Pro-life and pro-Obama?

Claim #1
Someone pointed me to an article by Frank Schaeffer who writes at the Huffington Post a blog titled, Why I'm Pro-life and Pro-Obama. The summary statement is because people will be so inspired during Obama's reign that they won't want to abort children anymore. Perhaps he is implying that people are so depressed now during Bush's reign that abortion is a reasonable choice most often. This train of thought isn't based on logic, but if I were to play along with it, I'd point to the Clinton reign. There was great hope for the man from Hope. Schaeffer claims his tryst ruined everything for babies in utero. Clinton reigned during the last great economic boom and era of peace. What better conditions for having babies. But abortion numbers didn't change that much.

Claim #2
If Christians adopted more, then people would more likely bring children to term, submitted by Anonymous here. Well Christians are going so far as to adopt embryos left over from in vitro fertilization.

However, both of these are non-responses to the issue of abortion. The issue is human rights. Do dependent humans have human rights? Is it wrong to kill humans with Down Syndrome because of their affliction? Is it not wrong if they are killed in utero? Over 90% are killed in utero. Should people with cleft palates be executed? They are in utero, and the murders are defended by pro-choice defenders, example. Should people be killed because of their gender? They are writ large in utero in China and India. Why do human rights stop at the womb? Which candidates believe this? The two democratic candidates do. No matter how much "change" and "hope" they claim, this is one area of human rights that they will not bring "hope" and "change" to.

Yes Christians could do more in adoptions, but most who abort don't want to bother with 9 months of hardship to give a baby away at the end. It's not because they are worried that no one will adopt their child. That's not the problem. Our nation aborts consistently in fat times and slim times, because abortion is about avoidance of hardship instead of human rights. The Democrats will not elevate humans-as-embryos to full human status with full human rights. Until that happens, which the past 3 Republican administrations have been doing attempting incrementally through their judicial appointments, abortion will continue as it always has, no matter how much hope and security and change there is.


Our nation aborts consistently in fat times and slim times, because abortion is about avoidance of hardship instead of human rights.


A very good point, which makes sense, although I think it is a sad reality.

Janet Rubin said…
I heard Hillary speaking on this issue. She told of how she spoke in China against their one-child policy, and in some other place I can't remember where women are forced to have MORE children. Her argument was that the government should not have the right to decide these things.
I know it isn't a perfect veiwpoint but I can understand it. I just keep thinking that the way to change this is more through evangelism and supporting places like Carenet... Women's hearts changing rather than laws. Just a thought. What DOES really freak me out is that none the Democrats support requiring that minors have parental consent for an abortion. Why should a child be able to have SURGERY without parental consent? That's crazy! And hypocritical. It's supporting a woman's right to choose abortion because she is the mom, but taking away her right to know if her teen is getting an abortion. Hmmm.
jpu said…
More conversions will also reduce crime and hunger and racism and wars, too. Nevertheless, we support political means to achieve those ends also. Why is abortion the exception? The south was deeply religious in the 1800's but were not willing to give up slavery. Slavery had to be made illegal to end it.
The issue is are these embryos human or not. If they are then abortion is murder. If they are then the have human rights, including the right to life. Advocating for their right to life is caring for the "least of these" as Jesus calls us to. I can't think of any humans more "least" than humans in utero. I can't vote for someone who claims to care for soldiers and minorities and the poor yet wants to keep the murder of the "least of these" safe and legal.
God is good

Popular posts from this blog

Why did Peter put his coat on before jumping in the water? John 21:7

bike review:men's Simple 3 by Giant

I'm an ex-vanglical but not an ex-christian