J.R., I’m quite satisfied with our discussion. I’d be willing to call it quits here and consider it a successful debate. Rejecting the either/or mentality is the key, and if we both embrace that, we rise above the clamor and stand ready to help God when [he] beckons.

Besides considering it a both/and situation, let’s remember abortions are only a symptom of a problem. We won’t get any points in God’s book if we say we are against abortions but do nothing to lessen them.

I hate to defend myself, but there were a few times you assumed I was bringing up information to support abortions, when I wasn’t, but merely responding to something you said or talking about some self-contained point. Enough about that, though.

From the get-go, I like that you assumed that none of us want there to be abortions. When we at least give each others’ character the benefit of the doubt, we can progress in meaningful conversation.

I have nothing else to say regarding voting for candidates who support abortion or not.

This is off topic, but I see things differently than you in regards to choosing the lesser of two evils. In short, to use the Eskimo example (can I hereforward change the term we use to Inuits? I’m embarrassed to have brought the issue up using an old fashioned term), it seems that you see letting two babies starve is not directly killing them, whereas I do.

I’m not sure what my point is, or how to proceed with said point if I had it. But it just seems to me like it’s shirking responsibility to say you did the moral thing by “letting” two babies die instead of killing one. Is it because you didn’t do it with your own hands? For the record, it seemed blatantly obvious to me that the more Christian thing to do would be to kill one of the babies. Perhaps it’s my conclusion that God likes it more when we do good things than when we not do bad things.

With utmost respect,
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.

first of all background and context…I am female and work at a Christian crisis pregnancy center (the only reason I insert this information is to let you know I talk to women every single day about unplanned pregnancies)! I am very much in the “pro-life” category however hate even telling others that in that I truly believe that I am more “pro-choice” than any planned parenthood (sidenote…I don’t see very many people “planning for parenthood” there…sorry couldn’t resist) . However, I am troubled in that the approaches of all of you on both sides of the spectrum are stereotyping and putting us in boxes…

let me propose to you that maybe both sides have it wrong! First and foremost I am in no way proposing that a baby’s life is not valuable…my heart would be that in a perfect world every single one would get the chance to live. However, we live in a fallen world and this is proving to not be the case. So where do we go from here…how to we improve. I suggest that we all look at our culture’s attitudes towards young women finding themselves in unplanned pregnancies. We judge and tell them they should have a “quick-fix” because that babies future will be bleak…Rather than embracing these women…supporting them…and I mean genuinely loving them as the body of Christ…we start judging and condemning the fact that they had premarital sex! The pressures these girls find themselves under when facing this crisis is beyond comprehension for most…whether it being worry that they are disappointing someone, financial, fear of missing out on the future, their own guilt…the list could go on and on! Shame on all of you that get in her face and tell her how awful she is for having abortion cross her mind as an option…the reason she is in a place to even consider it is because—WE PUT HER THERE!! Women do not come in and say they “want to kill their baby”…they come in with overwhelming pressures that make them feel like they are in a corner with no other options!

I hope and pray that you would all see that carrying signs with fetuses on them and screaming at women going into abortion clinics is not helping! I believe with all my heart that if we changed our ways and approached these issues more as Christ did with love, compassion, and support for the women we would see less abortions. If we embraced them and empowered them with unbiased ACCURATE information on all their options…and equipped them with tools for parenting we would see less abortions…if we changed our cultures corrupt misconceptions about adoption and made it appear to be a more viable option without condemnation to the birthmothers…we would see less abortions!

Let’s stop arguing “pro-choice” vs “pro-life”…realize that though there is a stereotype that “pro-lifers” do not care about the women…WE DO…I would even argue that many of us want to equip women to make a good decision based on all the facts…including the one that abortion is not a “quick-fix”…women can suffer years from them! The world is not of our Lord and Savior…we lack perfection…so how can we impact such a hard and difficult issue…by loving like Christ did…let’s change our world’s attitude towards women finding themselves with unplanned pregnancies…let’s embrace them as equals who mess up just as EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US DOES…let’s live as Christ did…loving, empowering, and challenging each other!

Sorry I get passionate and didn’t even read back over all of this…ps…in regards to the MH guy…it’s people like you that make my job so much harder…I’m glad that you’ve never messed up…and as to birth control you obviously haven’t done your research…it is no guarentee that someone’s not going to get pregnant!

I HATE POLITICS BY THE WAY because we are so divided…and let’s get real do any of these candidates express exactly what they are going to do…and then actually do it …no! I am all for changing the world…but I think it is us…the people that need to be working for it…it’s a total cop-out to think that the president is going to do it for us…let’s step-up and help change it. We cannot expect taxing to rich to help the poor to help them in the end. Why not be giving on our own…why not be empowering the poor to create a future rather than telling them to be crippled by the system…Once again I am one of the biggest advocates you’d ever meet to help the lower-class…I mean technically I work at a non-profit and can fit in the “lower-class” myself…but come on people….yes let’s inspire change…but that means all of us…just as Christ emphasized…I once heard that if Americans would take 10% of their income and put it towards ending world hunger we could do it…I don’t know what actual numbers it would take…but the idea that we can all give what we can…we will make a difference!

Anywho, hope this all made sense and I didn’t offend to many of you…God Bless

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

First, regarding the matter of “roots,” I agree with you in the sense that I would generally opt for a candidate (such as Obama) who was insightful enough to realize that there is something deeper going on than the surface issue (abortion). It is legitimate to desire the addressing of roots without knowing how to do so. But when I suggested that you neither identified the roots nor how one might go about addressing them, I wasn’t criticizing your argument so much as I was expressing my discontent with Barack Obama’s campaign. We have been entranced by a succession of impassioned speeches from Obama that boast lofty ideals, but rarely provide us with practical answers**. Granted, both McCain and Obama espouse ten theories for every single practical idea or explanation…but nevertheless, I cannot agree with you that “a person who claims they are willing to address the roots [is] more apt and able to address the roots.” Perhaps they are more likely to, but when we assess John McCain’s (and the typical republican’s) deep concern for the abortion issue, even that becomes doubtful in my opinion.

On the website you linked, Cafardi argues the following: “If Obama’s economic program will do more to reduce poverty than McCain’s, then is it wrong to conclude that an Obama presidency will also reduce abortions?” If we are relying on Obama’s economic plan to address the roots of abortion, then I think we have a major problem. 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 wish that both Obama and McCain would provide the public with ideas for practical solutions for the abortion issue. 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.

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. What you call the “sub-issue” actually is a matter of killing fetuses. Regardless of one’s philosophy of government, all can agree that the basic purpose of government is to protect the people who unite and permit the government to rule over them. Whether or not a government should have much or little control, major or minor influence, many or few programs to help the people it represents, the basic assumption is that the government is in place to protect its people. Thus, there are laws against murder, violence and even certain forms of recklessness that can potentially harm other people. In this sense, abortion is not a matter of the government keeping people from sinning but of protecting persons (fetuses – - again, you haven’t made the argument that a fetus is not a person).

In other words, it has nothing to do with the government’s ownership of a woman’s body. Biblically, neither the government, nor a child’s parents, nor any other individual has the right to take the life of a child (or any other person). A woman’s body is beside the point. This also informs your dilemma regarding the Eskimo and his or her twins. 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. 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.

I agree that it is ridiculous to advocate a carte-blanche prohibition of abortion 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.” We need to consider the unintended consequences, reject abortion as a viable option, and attempt to remedy the poverty and social problems that plague our communities. And when an unborn child is aborted, the church loses an opportunity to demonstrate the nature of God’s kingdom by its own remedial work.

You said, “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?
…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.”

I didn’t say that we don’t get to make decisions for others. I said that whether an individual human being lives or dies is not a decision any human being gets to make. As I mentioned before, the government does not get to be neutral on the issue because it is a matter of protecting the human lives that government was established to protect…and since the government must protect its people, individuals do not get to make a moral decision on the issue, unless they want to face the consequences. Obviously, there are currently no consequences because the issue was interpreted to be a matter of personal privacy rather than protecting human life. Unfortunate. But I won’t concede the point or believe, like Cafardi, that “we have lost the abortion battle – permanently.”

You stated that “I have no reason to believe that under McCain’s administration, less abortions will take place.” And, “And that’s assuming McCain could appoint federal judges that would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

I think we have to do just as much assuming with regards to Barack Obama, since his economic plans are contingent on a lot of factors and he hasn’t provided legitimate, practical answers to the abortion issue. As I said before, I think we would be safer with a candidate who is concerned enough about the issue not to concede the point. 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. Then, perhaps, the politicians would elucidate their theories for addressing the “roots.” I need not choose between an anti-abortion law and fewer occurrences of abortion; it’s a false-dichotomy.

Eager to read your response,

J.R.

** When it came to issues that I knew damn well he [Barack Obama] didn’t care about, I found the simple refrain: “_________ is broken, we must fix it.” And his plan to fix it is the same theoretical plan with no particularly practical answer–which was a part of W’s playbook if you remember. Immigration, earmarks, ethics, you name it, all broken, and we need to fix it. Obviously. If we didn’t need to fix it we wouldn’t bother to have elections. Elections are what happens for the populace to fix their country, when we start ignoring them, or start adding unnecessary things to change, the election is irrelevant.

Note from Thomas Lazo, http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=37239781706.

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

With regards to Obama and pro-choice legislation, I scan upport neither the practice of abortion nor the government’s ability or right to allow abortion (see my post above). I would have to side with McCain on that one.

But war is a major problem when it comes to McCain because of the bondage he may be in to continue what George W. Bush started. In that respect, my more pacifistic-Christian views would align with Obama’s take on the war issue.

However I think it is within the right of a functioning, legal government to engage in warfare as a last resort when necessary. This complicates things.

I think I’m in a place where I can then support McCain…but as a Christian, I personally would not participate in or support war.

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”).