I'm usually hesitant to comment on politics, but I just wanted to point something out. The Republican Party, for all it gets wrong, gets a few things right. The fairly consistent stance, for instance, against abortion. I am one who believes that abortion is the greatest moral evil of our day. There are many other massive problems. To highlight and prioritize one over the others does not mean that I do not care about the others. I hate war and poverty and social injustice. However, the abortion issue for me is an epidemic crisis.
So, as I face a voting decision, I quickly become a so-called "single-issue voter." I choose the presidential candidate that I believe will be more likely to appoint judges who are more likely to turn around the legislation that I think is the greatest evil. This means that in the last two presidential elections I have voted for George Bush, and I will likely vote for John McCain. This does not make me a war-monger. I'm a Dad that thinks babies should be protected with constitutional rights. So is President Bush:
In the debate about the rights of the unborn, we are asked to broaden the circle of our moral concern. We're asked to live out our calling as Americans. We're asked to honor our own standards, announced on the day of our founding in the Declaration of Independence. We're asked by our convictions and tradition and compassion to build a culture of life, and make this a more just and welcoming society.
For the times I have felt embarrassed not only of President Bush, but of the current Republican ticket, I've felt proud twice (at least). Once, was when President Bush vetoed legislation for stem cell research on embryos. He gave his veto speech with a crowd of kiddos behind him-- "snowflake babies" who were adopted by parents who believed they were human. The second time was just last week when I saw Governor Palin embracing and shaking the hands of people with Down's Syndrome. The outcasts of our society, who are aborted at an alarming rate, were in the national spotlight for a beautiful moment of love and acceptance by a high-profile government official. She believes that we need a "culture of life." Of her son (who has Down's Syndrome) she said:
Trig is beautiful and already adored by us. We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives. We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed.
Let's protect our kids.
12 comments:
hey dan. great post.
Did you know that, in one of the recent debates, John McCain said he would NOT use Roe vs. Wade as a "litmus test" for selecting Supreme Court nominees?
That makes me a little hesitant to assume that McCain would nominate the type of pro-life justice that you (and I) would want...
Thanks, Pam.
Kelly, I understand your point. I just think my chances of getting pro-life judges are better with McCain than Obama.
I'll agree with you there. However, I really think this election is a multi issue centric one. I agree that the abortion problem is extremely important, but there is a plethora of other issues that are important, too. That's what makes it impossible for me to vote for McCain since he is Pro-War, supports large corporations rights at the detriment of the average citizen, doesn't support true net neutrality, actively supports the government spying on it's citizens, believes that lowering taxes for the wealthy solves all economic problems, doesn't believe the health care system is really seriously broken (his solution is crap), has exercised poor judgement in important decisions (I.e. Sarah Palin), thinks that the energy crisis can be solved by offshore drilling or lifting gas taxes, did I mention, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran!"?, etc. etc. Etc.
Worst Republican candidate i've ever seen.....after W.
I don't disagree with you. There are a plethora of issues at stake. Each voter must weigh each issue and evaluate the accumulative risk involved, and then make a binary choice. For me, the weightiest issue remains the absurd number of defenseless lives taken each year to abortion. I don't fault others for his/her particular reasoning, I'm just sharing mine.
A friend of mine told me today something that Ed Young, Jr said in church on Sunday that I thought was really good (yeah, I said EYjr). Basically, he made the point that in the United States, it is illegal to steal or destroy sea turtle eggs but abortion is okay. When that sinks in, it pretty much rocks the soul.
Matt, I honestly never thought the day would come when you were quoting Ed Young Jr. It makes me smile.
And he's right. The inconsistency is staggering. It's similar to the fact that, in America, a criminal can be convicted of double murder for killing a pregnant woman.
What most people don't understand is that the overturning of Roe v. Wade would simply return the issue to State Legislatures to decide - it wouldn't get rid of abortion, and, in fact, it opens a Pandora's box that makes the problem even worse. Let's say that Roe is overturned and Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas take up the issue locally. It's likely that all the states would keep abortion legal, with different procedural strings attached. Is it progress to be not be able to have second or third trimester abortions in Texas, but have the unlimited ability to do so in, say, New Mexico? Is it progress to create a market-influenced, interstate abortion trade? I don't think so.
And that's why nobody - not Republicans, especially - will dare touch Roe v. Wade in spite of the fact that they've been promising to do so for the 20 or the last 28 years of the Presidency.
The approach, from Christians, is totally wrong because it focuses not on the little progress that can be made here and there, but rather the utopian "best case scenario" that isn't going to happen. And, the Democrats are not giving back the Senate and House anytime soon - through those bodies, the Justices are confirmed.
Being a single-issue voter is fine and all, but the likelihood of McCain being able to do anything even remotely in line with Christianist thinking is very slim.
honestly, the only true solution to the abortion issue would be a constitutional ammendment banning it.
With so many issues at hand, I don't think you should elect a president solely based on this one.
I agree also that Christians are taking the wrong approach. Benjamin makes a very valid point about the dangers of overturning Roe vs. Wade.
I think that, if we Christians really want to change things, we should take the approach of electing a congress that is 100% determined to pass such an amendment.
Kelly, the best possible solution isn't a ban on abortion because illegal abortion is more dangerous and destructive than legal abortion. The only true solution to abortion is for Christians to do everything possible to make abortions unnecessary and to support pregnant women who find themselves in that difficult situation. It's unlikely that abortion will ever be illegal. It is, however, likely that the number of abortions in our country can be greatly decreased.
Abortion is a moral tragedy. Equally tragic, though, is the Christian response of pinning the hopes of a "culture of life" on overturning a Supreme Court ruling. How silly is it that we don't spend the same time, resource and effort in reforming adoption procedure, volunteering at shelters for young, pregnant women, and working to better the foster care system as we do angrily decrying liberals and their precious Roe v. Wade?
my point is that, if the goal is to make it illegal, an amendment would be the appropriate goal to aim for.
As for whether that would be correct or not, I have to think that making it illegal would have the effect of curbing the number of abortions. I realize people would still do it, often utilizing dangerous techniques. The worst of those scenarios would be if the family forced a young woman to get an illegal, unsafe abortion. Think of cases of incest...
Of course, you could make the penalty horribly high, but what good does that do in the end? Just look at the (non) success of the war on drugs.
I believe that the best way to curb the number of abortions is, as you suggest, programs designed to discourage them and prevent the unwanted pregnancies. It's sad in my mind that so many believe that we should not educate teens on "safe sex" simply because they feel that will me like telling the kids to go ahead and have it. The kids ARE having it, and they should be educated and provided with the weapons necessary to prevent the next level of tragedy: the unwanted pregnancy. That's shifting us to another topic however...
Gentlemen, thanks for your comments.
Benjamin, I'm well aware that the reversal of Roe v. Wade will not end abortion. You're right when you speak about the "Pandora's Box" that such a reversal would bring. However, even given the disturbing scenario you described, I think a reversal at least makes it possible for it to get more difficult in certain places for women to abort their children. That's progress. It sends a national message that legislation that protects the lives of unborn children can survive in America.
I also understand that the grassroots efforts "here and there" reduce the number of abortions in America. To desire the reversal of RvW is not to say anything positively or negatively about such abortion-reducing programs. Of course you're right that if more Christians would spend more time volunteering to help support pregnant mothers, the rates would go down. I think I can do both without being charged of naively clinging to a Utopian best-case scenario.
The argument that Republicans have done nothing to RvW in the past 28 years is to ignore progress made in the appointment of conservative judges. The court is more conservative now than it was before GWB. That's progress. I understand that Senator McCain would have a difficult if not impossible time making any further progress here, but Obama + Democratic majorities in both Houses makes liberal appointments more likely.
Finally, guys, throw me a bone! :-) I wrote "so-called" "single-issue" voter because this issue is more important to me than the rest. It doesn't meant that I have no opinions on the war, economy, immigration, foreign policy, etc. I'm simply trying to share with whomever stumbles upon this blog what my primary issue is as I head to the booth. It's a big issue. And I think people are just used to it being around. Part of the problem is that it's such a silent, hidden atrocity. We don't see the names and faces of the thousands of people who are killed on our soil on the Evening News. It's so hard to objectify and publicize, that people can simply relegate it to "one among many" issues. I'm sorry, but these things are not all equal.
Post a Comment