Recovering from Fetus FatigueIt appears that millions of evangelicals, especially younger ones, are experiencing fetus fatigue. They are tired of the abortion issue taking center stage; it is time to move on to newer, hipper things--the sort of issues that excite Bono: aid to Africa, the environment, and cool tattoos. Abortion has been legal since they were born; it is the old guard that gets exercised about millions of abortions over the years. So, let's not worry that Barak Obama and Hillary are pro-choice. That is a secondary issue. After all, neither could do that much damage regarding this issue.
Evangelicals (if that word has any meaning), for God's sake, please wake up and remember the acres of tiny corpses you cannot see. Yes, the Christian social vision is holistic. We should endeavor to restore shalom to this beleaguered planet. That includes helping Africa, preserving the environment, and much more. However, the leading domestic moral issue remains the value of helpless human life. Since Roe v. Wade, approximately 50 million unborn humans have been killed through abortion. Stalin said, "One death is a tragedy. A million dead is a statistic." Too many are now Stalinists on abortion. The numbers mean nothing, apparently. The vast majority of these abortions were not done to save the life of the mother, a provision I take to be justified. Things have reached the point where bumper stickers say, "Don't like abortion, don't have one." It is simply a matter of private, subjective taste. But how about this: "Don't like slavery, don't own slaves"? Two human beings are involved in this matter, inescapably...read the whole thing
There are some pro-life Christians who argue that voting pro-life is not important because the president is incapable of effecting change with regard to this issue; that there must be a moral revolution not a legal solution.
But lets put some wheels on that idea and see if it rolls.
Let's apply this thinking to a comparable piece of legislated morality. The law against murder does not, obviously, keep people from murdering. Indeed, preventing murder would require a moral reformation beyond the reach of any legislation. At the same time, the absence of laws against murder would make murder far easier and would reduce our culture to barbarism. Everyone recognizes this.
No one would seriously suggest supporting a candidate who wanted to remove laws against murder from the books. No one would say “we need a moral revolution” not a “legal solution” to the problem of murder. Rational people recognise that both are necessary.
Abortion is quite the same. Yes, stopping abortion will require a corporate moral reformation that no law can effect. At the same time, the state must protect her citizens using appropriate legislation. Overturning of Roe (a possibility with just one or two more Supreme Court appointments) would result in at least some states enacting laws against abortion. Thousands of babies would be preserved from the slaughter. So the question is not an “either/or” one. Both can be done and must be.
As for this present election, there is far more at stake than overturning Roe. The Freedom of Choice Act, currently working its way through Congress would remove any restrictions on abortion for any cause whatsoever. States would be unable to enact any law that forbidding abortion for any reason. The passage of that bill would lead directly to thousands more babies being killed in states that currently place restrictions on the murderous practice. The votes are there in Congress. The only thing that can stop it from becoming law at this point is a pro-life president committed to vetoing FOCA. One presidential candidate has made that vow and the other has sworn to sign FOCA into law as soon as it comes to his desk.
So I do not think it possible to rationalize support for a pro-abortionist candidate by suggesting that the wholesale slaughter of babies cannot be limited by legal means or stemmed. It very well can.
But hey, that's just my opinion.