I'm curious, how much the "pro-life" issue (meaning the legal availability of abortion) factors into your current leaning around who you will vote for in this election? Would that issue be the only issue for you (meaning, if you disagreed with someone's foreign policy, economic policy, tax policy, etc. but agreed with you on the issue of abortion, would that be the "swing" issue for you)? How should Christians view this issue between the two candidates?
I thought this was interesting.
How does this issue make you feel about Christians and the election process?
Okay, let me set some posting ground-rules:
1. Don't be a jerk. Speak about people as you would like to be spoken about.
2. Don't make absolute statements without using I language. ("I believe... " rather than... "you are a stupid jerk if you...")
Thoughts?
Reflections of a Journeying Blogger
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(166)
-
▼
October
(21)
- technology fast
- Religious right...and left
- Dueling church signs
- Donald Miller on Issues
- Stay at home dads and marriage
- McCain Won
- Prediction
- What are you trying to say?
- Are you for us or against us?
- Paul for President
- Real priorities
- Pro-Life
- I'll take 2
- Tee Hee
- And now...
- Palin's Giving
- Vice Presidential Debates
- rest
- Interesting compairson
- Does this matter?
- Character Formation
-
▼
October
(21)
20 comments:
Hmm...how can I say this and offend everyone? I'm pro life. And by pro life I mean the lives of people. People in the womb and out of the womb...across the board. I'm also a Democrat because I'm pro life. I'm not a hard-core bumper stickered vote or die democrat, but I lean heavily in that direction because I find, in general, that the platform of the democratic party promotes life. By this I mean that I find the democratic party to be more willing to seek peace through diplomacy over war, more eager to offer aid to starving nations, and more concerned with the physical welfare of the poor in our country. You know...things you need to, um, live.
The abortion topic, though, makes me wince because the unborn are alive, too. But I also know that legal or illegal, women have been having abortions forever. If we make them totally illegal, though, I guess everyone would stop having them altogether...you know, like how no one does drugs because they're illegal...or maybe there would be a dangerous underground market for them.
One of my social work profs told me that the rate of abortions per year has gone down since they were legalized. I don't know where she got that stat, but I do know that she's not one to flippantly throw things out like that if she isn't confident. I don't say that to try to persuade anyone that abortions should be legal, only to say, hey, what if that is true? What would that mean for our legislative approach to this?
Even if a candidate who is against abortion is elected, it seems doubtful to me that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it seems doubtful that abortions will stop.
I see this election as a real "lesser of two evils" problem. On the one hand, we have a candidate that seeks financial profits for wealthiest of the wealthy and has supported every US military intervention he's been alive to support, who would like you to believe that the lives of unborn Americans are more valuable than the lives of enemies of the US who had the misfortune of already being born. On the other hand, we have a candidate who supports diplomacy and more programs to help the poor who only sees abortion as a women's health issue and doesn't see that the life of any unborn person is as valuable as that of person who has had the great fortune to be birthed already.
I don't feel good about either of those scenarios, so I'm not sure I'm going to vote at all. If I do, and that's a BIG IF, I think I'll vote Obama because abortion is not only not the only political issue I think a Christian should care about ever; it's not even the only pro-life issue a Christian should care about ever.
the idea that one should base their vote on one issue makes me angry and frightened.
This is hard. I wrestled with this for a long time.
I came to conclusions, eventually, but this isn't a subject I can talk about online. Sometimes it gets too heated with misunderstandings and not having that face to face value.
But anyway, it's an interesting topic, nonetheless.
This is not an easy issue. I don't think it should be the only deciding factor but I understand why it often is. I've talked with my parents about it and I know it's basically the reason why they are voting the way they are. When I was growing up I used to go to pro-life rallies with my family. I'm very aware of that side of the issue. I understand it. The thought of abortion is sickening and I feel that too. I also understand how terrifying a pregnancy scare can be. I understand considering the option. I understand feeling like you have no choice. I don't agree with either one but I understand them.
I agree with both of the above comments from andrea and mdog. I could never make this the only issue I vote about. I think as Christians we have so many things to be concerned about in this election and this is certainly important, but it's not the only issue.
But, if you want to talk about the issue, I have a couple of thoughts:
1. I don't believe that making abortion illegal will stop women from having abortions. Women have been having abortions for a very, very, very long time. I think if someone is seriously considering an abortion, they will get one whether or not it is done by a medical professional. I would rather a woman do that in a professional setting than on her kitchen table. I know there is controversy surrounding the death rate of legal vs. illegal abortions but I think that making women keep something like this a secret is unhealthy in a number of ways.
2a. Historically, those who are pro-life have ideas about women's reproductive rights and education in general that I do not agree with. This is a huge issue for me. I do not support abstinence only education even though I believe that sex should wait for marriage. Avoiding pregnancy is not that complicated. I do it all the time. It is a lot harder if you are having sex and don't use birth control or use it improperly. I know a number of people that have had accidental pregnancies because they weren't using it. I know very few people who got pregnant while using some form of birth control. I can't expect everyone else to have the same values as I do. I haven't even always had these values! However, I don't believe (and I know people who do) that if you have sex outside of marriage you deserve to get pregnant and live with those "consequences". I don't think any child should be punishment manifested.
2b.Speaking of birth control, my other issue along these lines is that those who oppose abortion also seem to think that birth control is a bad thing. If you opposed abortion don't you think that you would want to make it easier for women to get birth control, that you would make sure if was affordable and that health insurance companies covered it? It blows my mind that this is not the case.
I really appreciated Obama's answer at the saddleback forum in that he talked about reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and making sure women had the education and resources they need. That's something I can get behind.
So, would I ever get an abortion myself or counsel someone to get an abortion? Absolutely not. Will I be voting for a pro-choice candidate? Yes.
If one believes that at conception one becomes a soul-bearing being (life begins) and to end that life is murder then one must be against almost all hormonal birth control.
Hormonal birth control tries to do two things. 1. It tries to stop a woman from ovulating 2. If an egg makes it through, it tries to stop the egg from implanting (which through the life begins at conception argument this is murder).
If one believes life begins at conception then hormonal birth control that stops an egg from implanting and abortion and embryonic stem cell research is all murder.
If one believes that people become soul-bearing beings at some other point besides conception then you can have people who think some of those things are wrong and others are not.
I am not in any way expressing my own beliefs just clarifying.
Libertarians have have this motto. The role of government is to make water come out of the faucets and to keep us from killing eachother.
If some one believes this at the core of their political philosophy then for a candidate to be pro choice is to violate 50% of the social contract and making voting for them a total violation of conscience.
Let me say it this way. If you really believe that an abortion is an exercise of a constitutional right then we have a serious disagreement in world view and you will not have my vote.
"to keep us from killing each other"
So we would need:
regulations on the food industry
a "fat tax"
police.
firefighters.
stronger environmental regulations on pollution
government sponsored health clubs
inner city programs
after-school programs
good education
gun control
better hospitals, even universal healthcare
Maybe I'm a libertarian and didn't know it?
I'm not sure I buy less the "less government let the private sector fix everything" argument. Could it be that the private sector and individuals are just as corrupted by the fall as the government would be? I say yes.
Will we, on our own, take care of the poor among us? Or are businesses suddenly going to abandon their obligation/allegiance to their stockholders, step up, and defend the cause of the poor?
I guess andrew luis kind of opened up another question, "What IS the role of government?"
Finally, I would think a libertarian would want to keep government out of their bedrooms (homosexuality) and their bodies (either the mom or the baby). Seems inconsistent.
i'll weigh in with a thought... that quite possibly abortion is not so much a cause but an effect of evil in society. Perhaps the precursors that tend to put women into the situation of "choosing" an abortion should be challenged and looked upon. Maybe taking a minute to weigh the facts of who is seeking out an abortion option - largely women in poverty, uneducated, un- or under-employed, single and likely a member of a racial minority group - would guide us to make policy to help prevent women from being in a place of having to "choose." (And never mind the fact that the majority of lawmakers in Washington are very much an opposite demographic - white men, upper class who have college degrees and a resume without job gaps).
Abortion is awful for all - baby, mother, father and society. So maybe we should ask what candidate is seeking to make decisions that could offer solutions to women, or all people, who are living in situations that seem without hope.
I am pro-choice. Not because I think abortion is fine and dandy. I think it is tragic. But I believe our $$ and time is better spent dealing with the causes of abortion - unprotected sex, poverty, access to healthcare and factua health information, domestic violence, lack of respect for life, self-centeredness and a lack of the promotion of the fact that many thousands of people are ready and willing to adopt unwanted babies.
Barack Obama understands some of these issues and is committed to working toward creating policy that diminishes issues like poverty and access to healthcare.
The issues that the politicians won't touch though, and the ones I think are most important are the issues regarding self-centeredness and lack of respect for life. I don't know how, outside of one's immediate circle, you promote a healthy respect for life and sound the call for personal responsibility (libertarians aside - they scream it all of the time but no one is listening.)
As a woman, the idea that anyone but me could tell me what I can or cannot do to my body or anything inside it is absurd. I could never get an abortion - it goes against everything I believe in (protecting the vulnerable, nurting children and taking personal responsibility for my own decisions.) But I cannot participate in denying someone else that choice. I would fight for your right to this option, but I would passionately counsel you against it. And then after you did it anyway, I would love you with the best grace I could find inside my heart, grieve the loss of a child, and help you through the resulting emotions the best I could...which, I believe is about the same thing Barack Obama would do.
So, I guess the abortion issue is important to me. It's lucky for me that I like almost everything about the candidate that most closely reflects my views on this issue.
I am Christian. I think abortion is morally wrong. I am pro choice.
One of these statements might seem like it does not coincide with the others in our "Moral Majority" influenced society. But, as a firm Constitutionalist and Federalist (not to be confused with Bush’s “New Federalism”), I do not believe that the morality of a matter makes it a constitutional or political issue. The Supreme Court came to this conclusion in 1973 and the debate should have ended there. As diffficult and sensitive of an issue that abortion is, this is not a matter of whether we feel abortion is moral or not. It is matter of whether or not laws against abortion infringes on due process. The opinion of one candidate’s on whether abortion is morally wrong would never sway my opinion on whether he can be a good commander chief. However, I would question his authority if he wants to create laws based solely on his opinion and morals instead of looking closesly at what our constituions outlines for our governing body.
I believe firmly as a Christian and as a believer in the constitution that the first amendment, separating church and state, must be upheld. This does not mean our morals and faith do not mold and shape the way one may vote or the type a leader one may be. It means that our morals and faith do not dictate the way the government is run and in turn are not dictated by the government. Jim Wallis, though extreme at times, writes a lot about how the government and the church should be separate because they have separate and even competing roles.
I believe whole heartedly that Jesus Christ is my savior, yet I would fervently oppose any law that dictated that someone else should be forced to believe the same. I believe whole heartedly that abortion is morally wrong yet when my supreme court decides that laws against such an act infringes on due process, I respect them for doing their job in upholding the constitution.
Instead, I do not look to my government to solve this moral dilema. I turn to my church and ask them "What are you as Christians going to do about this?" "How are you as spiritual leaders going to educate the world or more specifically, your own followers, on the spiritual and physical implications or sex out of wedlock?" "What are you as commanded caregivers of the poor going to do to give women in need another option than aborting their unborn?", "How are you as a Christ like people going to love these women, and help them instead of judging them and rejecting them?”
To the person who wrote the comment that it is absurd to allow one party to tell a woman what she can and cant do with her body I understand that argument of pro choice women but there is a hang up; all law is based on a third party telling someone what they can and cant do. An example is that suicide is illegal even through it infringes on a persons right to do what they want to thier own body.
It is particuallry hard to comment on the subject of abortion rights as a man without comming across as chovenist (spelling?) but I do think ti is an important issue for men to at least make commentary.
There is no way that abortion will be eraticated even if it where illegal we sould have the south american problem of coat hanger abortions and not only end the life of the fetus but also of the mother. But in a world with so many couples wanting to adopt and spending years on waiting lists how is it such a huge number of them happen every year. I understand the rape and incest argument but what real percentage of abortions are the result of rape or incest.
This is a place where I will have to stand with my Catholic Roots. We have to protect life from conception to death (this means that I also oppose the death penalty). We cant play God in this area. Now if a President where elected with a atheistic world view I could understand thier prochoice stand (by the way I will always perfer to vote for a theistic candiate weahter they are a Christian or of another fait, I fear to think what the leader of the free world would do if they did not know they where accountable to God or a god).
enough said for now.
I'm going to try to stay on subject and just answer the question, though I'll probably stray. :-)
I used to say no, but I lean more towards yes, as of late, because the abortion issue isn't one that stand alone, it permeates. The mentality that allows one to consider a separate life with its own DNA as just a blob of flesh leaching on to a woman like a parasite, is the same mentality that will devalue human life outside the womb.
And because there are so many other issues of human value and worth brought up before the Supreme Court, I hold the pro-life standard as paramount.
Since science continues to reveal evidence that the life inside the womb, is a completely separate entity, the choice agenda has been moving towards the argument that such a life must be "viable" to be consider to have its own rights. Viability is a slippery slope, which has already been crested. There is a movement to seek to allow after birth abortion, up to a certain number of months, for a nonviable life.
What is nonviable?
The child has a terminal illness?
The child has a permanent mental or physical deformity or disability?
The child doesn't have my eyes or nose?
The child is getting too expensive?
A read on the history of eugenics is fairly enlightening. The movie "The Island" also looks less and less like science fiction with every passing decade.
Once human life is devalued, the levee breaks and there's no stopping it. Of course, I think we're there already, unfortunately.
As to some points brought up....
Murder is illegal and people still do it, so let's legalize it.
To those who would consider a child a punishment, there's always a hysterectomy.
Rape and incest statistics:
One half of one percent of abortions are reported to be from rape or incest. It's interesting that people just assume a woman would automatically choose an abortion, when a study of rape victims who got pregnant showed that 75-80 percent chose to keep their baby.
And for anyone who says we can't legislate morality. That's all we do legislate.
Ok, football's on.
In response to Andrew, I also believe that suicide being illegal is ridiculous.
I think it is important to focus not on whether abortion is right or wrong - I imagine most people in on this discussion would not say that across the boards, abortion is morally sound. The point is whether or not it should be legal. (Actually, the original question was about how much it factored into our upcoming vote.)
As for men weighing in on abortion - I think you can say whatever you want, of course. But I think part of the reason the issue is so inflammatory is because it often can be broken down to men (often older, white, wealthy men) telling women what they can and can't do. It's hard for a woman to accept that. That someone who will NEVER be in the position (having a human being growing inside you that you didn't put there on purpose) can decide whether or not you should be allowed to decide what to do about it.
You, as a man, or any other man is welcome to weigh in on the issue, but that (see above) is the reason why women get antsy when men start espousing their views on the matter.
I think that the most powerful thing a man can do is to be open and kind and gentle enough to grow close to someone who would be brave enough to share with you that she has had an abortion. I know a few women who have had abortions. Most regret it but they believed at the time it was the only reasonable option. Our society places so much negativity on single mothers and on unwed pregnant women. Even if you decide to blessedly turn the baby over to a loving adoptive couple, you still have to walk around for 9 months and answer a lot of personal, private, uncomfortable questions. And the man who fertilized you gets to walk around the same as he did before it happened. (I realize there are a lot of good, kind men who, if they got a woman into that situation, would take every responsibility they could...but many, many, many, do not.) It is a deeply terrifying situation and an incredibly personal choice. I think of myself at 16 or 17...If I had gotten pregnant, I probably would have had an abortion because I could never have faced my mother and father and grandmother and uncles and aunts as "that girl." The stupid, trashy girl who ruined her reputation and made her fmaily look bad. I grew up believing that girls who get pregnant are stupid, don't care about their education and the result of pregnancy is that your life is completely ruined. Adoption was never mentioned.
I wish the movie, Juno, had been around then. Maybe some girls will see that movie and see that her parents didn't kill her, she made it through high school pregnant and everyone kind of lives happily ever after.
Maybe we need to start educating parents about how to talk to their kids about pregnancy...not just sex and abstinence and contraception. Hmm, that sounds like something Barack Obama would think of...
For me, back to the original question...at this point, abortion would probably come after the economy and the Iraq war in terms of what i am basing my vote on.
As a man, I would never pretend to be able to put myself in the frame of mind of a woman who is pregnant and doesn't want to be.
Would you know what it feels like, to a man, to be powerless over the decision someone has to kill your son or daughter?
Mike, you make an interesting point, however, from anecdotal evidence and the stats I have read, the majority of women who seek abortions are not in a committed relationship with a supportive man who wants to keep the baby. Most studies about why women have abortions conclude that there are usually multiple reasons, like not having enough money to take care of a baby, not being ready for motherhood, already having enough children, etc. One study I've seen showed that over half of women who have an abortion say they did so because they had no partner or their partner was not supportive of them having a baby.
I'm sure it happens, but I haven't heard too many stories of some totally committed, supportive man's wife/girlfriend going and having an abortion when he planned to take care of the mom and help raise the baby. I agree that would be a tragic position for a man to be in, but I don't know how widespread of an issue that is.
My experience has been that women who have abortions do so reluctantly and most often because they feel they don't have the means to support the child or shoulder the embarrassment/shame of a pregnancy that occurs outside of a relationship.
Actually, I really believe that the fastest way the abortion rate would go down is if men stopped having sex with anyone they didn't want to have a baby with. While the same could be said for women in a way...there are a lot of single mothers out there who were brave and responsible and had the baby anyway...and the father is nowhere to be found. So if there are 100 women in uncommitted relationships who get pregnant, statistics pretty much reflect that just under half will have an abortion. The other half will have the baby and most of those will keep and raise the baby. Of the 50 or so that have the baby, how many fathers stick around? I don't know the stats on that, but I work with a LOT of single mothers and kids who have no idea where their dad is.
Not to get too graphic here, but if we're going to consider slapping laws on women's bodies, maybe we should come up with a law that if a woman is not allowed to have an abortion, the baby, at birth is immediately handed over to the man responsible and he is forced to 100% take care of it. If that were in the law...I wonder if people's opinions on the legality of abortion would change if we had thousands upon thousands of men unable to work because they can't afford childcare and women running around getting pregnant and handing their babies over to the men. I wonder if men would be as willing to have multiple partners. I wonder if they might wish they could have considered the option of abortion...
"I really believe that the fastest way the abortion rate would go down is if men stopped having sex with anyone they didn't want to have a baby with."
"I wonder if men would be as willing to have multiple partners."
Because women never have sex with more than one guy at a time. :-)
Can't the same be said for women? Check the stats on women with babies from multiple fathers. The same woman who have legal access to abortions.
I'm not going to get into a never ending debate on Paul's blog.... because really, there is no debate. Abortion to make your life easier is no reason to take a human life. Life is hard.
Almost all the arguments you brought up applied to my mother when she was a 17 year old runaway, pregnant with my brother. It was hard for my mom. She worked her butt off to raise us. She is my hero. God put angels in her life to help her, before she knew who He was.
And by the way, I agree with everything you said about men taking responsibility. But should we kill a child just because its dad is a$$hole?
Obviously not. Remember, I said I think abortion is wrong. I just don't think you or I should prevent someone from making that totally personal choice. I wish there was never another abortion, anywhere, ever. That is one thing we can agree on. I just don't think that making it illegal is the best way to stop it from happening.
You say it's wrong, but then you call it a "totally personal choice." It's no more a personal choice than if I punched someone in the nose.
"I just don't think that making it illegal is the best way to stop it from happening."
That could be said about dozens of things that are already illegal. It doesn't mean we should throw the laws away.
In any case, I think we'd probably agree on more than we disagree. I always like healthy dialogue about tough issues and I appreciate your civility and insight.
Same here.
I realize that I am late into the discussion - but I came across this blog by Randy Alcorn http://randyalcorn.blogspot.com/2008/10/im-not-voting-for-man-im-voting-for.html that has a lot of relevant content.
I am a one-issue voter when it comes to abortion. I am not ashamed to admit it. The sanctity of life trumps all other issues and causes.
I am pro-life.
Post a Comment