.
Abortion is really a form of eugenics, and some of the original pitch men of abortion–yes, they were men–wanted to control the minority populations that way. Interestingly, African American women have the highest rates of abortions.
I disagree that there is a difference in saying you are pro-choice and pro-abortion. It’s semantics, really. But the problem is, if you are FOR having the choice for something, even if you find it abhorrent, you are giving it credence. You may not believe that abortion is moral or good, but to say that you believe in choice means you don’t believe that it is always wrong for all people at all times. And thusly, it is not a principle for you. I am against pedophilia. There are people lobbying to make it legal. Those people want to have the choice to act on their urges, and take that choice away from innocent children. I am not pro-choice. I don’t feel they should be able to make that choice, because it is not only a wrong choice, it causes irreparable harm to an innocent person. Life trumps choice.
And I can say this, because I have been there. I had an unwanted, unplanned for pregnancy that should have destroyed my life and the life of my family…being a pastor’s kid and all. She’s now 6 years old, and her step-daddy and I love her very much. She saved my life.
Posted by Mrs. Taft on February 5, 2008 at 12:58 am
Doh! I can’t figure out how to edit comments or delete them. I wanted to take out the last paragraph because I don’t want to misconstrue my position. I get the “but you can’t know unless you’ve experienced the crisis” about crisis pregnancies a lot, so I kind of threw that up there without any explanation. I don’t want to use that bit of personal and sacred information as a bully pulpit though, that is not my intention. It’s a whole ‘nother topic that I didn’t really think about when I introduced it, and not the direction I was going. Oh well
Posted by chewymom on February 5, 2008 at 6:06 am
Barb, you said, “Abstinence works when encouraged and taught but it seems it’s not embrace by a non pro-life community because “we’ve got to be real and most kids are having sex anyway mentality”. Call me naive but I don’t buy that.”
My husband and I read a book by Lauren Winner called Real Sex. I highly recommend it! We have teenage boys, so obviously we have a personal concern in this matter! Anyway, Lauren cited studies that show that the abstinence education programs and “True Love Waits” actually only delay the beginning of sexual activity by about two years–from age 16 to age 18 for girls, if I’m remembering correctly. The ONE thing that seems to keep girls from becoming sexually active is involvement in sports. Not at all what we’d expect! (Sally is enrolled in every sport out there at age five. Just kidding!)
Anyway, that is a REAL study of REAL girls who come from all kinds of families, including very conservative ones who teach abstinence. Which, by the way, is what we teach our children. However, we have added, “If you make the decision to go against our values and beliefs in this, you need to protect yourself.” We are not condoning promiscuity, we are not encouraging pre-maritial sex, but we are aware of the kind of society we live in. We are also aware that teaching abstinence is not a guarantee that in the heat of the moment, our kids will make the choice we want them to, in spite of their very valid professions of faith.
Mrs. Taft, I still disagree with you. Not even sure I understand what you’re saying. I am in no way pro-abortion. It is attitudes like the one you espouse–saying if I say I’m pro-choice, I am automatically pro-abortion–that break down dialogue. It is inflammatory, and it is putting words in my mouth and assigning intent and meaning to what I believe–something only I have the right to do. It would be like me saying that because you are anti-abortion, you are anti-women’s rights, lumping ALL women’s rights in there. I don’t believe that you are, but it would be a similar kind of argument.
Posted by Barb on February 5, 2008 at 7:47 am
I’ll admit – I am naive. I want to bury my head in the sand and ignore those stats, chewymom. I want life to return to the days when I was a kid and teen sex was an oddity rather than expected and because of that protection is handed out indiscriminately thinking they’re going to do it anyway. What has changed? Certainly authority in teens lives are expecting the teens to engage in sex, is that the green light they need? And I’m not pointing a finger at you, personally (even though it may sound like it I’m really pointing at myself, warning myself, talking to myself). I have two teens and two coming up to teen age. I know, I know my kids are vulnerable. Why wasn’t I? That’s what I keep asking myself. What was it about my generation that said, that knew sex was for marriage and all my friends believed and lived the same way? Abortion has given teen sex the okay, so has available birth control, so has movies, music, tv….
Regardless, that’s not what Molly’s original post was all about. Would I consider a candidate who was not pro-life? No. I would not. But I would also consider the candidate’s track record on encouraging quality of life outside the womb – and how that is encouraged is the sticky question.
Posted by chewydad on February 5, 2008 at 8:38 am
Molly. Love your blog. Sorry for the long comment.
Here’s my .02.
IMO, those of you who always vote pro life but say you are not single issue voters are just illogical. (As I was for so long).
Imagine this person as a hypothetical voter:
Really is concerned about the kind of country our kids will grow up in.
1) Against the war
2) Against the death penalty
3) Believes in potential worldwide catastrophe because of global warming
4) Is concerned about rising power of the corporate and business interests against the needs, rights and freedoms of individuals.
5) Thinks that we have a healthcare crisis in this country.
6) Is against drilling for oil in the National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
7) Is concerned that our country is so fractured and divided that it may implode.
9) Believes abortion should be banned (or at least restricted).
If this hypothetical voter’s position is “Number 9 takes first priority over all others and I will only vote for a candidate that agrees with that position” then they are a single issue voter. The fact that their filter of candidate choice initially restricts by that criterion does in fact make them a single issue voter.
Now this hypothetical voter is, in fact, not hypothetical at all. Its me.
But I also don’t buy the formula anymore thats says
christian = prolifeONLY = republican (or at least NonDemocratic)
I have voted that way MY ENTIRE LIFE and I am not going to do it anymore. There are five main factors that have caused me to reject that formula.
1) IMO, The pro-life movement as a political movement has largely failed to bring about any serious change (in both policy and in the hearts and minds of women)
2) Since the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement is that women would not get abortions, I have decided that a more effective and direct path to get there would be to work on policies and strategies to prevent unplanned pregnancies and to reach the HEARTS of women. Some examples of this would include: Keep supporting crisis Pregnancy Centers. Lets teach abstinence, sex education and the use of birth control anywhere and everywhere we can get that message out. (The typical conservative support of “abstinance only” sex eductaion is not based in reality, wrong-headed and is NOT pro-life) We should encourage the pro-life movement to create cultural and artistic works and events to promote a love for life and the unborn. I think in a non-judgemental, non-threatening and thoughtful way, Hollywood has done more this year with movies like Juno than anything the pro-life movement could’ve done. Lets do more of that.
3) Many other issues of concern to me support my pro-life worldview. Death Penalty, environment, genocide and of course the war.
4) Although I think abortion is a weighty and non-trivial issue, the overall weight of ALL THE OTHER ISSUES has, for the first time in my life, pushed me to decide in favor of a pro-choice candidate.
5) The ultimate issue for me though is this, I believe in pluralism. I think it is a good and beautiful thing. I think one of the great things about pluralism in America is that it can create an environment for the gospel to flourish. But thats not happening right now. We have grown into a nation that is divided by politics and the culture wars. We have becomes so fractured into us and them that we cannot have a conversation with our pro-choice neighbors. A real-life example is our neighbors that have bumper stickers that say, “F” the President, and “My Box, My Choice”. Only a few years ago we wouldve avoided those hippie-liberal neighbors because we were on different sides of the culture wars. Instead, they have become very close friends and I am delighted by this. Even more, We have built up relationships where we can talk to them about the gospel and issues of faith and spirituality. I Think the Hound of Heaven is after them. We need to have a country where we can truly love people with whom we disagree and in whom we can develop deep relationships. I think the current political and cultural climate (fueled in large part by the abortion debate) is making this nearly impossible. The irony in all this is that our only REAL hope is that the gospel will go forth, and change the HEARTS and MINDS of women everywhere that they would have no desire for abortion. I feel comfortable voting for a non-prolife candidate because God is in control and I don’t put hope anymore in presidents, judges or legislators to end abortion in our country. I am only putting hope in The Prince of Peace and the gospel He brings. Since that is out of the way, I am voting for the best man, unfiltered by their position on abortion.
All that is to say, I am going to vote pro-hope, pro-unity, pro-gospel, pro-love, pro-peace.
I am going to vote for Barack Obama.
Posted by Psalmist on February 5, 2008 at 8:42 am
And I strongly disagree with you, Mrs. Taft, in your dismissal of the very real difference between “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion.” I’m sure that must make it a lot easier for you, though, to paint all people who disagree with you about “semantics” as being “pro-abortion.” It’s got to be easier that way to judge them as evil for not agreeing with you that any abortion for any reason is 100% wrong 100% of the time. I simply think it’s a shame to so thoroughly misunderstand so many people.
.
Would you really force a child impregnated by her rapist to carry the baby to term…that is, if her body could even sustain the pregnancy? As it turned out, a miscarriage at just over six months settled the question and left her infertile for the rest of her life, to say nothing of nearly dying herself in the process. Pro-life? Hardly. That’s the problem with “semantics,” isn’t it? The “all encompassing” terms don’t encompass everything.
Posted by molleth on February 5, 2008 at 10:48 am
Maybe I should be too busy to blog more often—-this conversation is GREAT.
Posted by Catherine on February 5, 2008 at 11:36 am
I think the goal, on both sides of the partisan divide, should be to reduce the number of abortions to zero. I do not believe this goal can be attained through sheer force of law. I believe that the traditional political pro-life agenda, in its singleminded focuse on making abortion illegal under every circumstance, is undermining what should be the larger goal – to create a culture that respects and upholds life, not because law or authority says it must be so, but because we as citizens believe that it ought to be so. Changing the laws without changing the hearts and minds of people is an experiment that I believe is designed to fail. We have to change the hearts and minds of men as well as women – until men are willing to accept full responsibility for their actions – to marry their pregnant girlfriends or at least become supportive, loving fathers to any children they have created – we will always have women who feel that they must have an abortion.
Another commenter stated that we rightly have anti-pedophilia laws, despite the fact that some people claim pedophilia should be their choice. I think that a more apt analogy to abortion should be our lack of “good samaritan” laws. It is the morally right thing to do to sacrifice your life to save another person – but we do not require this under the law. We recognize that the sacrifice is meaningful only when it is freely chosen. It is abhorrent when one person refuses to even throw a life preserver overboard – just as it is abhorrent when married couples with no financial difficulties decide to kill their unborn children for the sake of convenience. But I am not prepared to say it should be illegal – or a punishable offense – to refuse to actually die in order to save someone else – just as I am not prepared to say that a woman should go to prison because she refused to carry a baby to term, at the grave risk of her own physical health. Sometimes (more often than we might think)it’s not about life versus choice, but about choosing life versus life. I hope and pray that if I am ever in a crisis pregnancy situation, I will choose my baby’s life over my own. But truthfully, the letter of the law would not be the deciding factor in my case. Hopefully, the assurance of new life in Christ would instead be the deciding factor.
Regarding birth control – I have a hard time seeing the number of abortions being reduced without the wider dissemination of accurate information about birth control. I think it is one thing for married couples to forego birth control as a way of being open to life. But I think it is entirely another – a very wrong thing – to withhold information about birth control from teenagers and young adults. People are getting married later and later – it would be great if every thirty year old walking down the aisle for the first time had abstained until marriage – but that must be quite hard to do, even for Christians – and if teenagers and young adults fall in to s*xual sin, they should at least have the means of protecting themselves from pregnancy and disease. I do not believe that pregnancy and disease should be punishment, or just desserts for s*xual activity – especially when they are easily preventable in a majority of circumstances. I think teens and young adults *are* smart enough to know that getting information about birth control does not mean they should go out and have s*x, either indiscriminately, or at all – but that birth control is a protection of last resort – the first, of course, being their faith, and their respect for one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.
Posted by Mrs. Taft on February 5, 2008 at 12:06 pm
First of all, let me apologize if I caused anyone to feel personally attacked. I did not call anyone out, and my “yous” were generalities that I perhaps did not delineate clearly enough. I was not trying to put words in anyone’s mouth.
I was simply stating my opinion that saying you are not pro-abortion but you ARE pro-choice doesn’t make sense. Not in the way that the term “pro-choice” is used, and not in the sense of principle. It is not something I “pat myself on the back” for giving me a chance to “view others as evil” or whatever Psalmist accused me of. It just doesn’t make logical sense.
Either I rattled some intellectual cages or I simply didn’t convey my point well at all (which is a distinct possibility as I am not that eloquent). Allow me to attempt it a second time:
Let’s say you don’t believe in the death penalty. In fact, you believe that it is abhorrent. You would never, personally, sentence someone to death. Of course, since you don’t really have that power or jurisdiction and are not in that situation, it doesn’t really relate to you. But it doesn’t matter, because you believe that the life of an inmate is still a life, no matter how twisted, no matter how gruesome the crime. You believe they should not be put to death because you see that they should be protected under our constitutional right to life, and you see the real issue is preventing people from these crimes in the first place, or better reform programs. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
However, despite your personal abhorrence of the death penalty, you also believe that you are for the ability and rights of others to make that decision for the inmates. You believe that people should have a choice whether to enforce the death penalty or not. Of course, you find it to be terrible and evil, but well, people should be able to take the choice away from the inmates and decide whether they should live or die. You want the choice to abstain from taking lives, so you believe in the power of choice.
My question is, how does that make sense? Because the problem is, either an inmate’s life is worth protecting or it isn’t. Life is not subjective. Life is real. Would it really matter how terrible the crime? If an inmate just was not able to be reformed no matter what was tried, and inflicted unspeakable horror on all kinds of people, would that make it more ok for him to be put to death for his crimes? Or is a life a life regardless of the circumstances surrounding the life?
Therefore, I absolutely understand and agree that you can be pro-life and for people’s right to make choices in their lives. I support personal responsibility, and I don’t want the government to take away MY choices and my ability to make choices. However, for me at least, there is a line. I want to be able to choose how I raise my children, and I want other people to have that freedom. But I don’t want children to be abused. I support the government in protecting helpless, innocent children from crimes against them. No matter how much I want my dad’s car, I’m glad that the government has limited my choice to steal it. Because my rights, in that instance, bump up against someone else’s.
So the abortion issue isn’t about choice. It’s about life. It’s about the question, when does my right to dictate what happens to my life subsume a child’s right to dictate what happens in THEIR life? We can pat ourselves on the back
and tell ourselves that choice is a nice, easy, comfortable word. Choice is a good thing, just like women’s rights are a good thing.
My point was saying you are pro-life but for the ability to choose is a slippery semantic slope. Life is real or it isn’t. Unborns are human beings and have a right to life or they don’t. Humanity by its very nature is not subjective. If you believe that the unborn are human beings and have a right to life, then how does it fit to support other people’s choice to end that life? In fact, how does it fit with the “consistent life ethic” that you personally are for life, but would support people financially, legally and politically who are not? Actually, I guess in a sense you could say that *I* am pro-choice, as well. I am pro giving the unborn a chance to live and grow and make the choice about their own life, just as I have that right and that choice.
Meh, I don’t think that’s much clearer. But it’s kind of pointless, I guess, as I’ve already been “pegged”. Don’t worry though, because I won’t be back to bother ya’ll. I have rarely been so unfairly and inaccurately judged (oh, the irony). It’s ok, because you don’t know the circumstances of MY unwanted pregnancy. You don’t know the roads I’ve walked down. You don’t know ME. But, I admit I expected a little bit better. It astonishes me that people who purport to be full of grace and understanding would treat me so harshly when all I did was express what I see as a logical fallacy–my opinion, no less, on a subject, not a person. I did not personally attack anyone, yet I was called judgmental and hateful. I did not put words in anyone’s mouth, but a whole lot of unkind and inaccurate things were put in MY mouth and many ridiculous assumptions as well. I really don’t need that kind of hypocrisy in my life right now
God bless you all in your journeys!
Posted by molleth on February 5, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Yo, peoples. Play nice!
I agree, Mrs. Taft, that you were a bit harshly treated. I see how folks could *think* you were saying one thing, yes, but I appreciate the clarification you give and hopefully that will help clear things up. Please don’t feel like you can’t come back. Your opinion brings good flavor to the mix, and it would be sorely missed.
Posted by Psalmist on February 5, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Mrs. Taft, you don’t get to tell people who disagree with you on this issue that it’s “not a principle” for us. It most assuredly is. I take back my saying that it appears easy for you to label us who are pro-choice (which is NOT “anti-abortion”) as “evil.” You only equated, several times, “pro-choice” with “pro-abortion” despite people showing you there’s a big difference. You said that abortion is black-and-white. You attributed the “slaughter of millions” to pro-choice people. But you’re correct; that is not precisely calling us “evil.”
.
I notice that you had nothing to say about the anti-life tragedy of the 14-year-old forced (by her own parents, in the name of being religiously “pro-life,” btw) to carry her rapist’s baby until she miscarried, at the cost of her future fertility and nearly her own death. It is tragic cases like that that tell me as clearly as clear can be, that neither abortion nor “pro-life” and “pro-choice” is as “black-and-white” as you’ve portrayed those positions.
.
I concur with those who say that our job as Christians is to so spread the Kingdom of God that abortion rates drop to zero. That cannot be legislated. And there will always be those relatively rare circumstances in which a mother cannot both carry her baby to viability term AND stay alive herself. The day the state mandates that she must die in order to be an incubator for her baby — in the absence of a clear directive from her that this is her wish — is the day that the state is solidly anti-life. Is that REALLY what we want? Strike that; I’m part of that “we,” and it’s certainly not what *I* want. I want the baby and the mother, always, to live, fully and abundantly, both pre- and post-birth. But what I want isn’t what happens in real life, at least not all the time, for everybody.
.
I’m sorry if there’s been hurt for you, but it works both ways. When you label all who are pro-life as “pro-abortion,” despite our showing why that’s neither true nor fair, and then attribute millions of deaths to “pro-abortion” people, you can surely see how hurtful that mischaracterization is, even if you don’t call any one person out for your targeting.
Posted by Psalmist on February 5, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Excuse me: The second sentence of the last paragraph should begin with “When you label all who are pro-choice as “pro-abortion”…
Posted by Catherine on February 5, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Mrs. Taft,
I sincerely meant no offense with my earlier comment. This is such a difficult issue, and I go back and forth on it often, trying to remember at all times the value of the lives at stake.
*
I think that abortion really is an issue that is so unique (in a bad way). We can keep death row inmates alive, without needing to use the bodily resources of other people to do so. But premature babies cannot live without the shelter and food provided by their mothers. I think that Christians should earnestly work to help women see that dependence as something beautiful, something to be protected. I am in awe at women faced with crisis pregnancies who choose life, sometimes at great personal cost. But I also think that we cannot *force* a woman to give up her body – to give of her own life – for the sake of another – just as we cannot mandate that each person give up a kidney for someone who needs a transplant, even though people in need of transplants have just as much of a right to life as the rest of us.
*
I consider myself pro-the-choice-of-life and under 99% of circumstances, against abortion. I definitely recognize that I may be completely wrong on this issue, and absolutely want to learn from people who disagree with my viewpoints.
Posted by Crystal on February 6, 2008 at 9:08 am
I didn’t get a chance to read through all the comments (Sheesh!!!) BUT I wanted to say that RON PAUL is pro-life and the ONLY canidate who truly wants to get out of this war! The other two won’t pull out until 2013!
Posted by Jenn Turner on February 8, 2008 at 12:44 am
Something to consider for this election – most abortion laws go through the Supreme Court which is pretty conservative right now because of Bush. I’m pretty sure they are not expecting to put any new Supreme Court nominees in over the next four years (if it wasn’t so late I would check my facts, but I think that is accurate.) Because they have the most influence on abortion, and there is not any changes anticipated – and I believe the oldest members are liberal so if there were changes it would not change the conservative nature of the court- we can be freed up to let the abortion issue take more of a back seat to the other issues for this election.
Someone who has some free time on their hands can check my facts and make sure they are accurate – but I wanted to throw that out there as food for thought.
Posted by Kenny on February 13, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I think one thing gets lost in all of this: those of us who are pro-life feel that abortion is murder. The very fact that it gets classified as a “political issue” like tax cuts or school vouchers typifies the denegration of our culture.
Should we argue whether racism is right or wrong? Could someone imagine a “pro-pollution” candidate? Would anyone’s platform ever support child abuse?
This is why pro-life people are so passionate about their beliefs: because we believe it is a legal and acceptable crime against the innocent, in a direct way that global warming, the death penalty, and even war aren’t comparable to.
Posted by molleth on February 13, 2008 at 6:54 pm
But that’s the whole point. If Global Warming is true, and we’re not doing anythign about it, do you realize how many poor men, women, and children are going to be MURDERED by our inaction when the sea level rises? Oh sure, it’s not going to kill the folks in Idaho, but that’s just the point: our view is so narrow, that we forget about Bangladesh, etc…
.
I believe that abortion is killing human life. That is generally NOT a good idea. However, some of these other “political issues” are ALSO up to their eyeballs in sacrificing human life.
.
All I am saying is that in the name of life, we ought not to forget the other innocents that are sacrificed on the altar of policy making.
Posted by Kenny on February 14, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Molly, I agree with you generally, but Global Warming is a bad example since (1) there’s almost no way to effectively legislate it, and (2) the evidence demonstrates that the human influence on GW is negligible. And don’t get me wrong — I believe in conservation and protecting the environment. But that has to start at a grass-roots level: individuals like you and me conserving energy and reducing waste.
You said “…when the sea level rises…” but you acknowledge that GW may not be “true.” So you’re comparing something that you know to be killing life, with something that might kill in the future. Should we make decisions about something definite on the basis of something so indefinite?
(btw, my wife loves your blog, and pointed me to this post after a couple “discussions.” Thanks for the responsible way you address these topics. I’ll keep reading.)
Posted by molleth on February 14, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Kenny,
Glad you are commenting.
Abortion was where we were pro-life, but we didn’t mind big business making buku bucks off of cheap (aka, slave) labor in 3rd world countries. We even told ourselves it made the poor folks “over there” better off (when in reality, it merely changes the face of their suffering, that’s all).
Nice to have you here.
.
I agree, btw, and in NO WAY at all desire to promote abortion. I guess what I’m complaining about is the blindness of the ultra-conservative Republican base from which I cameth.
.
That’s really all I’m trying to say here. I’m very very very much opposed to legislation that makes abortion equal to birth control. (Obviously I realize that there are times for abortion: a pregnancy in a fallopian tube, for example: either you take the baby out, or mom and baby both die—so I’m not arguing for abortion being illegal, either).
.
I am not sure I can ever vote for anyone who is pro-abortion. But I’m also highly unsure I’ll ever vote “Conservative” again.
.
Btw, no matter what we do on a grass roots level, Global Warming (if it’s legit, and it appears to be) can’t be stopped by the “little people,” not even if we were all to start riding bikes everywhere instead of using cars. We put out so little when compared to what major industry does…I think it’s 1% or less, if I remember the figures accurately. The changes need to be in the business sector in order to change GW…and we all know that isn’t likely to happen, at least not in time (money, money, money makes the world go round, no?)…
Posted by Kenny on February 15, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Sounds like we agree more than we disagree. I’m not sure the blindness is exclusive to the ultra-conservative Republicans — an (R) beside your name doesn’t automatically make you more greedy and less compassionate than a (D). And I don’t think you’re saying that, but somehow that’s the impression many people have.
.
I don’t think there’s any question that the G is W-ing. I think what’s in question is our entire civilization’s effect on it. If we shut down every carbon-spewing factory in the world, I think we’d still have Global Warming with little or no difference. But like you said, changes in the big industries aren’t likely anyway. What I was referring to is making the changes that you and I can make — reducing waste (where does all of our garbage go anyway?), recycling, greener growing practices, conserving fuel and energy, etc. Those changes on a national/worldwide scale would go a long way in protecting and preserving our environment.