Pro-Life Is Not Single-Issue

Or, why using a pro-life criteria as a single-issue voting guide is acceptable and responsible in the American Republic.

A fellow-student of my wife’s at her well-known Christian school wrote a note stating her belief that Obama is a better Christian and will be a better President than McCain. It was discouraging to read.

This makes the second person who I’d’ve thought would be able to see beyond the incessant, sycophantic cheerleading by the MSM and the carefully tailored lies of the Obama campaign to the real depth of his deception and would not support him for that.

I guess an audacious hope in change for the sake of hope or something similar really is something for which people yearn to such an extent they are willing to kneel at the baals of our culture and join the thronging hordes chasing the dream of socialism.

I thought I had one more generation before America had it’s watershed moment of decision over communism.

We can’t choose our situations or the perils which will beset our life, we can only do our best in the situations with which we are faced. As when Frodo faced with despair his imminent doom:

Frodo: I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.
Gandalf: So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world Frodo, besides the will of evil.

But to the subject at hand:

This student, writing in her note, commented that she had people in her life who would not vote for Obama under any circumstances due to his support of Abortion. She considered this view too narrow and not a careful approach to the broader issues at hand.

She further commented, as noted earlier, that per her reading of Proverbs, Obama was living his Christian witness on the campaign to an extent she’d not seen elsewhere.

Two questions: Is a single-issue pro-life position too narrow a view and is Obama living a Christian witness on the campaign trail?

The abortion battle which divides much of our society so drastically is so divisive and drastic because it is so very important, and those who have considered it at all either believe it is extremely important for many reasons beyond those just on it’s face or they are decieved.

Suitable to the depth of the issue (not the complexity, abortion is not complex: the baby is either dead or alive), there are a plethora of positions on abortion, all along the continuum from “No, not ever” to “The more dead the merrier, the later the better”. I can understand and sympathize with those who have honestly experienced a “for the life of the mother” situation and have their ideas formed that way. But were my wife in that position (though the percentage chances of that are incredibly miniscule), I would only allow myself the position that it is an accepted risk and part of life that we go through, and that were it necessary for me or my wife to give up our lives for the sake of our child, that is the correct thing to do. Pragmatically, it is the measuring of potential: my child has greater potential than I. Theologically, Jesus died for me, God’s child, I can die for my child. Being a man it is easy to dismiss my argument as being ill-considered and shallow and prone to revisiting when I’m actually faced with that. But the truth is there, and I could not live with another decision.

Most average people believe the lies that abortion is intended only for rare cases of parental abuse, rape, incest, and the like, and therefore support it for those reasons. Some people recognize it for it’s inherent racism: whole generations of black and other minority children cut down like so much government-subsidized and unwanted wheat.

The real militants take it is a watershed for womens rights, making motherhood as much a choice as fatherhood.

Only the cold-killers go all the way: Abortion anytime, anywhere, for any purpose. Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the Illinois Legislature AFTER it was ammended to included the obligatory protections for cases of rape and incest at his request. This is not a case of one random vote against, it is a case of him realizing the political expediency of something (support for such an obviously good piece of legislation) and then changing his mind for the sake of his personal belief that children are only to be kept when they’re wanted.

Obama further supported and defended a hospital which was found to be condoning the practice of leaving unwanted babies delivered during botched abortions unattended in storage closets until they died.

Obama is for, and this is not a debatable or arguable issue, the allowable killing of babies who have survived the horrifics of an abortion and are living outside of their mother.

Right now we call this murder.

What kind of man believes this is good? What kind of president would that man be who believe such a thing?

Human dignity was a term this student used to describe the totality of Obama’s ideas. His ideals were better for human dignity.

If we as a society believe it’s OK to kill babies AFTER they’re born, have we ANY acceptable or reasonable perception of human dignity?

A man who would not work to save a baby does not understand the magnificence and wonder of human life. A man who does not understand these basic aspects of human dignity has no dignity himself.

It is not a small view or a narrow perception to believe that one who does not support the protection of human life, especially that of the weakest and most innocent among us, is not a fit man to be president.

Is Obama living a “Christian” witness on the campaign trail?

He denies that children are a blessing from the Lord. Or if believes that, he doesn’t want that blessing.

He finds it necessary to lie about his past and about his views and opinions on issues. He was not raised in the middle class but by his extremely successful bank president grandmother. Nothing against him or his grandmother for that. I would not think less of him, were he to only not seek to hide it and lie about it.

He claims that it was deregulation which allowed the banking failures when it was his direct actions and work which contributed towards the protection of Fannie and Freddie from scrutiny and increased regulation at the hands of the Bush administration and John McCain years ago which may have averted this crisis we are now experiencing.

He claims that taking a position on the beginning of human life is “above his pay grade”, again failing to stand up, as a Christian man ought to have done, in protection of the innocent and unborn among us and denying that his actions, speaking much louder than his words, show that he believes human life begins when the parents decides they want the child and not a moment sooner.

He associates with people who support the disruption of society and killing of people in terrorist acts and who when given opportunity to recant, say they did not do enough.

He spends 20 years in the pews of a church which has more in common ideologically with Marxism than Christianity as Jesus modeled it.

This is not hidden fact or obfuscated information. It is all readily available to those who would listen.

I am not to judge because I will be judged with the same measure I have measured with, but I can observe based on the evidence before me and draw conclusions.

I just don’t understand.

5 thoughts on “Pro-Life Is Not Single-Issue”

  1. I agree with your views on abortion and don’t support it, no matter the scenario. As for Obama, I definitely don’t think that he’s been a great Christian witness on the campaign trail.

    One thing to ponder, however, and this is a bit of a digression, but I still find it important: Does it matter what the baby grows up to be? What if the same baby who is allowed to live turns out to be homosexual, a liar, or the next Democratic potential candidate? Does his potential (good or bad) determine his worth, now or in the future?

    (Just for the record, I don’t think so.)

    What I’m getting at, though, is that human life is valuable the whole way through, not just while the human is a fetus or a newborn. I’m not trying to accuse you of this, but I’m saying that the common conservative reaction is to be pro-life only to a certain point, then cry out against social reform programs because the welfare system has a bad rap (rather than implementing programs that help people who are legitimately in bad places)–or rally against the homosexuals in an unloving manner (rather than responding to them with love–even if we don’t love their actions)–or basically fight anything (like national healthcare or social justice programs) that doesn’t rely on that whole pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps mentality. We’re all about defending the rights of the unborn, those who cannot speak up for themselves–but what about the poor, what about those babies who were given a chance at life yet had no one standing alongside them after birth? How can we be so solidly pro-life but only when it comes to the category of “children”?

    I don’t think we can. As Mother Teresa put it (and I am not directly quoting, but this is the general idea), if we’re going to say that we are for life, we need to do more than say it. We need to be willing to take in the babies and the unwed mothers (literally and figuratively), rather than just voting pro-life and leaving it up to the government to sort out the rest. In the end, it doesn’t come down to the government. It comes down to grassroots: what are YOU going to do about it? What am I going to do about it? If we are calling ourselves pro-life, then we’d better darn well be pro-ALL-of-life, not just the infant part.

  2. First, yes. I believe that potential, no matter how it ends up, is worth preserving.

    The scenes in the movie I, Robot where the robot has saved the mature detective rather than the young girl based on a probability calculation that the detective has a better chance of survival resounds with us as an incorrect decision.

    The child I die saving may die through other circumstances the very next day. Does that make my decision incorrect? No.

    From a Christian perspective, I know where I’m going when I die. With that assurance death is bitter but far from hopeless. To allow another to die who I do not know to have this eternal hope would be something I’d regret.

    Regarding being “pro-all-life”, as I hope to be able to categorize your views: Have you observed a butterfly emerging from it’s chrysalis? It is a painful process for the butterfly and painful to watch as well. The struggles go on for quite a while as the fledgling creature of beauty must pull itself free from the entangling walls which were its home and now it’s greatest enemy.

    The urge to help the butterfly is great, to reach and tear what is to us a fragile membrane to free the wings and swollen abdomen.

    However, that abdomen is swollen with the fluids which must be pumped through might exertion through the wing structures. The wings hang limply now like deflated balloons and must be filled to grow several times their current apparent size.

    If you help that butterfly, you may have the best of intentions, but you are not acting in love. You are acting in ignorance of it’s true needs and you’ve destroyed the poor creature.

    I’m not taking this position from some omnipotent view. No doubt you’ve been through difficult and trying times in your life. Those times that I can remember as being most fruitful to my maturing are those times I’ve struggled and felt so very close to failure. When I face a personal inability to remedy a situation and then someone encourages me, not by fixing the problem for me, but by telling me that I should not give up. Or when I take it upon myself to stand up again and face the situation. Those are the best times of my life when I look back.

    The third most important time in my life was when I was stranded in Italy, in Rome over New Years 2007, broke, with 2 weeks left until my plane ticket home. I came close to a panic attack. Those who know me will tell you that is really something for me.

    The dire nature of the situation was resolved and I ended up spending two wonderful weeks by myself in Venice wandering the streets of that city and the surrounding mainland. I arrived in Italy rather dependent on relationships and others involvement and while I still enjoy others relations, I learned a healthy independence from the situation.

    All that to say, the “up-by-your-bootstraps” philosophy is a far superior philosophy to that of most people in Washington and many other locals of government across the world.

    Something given for free or expected as a right is not generally appreciated by the receiver. Due to urbanization and globalization we are more inter-dependent today as individuals and communities and nations than ever before, this is not a completely bad thing. But that inter-dependence must be balanced by a healthy independence to maintain it’s strength and healthy aspects.

    To become co-inter-dependent is to lose the strength needed in our individuality and to encourage failure of the entire system based on individual weakness.

    I am pro-all-life. I am completely for protecting the struggle, the bitter sweat, the blood and the tears, the joys, the highs, the lows. I am completely against protecting people from the natural results of their own choices and actions. This is what I believe it means to be a classical liberal (or conservative, given the current state of political philosophy terminology).

  3. I appreciate the in depth analysis and superior reasoning that I have seen in these posts. However, I wish to inject a simple, but realistic perspective. Higher language and lengthy writing are not my style, but I have been given, and living a unique perspective that I feel is at the root of this conversation.

    I have been living and working with the “Aborted Living,” or those who are born but have no one standing next to them. Those that are described by shark. About a year and a half ago, God called me to Florida to use my talents to help a small local ministry that meets the needs of the local inner city. As I said, I work with the Aborted Living. We don’t run background check on the people we help because most of them have at least two felonies. At one point, we were employing six people and only one of them had a valid license. I will walk into a community and talk to youth who have more on their rap sheet than I have on my college transcript. I truly have been given a perspective that most suburban people shy from.

    However, because of my experiences, I have seen what works and what doesn’t. Our little ministry has only a skeleton staff, but we know our community. We are not only able to give jobs to those who need them, we are able to talk to the person and meet their specific need with a specific response. When our secretary (an Aborted Dead) needed dental work, we were able to work with a dentist to meet her needs. When our bookkeeper (an Aborted Dead) demonstrated her inability to balance a check book (something she lied to us about), we were able to work with her on secretarial skills instead of keeping her in the books. None of these people need a hot meal and a place to stay like some of the people we help do. However, they needed a personal touch.

    Our actions are in sharp contrast to a large local good-will group. The large group, while able to reach more people, are ineffective because they cannot meet the personal needs. Once a year, the large organization host a meal for the poor of the community. The meal is defiantly needed by many. However, it doesn’t meet the intricate or long term needs of the community.

    Of course at this point you must be saying, alright, where is SC going, but look at the obvious metaphor.

    I know one young lady in a community that is eighteen years old, first became pregnant when she was thirteen, now has four children, and if you knock on her door at 3:00 pm, she will answer it in her sheets and a groggy glare. Or, how about the police officer that knocked on the door at 11:00 am and was told to be quieter by the neighbor who was dressed in PJ’s and glimpsing in the bright sun. These people are being helped by a large organization. The organization does a lot of good by meeting needs, but cannot touch the personal needs.

    I like to contrast this with my mother. My mother has touched people’s lives. She hasn’t touched as many people as the government has, but my mother has spent time getting to know people. She has taken people to their job when they didn’t have a car. She has taken them shopping so they know how to shop smart. She has touched their lives where there is a genuine need. She has touched them in a way that improves who they are and not what they spend.

    This is the root of the conservative economic and moral mindset and the Christian “body”. We believe that individuals are the best equipped to change their communities and serve their purpose. In the body, the individual parts are the best equipped to perform their specific and unique functions.

  4. I agree with nearly everything both of you said, and you both said it well. 🙂 To do everything for someone is to disable them from learning to do it themselves, and personal relationship will always go farther than corporate goodwill, no matter how “good” it is.

    I guess the thing I get frustrated with is when conservatives (or whatever you want to call them–keeping in mind that I consider myself one of them 🙂 declare that this is what they’re all about, yet do nothing individually. To agree with conservative (or classical liberal…or Christian) values but not adhere to them by participating indivually seems backwards to me. Your mother, ShatteredChina, seems like the kind of woman who is setting an example for all of us. The sad thing, at least as I have observed it with so many of the people around me, is that we laud her efforts and do nothing to join them.

  5. Responding to your fears that many people do not put the walk to their talk and actually make an effort to help people they don’t want the government to help:

    It is a matter of fact that Christians and conservatives contribute orders of magnitude more money and effort to private social programs and organizations than their atheist and liberal counterparts.

    So you can rest assured that the work you yourself do and the money you share is being met by many other of our conservative and Christian brethren around the world with the goal of meeting the needs of our less fortunate fellow humans.

Leave a Reply