How do you respond to this letter to me? We occasionally get letters that we think would be good for public, civil conversation. This is one of those. The letter is being used by permission and I'm urging you to be civil and thoughtful in your response. We are esp interesting in how evangelicals who will vote for Obama answer this letter.
Hey Scot -
Sorry to bother you, I'm sure you receive many emails; but I have a political question. And to spare coming off accusatory toward any of my Democrat-voting co-employees where I work, I figured you'd be a good go-to person since you seem to be one of those evangelicals who might cast a ballot for Obama on the 4th...
Here's
my hang-up: I'm concerned for the poor and outcast in our society
because I know God cares deeply for them. And because I have gleaned
that Dem's are traditionally known to be more intentionally for those
who would fall into that category, I am tempted to vote Obama. Yet, I
cannot get past the abortion issue. It seems to me that although we
have the poor and outcast among us,
at least they are among us
that we may care for them both spiritually and physically. The aborted
are not, and never will be. So although I am tempted to vote Obama for
social reasons, I cannot. Am I wrong in thinking this way? Am I not
seeing something?
Any advice/guidance/facts/etc.?
Grace and Peace.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Greg,
Thanks for your response. I think you proved my point re: not really listening...
Rachael,
Thanks for your response. Question is...if abortion is such a moral imperative (as pro-lifers would have us believe) so that all of our efforts should go into ending this above all other injustices...why didn't Jesus say anything about it? It was certainly going on back then (ref. Hippocratic oath 4 B.C.)
Some may argue that Jesus did not address every moral issue of the time (and that is true) however if this issue is of such great importance that we would choose to vote for the leader of the free world based on that issue alone, then the lack of mention of it in the Bible speaks volumes to me...
To quote an earlier post, I think that the issue is how a particular person believes change will be accomplished. In my interactions most people who believe they can vote for a pro-choice candidate as Christians (and yes, they are godly men and women—don't doubt their faith) think that fundamentally change is accomplished in the heart of individual people, and great evils like abortion will not change from the top-down but from the bottom-up. Likewise, those who view abortion as a "deal-breaker" believe that change happens from the top-down.
What I don't believe you are seeing here is voting to end abortion doesn't necessarily mean that a person (I would include myself in this category) doesn't necessarily believe that change happens from the top down, but that government, as instituted by God is to protect people. If we are not protecting the unborn, we are not protecting people. Also, when Israel moved into the promised land, they were told not to adopt the ways of the previous (and current to them) occupants. One of the examples given was not sacrificing their children to pagan gods. How is this different from sacrificing our children on the alter of self and aborting them.
Also, more to the point of change happening from the top down, when we outlaw abortion, we are not only protecting the babies, but we are protecting women who after an abortion may come to know the Lord and would so completely lament what they have done. This is still believing that change happens in the hearts of people which will in turn change the people who we elect to office. You can't throw caution to the wind and say, "well because change happens from the bottom up, we don't have to elect people who will promote the right kind of change." That is faulty reasoning.
Sorry to be so late to the conversation - would like some feedback from the group though. In the days of the election (which clearly have passed now) I see two topics of great interest for myself (a conservative/libertarian style Christian). The first is addressing the needs of the poor in our society - which is somewhat unrelated to this blog entry. The second is the issue of abortion.
I have heard on a number of fronts pro-lifers arguing that the Obama policy is better because it seeks to reduce the number abortions performed. While this may indeed hold true (and yes, I doubt the Republican party really wants to overturn Roe v. Wade since it's such an effective issue) - it seems a bit off in terms of its logic. If we hold that the pre-born are human lives just as the post-born, then reducing the number of abortions while keeping them "safe and legal" is no different than reducing the number of rapes or murders while keeping them "safe and legal" for the assailant. This doesn't seem to pass the smell test. The laws are here to protect the rights of the citizens and maintain order. We cannot hold that hold that reducing crime alleviates our need to defend the victims.
Thoughts?
P.S. - my first post. Hope it wasn't too over-the-top. Thanks.
Obviously, I'm pretty late to this, too. It took me a while to realize that the switch-over had actually happened. Anyway, here's a response I wrote to a similar question about a week ago:
I can't speak for all who, despite his "pro-choice" stance, supported Obama. But for me, I come at this issue thinking several things:
1) As a pro-lifer myself, I want to do whatever I can to ensure that fewer abortions happen.
2) Having a pro-life president has done little to affect the abortion rate. In fact, the abortion rate has been in decline under BOTH pro-life and pro-choice presidents for the past two decades. (There is actually some evidence that the rate of decline may be stalling, but I don't blame that on the current administration. It may well be nothing more than the mathematical certainty that a rate simply cannot continue declining forever.)
3) Efforts over the past THREE decades to stop abortions by making them illegal haven't gotten as far as might be desired.
4) There remains the powerful argument (at least to me) that many who would seek abortions, but cannot do so legally, will STILL do so, and might cause themselves harm that they might have avoided if a legal option was available.
5) All but two Supreme Court justices have been appointed by Republican presidents (I THINK all were pro-life, but I confess I don't know Ford's stance for certain).
#2 and #5 are especially telling for me, when it comes to whether or not I can support a pro-choice presidential candidate, because these really get to how much power (or lack thereof) a president has to influence how many abortions actually take place. It seems to me that there would be little difference one way or the other.
Having established that, I feel not only FREE to look at other issues, but feel that I MUST do so, in order to make a wise and informed choice for the good of the country.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.