Charles Lee

Is it possible for a christian to vote democratic without being condemned and labeled as “pro-abortion”? I can’t get 10 words into a political discussion without christians saying that they could never vote for someone with the moral compass and capacity to abort babies. I agree, i don’t want that either but are a few issues all the our vote is based on? as a christian is it more religious to vote against abortions than against world starvation, poverty, or capitol punishment?
I am undecided on who to vote for but I am having a hard time finding out where these two men stand on issues. Partially because both spend so much time degrading each other. If the candidates want to paint a picture of how terrible they are they have succeeded. Hoplessness has settled in and I am still left wondering:

-Is McCain going to be trigger happy when it comes to Iran and other threats?
-Is Obama experienced enough to face international affairs with sound judgement?
-Who will these men select for supreme court positions?
-What will both of them do to reduce the rate of abortion in america and teen pregnancy?
-What about poverty? what plans of action do each men promise?
-National debt?
-Policing the world?
-OIL!
-jobs moving over sees
-taxes or tax breaks?

quite frankly the more I have been looking into it the more overwhelmed I am. does anyone have any good resources that actually show where these men stand on issues? or is it he said-she said from the media we will get our facts from?

frustrated

sorry messed up on the links:

Election 2008 Issues

Mccain
Obama

TJ,

I really like what you said. I think Brian Mclaren said that one day of voting cannot make up for 364 other days of bad voting. Meaning each day we wake up and by our decisions we vote. I to want to see that church function in this way. I hope we can open up the bible and see what truths we should be living out. Not just voting for issues we think are right but living them to. this includes all our talk on social justice, poverty, war, etc.

“This is real and not fo play. I’ma vote Obama way. We hood, we vot’n, we throw’n it up!”
- Ti$a

I’m voting for Obama because he wants to tax the rich more than the poor and middle class. He admits that our tax money is needed in order to run a good society. It’s needed to pay for things that we need like schools and police. These things don’t just pop up out of nowhere.

He wants to give us more affordable health. (I don’t have insurance!)

He wants to raise minimum wage. In other words he is for a living wage! I think anyone should be able to make a living and support their kids if they are working. Labor jobs are just as important to society as lawyers and doctors are!

He won’t except money from federal lobbyists.

He’s always been against the war in Iraq and still is. He wants to help the U.S. get out of there.

He wants to keep peace with other nations by meeting face to face with important leaders from other countries. He wants to take a more diplomatic approach to foreign policy.

He’s running with Joe Biden who has a lot of International relations experience under his belt.

He wants to end the U.S. government’s use of torture.

It’s in his agenda to combat poverty and social injustice–especially in Latin America and Africa.

He wants to help the people in Latin America stand up for democracy.

On immigration, he not only wants to secure borders but also takes a positive approach to illegal immigration. He thinks that more should be done to help the economic situation in Mexico. He wants to help undocumented immigrants come out of the shadows to get their citizenship.

On energy: He wants to cut green house gas emissions by 80% by 2050 by using the cap-and-trade program (which I have read good things about from environmental organizations). He wants to mandate that all new vehicles are Flexible fuel vehicles.He wants to create green-collar jobs.There’s tons of other stuff he wants to do to about energy, but it’s too much to say here.

All of this and more and be read on Barackobama.com under “issues”.

Thanks for inviting me to conversation, TJ ^_^ It’s easy to be respectful towards you because of your civil presentation of disagreement.

Unfortunately after typing my reply to you, I lost what I wrote. I’ll try again, but I’m sure I’ll be more frank. Please don’t misinterpret as impoliteness.

It will be useful, though revealing, to tell you where I stand on the issue of abortion: I’m pro-choice. At one time I was vehemently pro-life, and considered it an issue worth fighting to the death for. My views have only changed recently; within the last five years or so. Though revealing my position may affect the way you read my response, it does nobody a favor if I don’t strive for exact honesty.

I’m going to address your comment in two parts, and out of order. You said, very bad things happen… this world so full of sin that we live in, God can use circumstances grave as these… and use it for his Glory. Agreed. Then it is also true that God can take the case of an aborted baby and use it for his glory. God’s tendencies certainly elicit response from us: follow his example to bring redemption any way we can to circumstances, for example. However, I understand you to mean that we should let bad things happen since God can turn it around and use it for good. I disagree. This is akin to what Paul said, “Should we sin so that grace can abound? No!” Since we’re God’s partners in spreading his kingdom, we should prayerfully consider how to minimize “the bad things” that happen in this world.

One of the ways we can do so is to address roots and causes of the abortion issue instead of merely the symptom of the abortion itself. Obama seems to have an understanding of this concept. He’s spoken about addressing deeper problems than the abortions themselves, but the issues that cause unintended pregnancies. This concept of addressing roots rather than symptoms carries over to myriads of systems in life, and I believe wholeheartedly in it, which has affected my views over the years.

To sum up my first response to you, I believe God calls for a more involved response to problems than waiting for him to do something.

Next. You said, “how possible is it for a person who has a steadfast relationship with Jesus be able to support abortion.” I infer that you assume pro-choicers have less regard for human life than pro-lifers. I’ll admit, that hurts a little (don’t take it personally, I think it’s a common opinion). Okay, following Jesus does not magically give us love for other human beings. I know non-Christians who trump my capacity for love and compassion. Likewise there are pro-lifers who take the position because they seek to preserve their own righteousness, not because they care about human life.

What if, for a moment, you could consider me as compassionate and as justice-seeking and life-loving as you. Then you would see that we really have the same end in mind: a real solution to a real problem. Then it would make you wonder why I disagree with your methods, right?

Here are some of my problems with your pro-life opinions:

- You want to show mercy to the baby by not killing it. But it is a hard case to claim that is the path of mercy. The unaborted person will do worse in school, in the job market, is 50% more likely to live in poverty, 60% more likely to grow up with only one parent, and is much more likely to resort to crime because of life’s hardships. And, he won’t have a choice in the matter. No one gave him the option of going to heaven straight from his mother’s womb. I’m not saying abortions are more merciful, but it’s a difficult issue. In fact, please read this struggle of one of the most compassionate and sincere people I know.

- Biblically, “Thou shalt not kill” seems to be what pro-lifers go off of. In your first comment, you said you desired a “strong military” for our country. It will be difficult for you to reconcile pro-life and pro-war.

- The early 90s, the crime rate in the United States started to fall dramatically (including murders) because of a direct result of Roe vs. Wade in 1973 (because those who had the greatest propensity to be criminals didn’t exist anymore). The act of preserving babies from undesired pregnancies causes strife for others in the future. My problem is that the pro-life position seems to turn a blind eye to unintended consequences, and is less prepared to come up with a comprehensive solution to the problem.

Lastly, please don’t confuse the phrases “pro-choice” and “support abortion”. Just because I think a woman deserves a choice in the matter doesn’t mean I recommend an abortion for her.

Whew. Longer than I thought. I invite another response from you, although for your knowledge, it will be easier for me to read a long response if you use paragraph breaks.

Kind regards,
Josh

Wow, Caleb, I love how you choose a higher alternative route instead of choosing sides.

Nevermind. I’m not pro-choice. I’m what Caleb is.

I for one am fed up with all the lies and mud slinging that goes on in todays campaigns for president. It has reached the point where I no longer want to vote. But I do it because it is a hard earned freedom. I really feel that the trail to the White House runs on far too long. And the amount of money spent on campaigns could go for a better use.
What about all of our jobs being sent overseas. When was the last time you went shopping and bought something that said made in America? We have thousands upon thousands of people right here in the United States that need work. People that once took pride in their job are now unemployed,their jobs have been sent to China or some other foreign country. Why?It’s all in the name of “GREED”. Bring the jobs back to this country and get the United States back to what it once stood for. Pride in it’s self. Freedom for the working person to get a job and feed his family and put a roof over their heads.
Abortion!Why? Thousands of babies are killed daily.Yes I know.I have heard all the arguements about it. Pro-Choice – Pro-Life. I want to know why a woman gets pregnant (unless raped) in this day and time. Every heard of birth control pills. Whats that? You can’t afford them. Sorry honey,but that excuse does not hold up.Go to you local Health Department. You can get them almost FREE. And what about the woman that just keep popping out babies so they can get more welfare money? Are they really considered Pre-Life or just someone too lazy to take a pill . Or maybe they just want all that free money for their drugs,cigarettes,liqueur. How many of them have you seen going around in jeans that cost seventy or eighty dollars a pair while their kids go around in rags!
I know,I have gone on long enough. But This was once a country that was looked up to.We were a country that took pride in it self. Now we are a country that can not even hold it’s head up. We need a goverment that really cares about the people and about the United States. We need a goverment that will put the United States back on it’s feet.
Who am I voting for? I really don’t know. I have heard both parties talk on”SOME” issues. But I have not heard any true answers to the problems we are facing today.
I have heard Obama say he is proud of his Muslim faith. I have heard McCain say he is proud to be an American. But the one thing that I have not heard is the truth about what they want to do for this country. I think it is time for the American people to wake up and face reality. WHAT DO YOU REALLY WANT IN A PRESIDENT?

Josh,

I wanted to respond to a few of the issues you introduced in the process of developing your response to TJ. I appreciate your concern for the people involved in actual cases where abortion is an option. I doubt neither your compassion for others nor your desire to find the most merciful solution to the issue at hand. But I think there are a few things you ought to consider.

First, it seems that you are criticizing those who are “pro-life” by suggesting they are not concerned with addressing the roots or causes of the abortion issue. In an earlier post, you mentioned that Obama intends to address these roots (in contrast to McCain).

Aside from what individuals like Obama or McCain share with the media regarding roots/causes, my question is what makes a person who supports abortion more apt or able to address the roots? To be fair, you didn’t actually mention what these “roots” are or even how one might go about addressing them. I would argue that if there are roots/causes of the practice of abortion, they could be addressed without conceding a woman’s “right” to abort an unborn child.

Second – Biblically, it is not difficult to argue that human “rights” are very limited. The bigger picture is that all things belong to Yhwh (yes, even our own bodies) and that the creation account in Genesis grants the man and woman stewardship over creation. The moment we talk about any kind of human action that harms another human being (a person made in the image of God), we go beyond the realm of “stewardship” to that of sin. Certainly this does not include abortion alone, but abortion is a very blatant act to destroy human life.

For obvious reasons, this biblical argument does not hold when discussing the issue with those who are not Christian. But this is why your response to TJ puzzled me. I would assume that you, as a believer, would see the problem with destroying an unborn child (made in the image of God). But you did not make the argument that a fetus in not a person. I have trouble understanding how you can support abortion if indeed you recognize the imago dei.

Thirdly, you provided a few statistics that I won’t cite here regarding the likelihood that the “unaborted child” would live a problematic life (i.e. one of crime, poverty, single-parent families, etc.). It seems that you are trying to demonstrate that allowing a child who would have otherwise been aborted to live is not necessarily the best or most merciful thing to do. My question for you is whether these statistics justify abortion.

If a child is more likely to live a life of poverty, does that justify ending the child’s life before his or her birth? Are you suggesting a life of poverty is not worth living? Is life with only one parent not worthy living? If that is the case, we should just abort any child that is going to be placed in an orphanage.

I know I’m being facetious, but I wonder if you have considered the implications of your argument. God doesn’t grant us the right to destroy human life for any reason (except for capital punishment, which is highly debatable). Now, people die all the time because of accident, sickness, and even poverty. But are we qualified to decide that certain kinds of suffering negate life altogether? God, knowing that people will suffer, grants life. Perhaps there is something inherently good about living that outweighs the suffering we experience on earth.

Furthermore, statistics do not govern the life of an individual human being (especially statistics that barely indicate a majority). The unaborted child will have his or her own decisions to make, and these will largely affect his or her life.

Granted, the child may be unable to escape an impoverished life. But again, God has a plan for the poor. As the church we get to demonstrate what the kingdom of God is like by welcoming, loving, and providing for the poor and marginalized. This does not mean destroying them before their birth. Your statement, “no one gave him the option of going to heaven straight from his mother’s womb” is deceptive. God doesn’t give us the option of “going straight to heaven” in any case. Again, our lives and our bodies are not our own. Biblically, we really don’t get to make that decision for ourselves or for anyone else.

One random last note…from a medical standpoint, I find it interesting that even the Hippocratic Oath (4th Century B.C.E.) rejects abortion (“destructive pessary”).

J.R., forgive me for taking a week to reply to you. I hope you’re still around to continue the conversation, even after my tardiness.

I’m going to address your points in succession, by quoting the topic of your points in bold.

“I think there are a few things you ought to consider.”

Indeed. I’m happy you responded. En Garde! (just kidding. I hope we can both learn).

“what makes a person who supports abortion more apt or able to address the roots”

I didn’t mean to say this. I meant to say that a person who claims they are willing to address the roots are more apt and able to address the roots. Obama has claimed willing (and intending) to address the roots. McCain has not.

“you didn’t actually mention what these “roots” are or even how one might go about addressing them”

I would guess poverty to be the greatest root. As far as addressing [them], you ask too much of me. Or I offer to little. I think it’s legitimate to desire the addressing of roots though one may not know how to do so.

“if there are roots/causes of the practice of abortion, they could be addressed without conceding a woman’s “right” to abort an unborn child.”

Agreed.

“Biblically, it is not difficult to argue that human “rights” are very limited. The bigger picture is that all things belong to Yhwh (yes, even our own bodies)”

Right. So if even our own bodies belong to Yhwh, why would we think that other people’s bodies belong to us? That is to say, your vote against the “right to abortion” gives national government part ownership of a woman’s body. This sub-issue is not a matter of killing fetuses, it’s a matter of deciding how much control the national government has. Should the government keep us from sinning? To what degree? Should they make sure we don’t smoke and cuss? Who’s job is it to make sure we don’t smoke and cuss?

“I have trouble understanding how you can support abortion if indeed you recognize the imago dei.”

Again, I don’t support abortions. I support the woman’s choice to an abortion. In other words, I wouldn’t necessarily ever recommend that a woman have one. I know this doesn’t really answer your point, though.

It isn’t always as simple as “recognizing imago dei.” In defending yourself against a murderer, how would you recognize imago dei? If you’re an Eskimo with limited resources, and unfortunately have twins, do you kill one of your babies to let the other live (a very real predicament)? or do you recognize imago dei and let both starve to death?

“My question for you is whether these statistics justify abortion… If a child is more likely to live a life of poverty, does that justify ending the child’s life before his or her birth? Are you suggesting a life of poverty is not worth living? Is life with only one parent not worthy living? If that is the case, we should just abort any child that is going to be placed in an orphanage… I know I’m being facetious”

First of all, your facetiousness is civil conduct, I have no qualms.

Good argument. No, those things don’t justify abortion, but they do factor into the issue. I said, “My problem is that the pro-life position seems to turn a blind eye to unintended consequences”. I wasn’t claiming justification, I was advocating diligence. It is insufficient to ban abortions and call everything hunky-dory. It is grossly insufficient. It’s an even more blatant disregard for imago dei than abortion.

“statistics do not govern the life of an individual human being (especially statistics that barely indicate a majority)”

Yes they do.

“Your statement, “no one gave him the option of going to heaven straight from his mother’s womb” is deceptive. God doesn’t give us the option of “going straight to heaven” in any case.”

Excuse me. I hate to see that I’ve been deceptive. I’m happy it didn’t convince you. ^_^

“Again, our lives and our bodies are not our own. Biblically, we really don’t get to make that decision for ourselves or for anyone else.”

I claim that to ban abortions on a national level, we are doing what you say we shouldn’t. You say we [shouldn't] make decisions for others. Well, should we or shouldn’t we?

“[I can't support...] the government’s ability or right to allow abortion”

The government doesn’t have the ability or right to allow abortion, as much as it has the ability/right to allow handshakes or jumping. It only has the ability and right to deny abortion. So when saying you don’t support the government allowing abortion, you’re saying that you don’t support government’s neutrality on the issue. You’re saying that you don’t support the government allowing people to make their own moral decisions concerning the issue.

——————

If you had to choose between the two, which would you want more: a law to exist that denies abortions, or for less abortions to take place?

I have no reason to believe that under McCain’s administration, less abortions will take place. If McCain [overturned] Roe vs. Wade, then all that would happen is that each state would have the jurisdiction to deny or not deny abortions. It would not by any means abolish abortions. All one needs to do is drive to the next state to get her abortion.

And that’s assuming McCain could appoint federal judges that would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. The republican justices in one of the last meetings on the issue (Parenthood v. Casey) voted to uphold Roe v. Wade.

Please check out this article written by a pro-life, Obama supporter.

Kind regards,
Josh

Great response. I must confess, you’re softening me. I wish there were more Pro-lifers (or anyone, for that matter) like you. I could go on about the care you took to respond (reading the article I linked)… but the point is that your said care makes a difference to me in progressing through our conversation. That is, it provides you legitimacy.

Regarding most of your response, I don’t have worthwhile rebuttals. I’m going to focus on where you said I skirted the questions/issues, and may find some other hooks here and there…

But just because Obama uses language that implies he is sensitive to the underlying “roots” does not mean that he will actually address these, or that McCain is not as sensitive to the same.

Technically you’re right. But it’s a very skeptical way of seeing people (albeit politicians!). I’m a little surprised that you don’t think that the one who said he will do something is more likely to do it than the one who didn’t say he would.

First of all, whether or not Obama’s program will do more to reduce poverty is highly debatable and ultimately dependant on one’s philosophy of economics. Second, to what extent is any president’s economic plan ever realized (due to congressional [dis]agreement, unforeseen crises, etc.)?

Again, I think you’re being ruled by skepticism. Obama’s focus on alleviating poverty is not completely wrapped up in his economic strategy. I am convinced that he has the intention to use a significant part of our resources to alleviate poverty, regardless of the outcome of his economic plan.

You’re right that we ought not place all of our stock in our political leaders. There will be no saviour to be found among them, as history has showed us again and again. I haven’t meant to portray that I rely on Obama to save the world.

Regarding the issues of human stewardship of creation (and our own human bodies) and the imago dei, I have to say it seems that you are sidestepping the issue… (…again, you haven’t made the argument that a fetus is not a person).

I don’t intend to make the argument that a fetus is not a person. To be on either side of that argument paints the issue as black or white. As you have undoubtedly already observed, I’m very sensitive to grays (a damnable trait, according to some). So, again I’m sidestepping the issue. But I won’t sidestep it next time if you tell me why it needs to come down to whether or not a fetus is a person (or when it becomes one).

If that Eskimo were not a Christian (and did not recognize his or her children as bearers the image of God), and were not under the authority of a government indebted to protect its people, perhaps his or her conscience would permit the killing of one child to enable the other to live… But as a Christian, there is no dilemma. Whether we think a child will live or die is irrelevant.

I’m afraid I didn’t catch your meaning here. Will you attempt to present it again another way?

You didn’t address my arguments regarding this point in my last post, so I allude to them again. People die all the time because of accident, sickness, and even poverty. But are we qualified to decide that certain kinds of suffering negate life altogether? God, knowing that people will suffer, grants life. Perhaps there is something inherently good about living that outweighs the suffering we experience on earth.

and

without dealing with the underlying issues…that too may be a form of ignoring the imago dei, but I’m not sure it is “an even more blatant disregard.”

When I said that, I meant something much deeper. I shouldn’t have expected you receive my answer without an explanation. The reason why I didn’t explain further is because what I have to say opens up a new can of worms, and I didn’t want to complicate/elongate our conversation. Obviously this didn’t help anyone. In any case, I elaborate:

For centuries humans have striven to hold on to their lives, as opposed to living in God’s hands, dependent on [his] provision. Even when man says he is willing to trust God, he emerges from his castle dressed in full plate armor (so to speak), to receive whatever God has for him. He stores up food in his granaries, instead of gathering fresh manna each day. He establishes a name and reputation for himself, instead of letting God name and establish him. He secures shelter at the expense of others. He erects walls and portcullises to maintain his own security. He has seen fit to grant life or take it, including his own life. It has been a very long time since he’s lived in God’s hands.

For every forest man has destroyed to secure his life, for every species he’s made extinct, for every natural resource he’s depleted, for every society he’s colonized, he’s taken God’s power to choose who will live and who will die. And then he’s secured that right with any means he can.

We, as Americans, when preserving fetuses, are deciding who lives. We’re not deciding that the fetus lives (for it already lives). We’re deciding that Americans (the society, the colony) lives. Meanwhile there are more people on this planet than the planet can support (or at least more than we know how to manipulate the planet so she can support). There is about 20% more people than food enough to sustain them on this planet. If we can somehow create more food, the population will only increase again above the food supply. This is not God’s problem to solve. We’ve taken the right to choose who will live and who will die away from God.

When denying the possibility of abortion, we’re not merely protecting a life. We’re dooming another (a non-American, probably). Who are you to choose who lives and who dies?

It is not good stewardship to rape the planet until it bursts, under the banner of protecting human lives. This is a major factor to me in the abortion issue. As you can see, it was not simple for me to answer you when you said it is not our right to decide who lives and who dies.

Whether or not Roe v. Wade would make a different initially, it would certainly be a clear beginning point for a national dismissal of abortion.

A good point.

Lastly, will you copy/paste the note from Lazo? I need to be logged in as his Facebook friend in order to read it.

I must leave my place of internet access before I can proofread/revise/condense my reply. I can either post now or email to myself to post at a later date. Obviously I’m choosing to post now ^_^ . If it were me waiting for you I hope you’d do the same.

Warm regards,
Josh

Josh,

Thank you, sir, for your response. I appreciate your ability to think about and present these issues in shades of grey that I, for one, would definitely not be sensitive to otherwise. I will admit that it would be much easier to make this a black and white issue, and that I probably default to black and white thinking in general; things seem much easier that way, don’t they?

You are right – I was being a bit skeptical with my comments about McCain and Obama (you have to admit they don’t leave us with much choice in this day and age). In light of the outcome this week, I hope that Obama will follow through with his expressed intentions to deal with the roots of the abortion issue.

But I think the scope and center of our discussion has extended beyond the realm of presidential candidates…so I will continue.

Back to the Eskimos…I simply meant that a person who was free from civil penalties for killing their child and free from commitments to a Christian worldview could conceivably kill one child if it meant the survival of the other (assuming their conscience permitted them to do so). This is a greater dilemma, in my opinion, than probably anyone in this country will face with regards to abortion (I won’t get into our nation’s obsession with convenience and comfort). But if the Eskimo facing this kind of situation happened to be Christian, I don’t see how killing one child can even be an option (i.e. it is not a legitimate ethical dilemma in the sense that prior commitments [to a Christian worldview in this case] would rule it out). This becomes moot (to some degree), however, in light of the other factors you highlighted (I will address these next).

With regards to these factors (the “can of worms”) you graciously delineated…thank you for elaborating. After reading what you wrote, I opted to resist the urge to respond immediately in order to process the issue more fully.

In response to the meta-narrative of sorts you described, I do not agree that humankind’s use (and abuse) of natural resources is tantamount to taking “God’s power to choose who will live and who will die.” Humans have been given stewardship over creation, and I would argue that that entails (to some extent) taking responsibility for the management (and mismanagement) of resources. It is plain, biblically, that we will each be judged for what we have done…how we have spent out money, how we have treated those who have nothing, et al. I don’t think it is a matter if “taking God’s power,” but abusing the power we have been given. This is especially true with colonization and imperialism. Government can (and should) be a helpful institution; it fulfills a purpose recognized by God in so far as it protects its people. When government fails to do this (e.g. the U.S. government permitting abortion in present times, or permitting unchecked capitalism as during the industrial revolution, etc.), or when it steps beyond its duty (and begins to conquer other peoples), we witness an abuse of power.

All that to say that God does not have detailed plans for each individual human being to follow (consenting or not); we cannot rob him of his decision-making power. However, he will judge us by the way we have elected to use our limited freedoms. As a free moral agent, I can abort my wife’s unborn child, but I will certainly answer for such action (and my wife will face the natural consequences that are often overlooked in this debate). I can also elect to use my wealth to over-consume while others in the world die of starvation, but I will definitely answer for such action. Since we are talking about governmental policies, I think it is legitimate to argue that we will be held accountable for the policies we support and reject as well. This is why I think we have to consider looking at this from a both/and perspective rather than an either/or.

Since it is not a matter of “taking God’s power,” but of being good stewards, your discussion essentially presents two “evils” to consider in the abortion debate. First, by not aborting a child, we run the risk of causing other deaths (of human beings, made in the image of God) because our well-fed American child will consume the resources that could potentially have sustained one or more other children. You say this is “choosing” who lives and dies; I think can agree with that. Second, by aborting a child, we intentionally (and actively) kill a fetus/child (a human being made in the image of God).

The goal, then, would seem to be choosing the lesser of two evils. However, I would argue again that we can and should address both aspects at hand. In some ways this goes back to the question of “roots.” Why should abortion even be an option in this discussion if the matter truly is the (indirect) killing of (probably non-American) human beings?

Reducing the number of “unwanted pregnancies” via education, resources, etc. (whether provided by the government, church, or another organization) would address the stewardship factors and misuse of resources. The bigger issue is obviously the way Americans and other developed nations use much more of everything than they actually need (not to mention the wasting of resources on unnecessary things). I’m sorry, but to suggest that abortion should be allowed because it may result in other (non-American) children being able to survive is counterproductive and backwards. We ought to care about the non-American child and the American child. I realize that this is what you are suggesting in a sense, but it seems illogical (based on the arguments you have provided) to permit the killing of some children (by abortion) while being upset that this country’s decisions have essentially killed others.

I suppose this is an aside…but as you mentioned, fetuses are already living; I need not argue why we must protect the life of the child…the burden of proof lies with the one proposing abortion as a viable option. If the only arguments are that another child might live if an American child is aborted, or that aborting a child will spare him or her from suffering, I don’t see how abortion is helping us minimize the bad things that happen in this world (to use an idea you mentioned in a previous post). My commitment to respect the image of God in human beings is fulfilled more fully by supporting the birth of unborn children (and opposing their termination) than any alternative of which I have been made aware. Certainly we can work to alleviate the suffering of the unaborted child and the poverty-stricken child who would have had food were it not for those damn Americans who chose not to abort their children. Again, it must be both/and.

I, for one, am not suggesting we should rape the planet until it bursts…but I am suggesting that the banner of protecting human lives does need to be carried. We need to be good stewards of creation because such responsible stewardship is truly a good thing as such. However, an even greater incentive, in my opinion, is the loss of human life that is caused by poor stewardship.

Thank you again for mentioning these factors that definitely complication our considerations here. I realize that many pro-lifers may seem to be ignorant to the bigger picture (AKA lives lost outside of the U.S.). But I hope we aren’t equally ignorant to the perils of permitting abortion (you don’t seem to be, at least). Again, I propose a both/and approach; the bottom line is that we can address the stewardship/resource/poverty problems in the world (as caused by our country) without abortion.

Though many conservatives are charged with being two-faced because of their pro-military and pro-life positions, it seems just as two-faced for others to be permissive of abortion and yet vehemently against the loss of life in impoverished and formerly-imperialized nations. Would you agree?

Sorry my posts are so long. I have revealed my true rambling self. Thanks for listening, and I look forward to hearing back from you.

J.R.