Recovering from Fetus Fatigue
It 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.
Posts
7 comments:
Well, yes, but a veto can and will be overridden by Congress...so here we are,
still with abortions, but with an administration bereft of (dare I say?)
goodness and integrity.
Well you can "dare say" anything but that doesn't make it true about any candidate. Both have goodness and integrity I think. I simply believe one is disastrously wrong about this issue and that error will cost thousands of babies their lives.
As for your other point, I certainly agree that 2/3rds majority will override a veto. FOCA has a majority at this point, but it does not have near 2/3rds.
Of course, even if it did gain that kind of support a President appoints supreme court judges--probably two will need to be appointed in the next 4 years...those appointments will determine the fate of Roe and the fate of any legislation that is ennacted (FOCA).
Finally, and something I did not mention in the article...Bush stopped federal funding of stem cell research and stopped federal funding of programs promoting abortion in developing countries. The next president will make decisions on these issues which will, again, result directly in the life or death of thousands of babies.
Matt
Another Republican appointment of Supreme Court Justices is frightening, but then I think one-issue voting is also. However, what I think is immaterial, especialy in comparison to your influence on how congregation members vote.
Interesting observations. Thanks.
I think I would agree with you about "One issue voting" if abortion were an "issue" in the traditional sense. But since we are speaking about the ongoing mass killing of human babies, I think other "issues" pale by comparison.
As for my "influence" over Good Shepherd, it sounds like you don't know many people here. I think...well let me rephrase that...I know, from experience, that the people I serve are quite capable of thinking for themselves and disagreeing with me.
Ah, yes, but you are appealing to their Christianity in order to change their minds and, therefore, their votes.
Hmmm...so are you suggesting that the act of voting takes place in some alternative universal void--a place where believers go but God cannot?
That is interesting, but if true, it certainly seems to call God's sovereignty into question.
I think God is God all the time and as believers we must vote in the same way that we do all things, with regard first for his Law. On this point, even those in my congregation who might disagree on the most fitting candidate, do not disagree.
I do believe that we must vote with not apart from biblical principles. So the question I address in the brief article above is, how do those principles apply to abortion during an election year?
I do hope some are persuaded not to vote in such a way that would facilitate the continuation of the mass killing of babies, but I do not imagine for a moment that many are "influenced" in the rather sinister sense in which you used the word above by an expression of their pastor's personal opinion, especially when it is labeled as such...
Hi,
My name is Tia and I am an editor at Opposing Views. I came across your site, liked what I read, and wanted to introduce us because we both write about political issues.
Opposingviews.com is a debate site where experts go head-to-head on a variety of topics. With Election Day approaching, our experts are discussing some of the most interesting and high-profile ballot initiatives from across the U.S. I encourage you to check out those of interest.
I believe you and your visitors will appreciate these debates and might want to weigh in with votes or comments. If you like our site, I would appreciate it if you blog about us or give us a link to the debates. You can create a profile page giving readers information and links to your site. Or, if it is easier, I can do this for you. In the near future we’ll add a blogosphere section to each debate so we can directly feature outside blogs like yours.
Thanks for the time and consideration. Let me know if you have any questions or recommendations for experts or debates.
Tia
www.opposingviews.com
Post a Comment