Thursday, October 23, 2008

Dr. Burk's post about J. Budziszewski on election importance of abortion

I would say that there are two reasons. First is the denial of dignity of a class of individuals. In essence, all issues are contained in that denial. Meaning that there are no issues about which I can care if there isn’t a life there. A denial of a life is a denial of any care or love to extend.

But, more often than not, it’s a matter of a difference in policy. It’s not that Obama cares for the poor but McCain is championing slave labor. It’s not that McCain believes in every man paid for his earnings while Obama steals from one group to give to another. In abortion, however, Obama does believe in the legal sanctioning and even (given FOCA) the funding of (and, in a slightly more far-flung manner, coercion of Dr.’s to perform) what is specifically unbiblical. J.Bud gives a good account of how to then fine tune, given comparable issues such as war (and you can even apply to the issue that disputatio rallied earlier).

And in a smaller manner, just hearing the rhetoric about the issue is upsetting to me. When Obama refers to a child in the womb as the equivalent of an STD, it breaks my heart. I think that we all harden our hearts to different sins. This is an easy one since the victims are silent and we don’t get pictures and broadcasts, etc. Actually, if I remember, that is something the article chimes in about as well. This is one that I would say Obama has hardened himself against. He only sees children we want to raise as gifts from God. Otherwise, they’re an inconvenience that we should be able to eliminate. And, as he has said about his own daughter (in the event that she were to get pregnant as a teen), he would condone as well.

New Comment:

Yea, Paul, with the exception of the big jerk part, I have to go with Darius. And hey, if we were to sit and have dinner with one another, that may change, too (oh, wait......;-). RvW is the security blanket that lets (most) people keep telling themselves that this is simply a matter of personal choice (not saying you tell yourself that, mind you…but if you do, you’re a jerk.).

Additionally, while you or I couldn't give a sure prognostication on what would happen to the abortion numbers in the event of RvW being repealed, my hedge would be solidly in the camp that it would significantly reduce the numbers. Which would begin to return the idea that children are a gift, not a disease.

And, though I know that you will vainly not cast your vote for Obama, this isn’t a pro-choice supporter. This is a rabid pro-abortion candidate. At least that’s what his rhetoric would indicate.

New Comment:


I think Dr. Burk posted a response in general to your question. Additionally, though, taking the argument you pose about SC nominations, I think you point out a specific “great divide” between the two candidates. Taking Obama at his word, he will actively seek to expand RvW. His “first order of business” would be to sign FOCA. This is an aggressively pro-abortion candidate. And, Sen. McCain also stated that he wouldn’t nominate someone who agreed with the RvW decision.

Further, Obama stated “Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided. I think that abortion is a very difficult issue and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on.” Both candidates would agree that the next presidency will have a great impact on that (judicial nominations and RvW).

You are right about actively pursuing ways to help single mothers. Again, though, Obama wants to cut funding from crisis pregnancy centers. FOCA would force pro-llife organizations to “support”* abortion (if federal funding involved). So yes, we should actively seek to help, nurture and care for those mothers. But until the presidency is decided, we should also resist the urge to “back burner” an infant’s right to life because we find it unpalatable to vote for somebody who doesn’t socially reform the way we see fit.

* - at least they would have to present it to those they are counseling, if I understand it correctly.

New comment

Thank you for the response. I have to apologize. I read the quote:

I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications.

And I was thinking that (though the quote written is a bit confusing) his indication was not to submit an RvW supporter (but I did not get the opportunity to watch that debate). I truly apologize for getting that quote wrong.

Of course, given his disagreement with RvW based on his federalist stance, if a potential nominee agreed with RvW, then that would not meet his qualiications (simply from the fact that he not only disagrees with the abortion aspect, but the decision itself that took the decision out of the hands of the state). Again, I apologize for anything I wrote that was wrong or misleading (sigh).

My question still stands: what is your next course of action to fight Roe v. Wade if Sen. Obama is elected?
I didn’t realize that you had a question about that, wasn’t trying to avoid it, if so. Some things would be to continue our support of crisis pregnancy centers (this one especially since Obama seeks to cut federal funding unless support for abortion is included), single mother outreach, outreach to those around us (I live in a college-centered city). But all of that continues whether McCain or Obama (well, sans the parenthetical statement). Especially the last part. One of the fantastically detrimental aspects of secular thought is the teaching of how best to ignore repercussions. Meaning, teach kids how to have sex and pretend that you can prevent repercussions (or act as though they aren’t there). Even outside of a biblical framework, this seems obvious. I think, in the end, what happens is that the center of the issue is human life. We see this in terms of human life and it undoes the idea of sex without consequences.

The thing about what we do is very important. How we impact our community is important. How we speak to our neighbors (well, actually, just that we should speak to our neighbors ;-) ) is vital. Demonstrating (and speaking) the gospel to those with whom we interact is not just important, it is our defining action (of being a Christian). That’s local. What we have an opportunity to do now is to affect a national level. The vast majority of us are not called to stir a national organization such as Focus on the Family, NRL, etc. But our vote has a national affect. And every aspect that Obama touts is denied of the most unprotected of us all.

New comment
I meant to comment on two other things, but I feel very long winded (sorry, all).

In either case, I never disputed that Sen. Obama seems to be adamantly pro-choice. I merely brought up the point that Sen. McCain does not appear to be adamantly pro-life.

That was my point as well. It’s not that Obama is pro-choice, he is aggressively pro-abortion. You (correctly, perhaps?) frame McCain as a passive pro-life guy. Obama is an aggressive pro-abortion guy. This isn’t Clinton, for instance, who at the bare minimum opposed late-term abortions (if my memory serves me correctly). Obama is a candidate who seeks to eradicate what little movement has been made in the law (again, see FOCA). McCain continues to seek faith-based initiatives, which would include efforts such as crisis pregnancy centers, of course, it could be that nothing gets promoted. Obama’s camp has already said no to supporting continued funding for crisis pregnancy centers. So, yes, it could be that McCain would nominate a center SC. At worst, he simply continues the court as we see it today (I disagree, however). But Obama is aggressively seeking to solidify and expand abortion. He’s a rabid pro-abortion fellow.

And, BTW, …while at the same time petitioning the current Supreme Court with intellectual, well-reasoned arguments for life, petitioning state lawmakers to present a law challenging Roe v. Wade…

With FOCA, the state law would not be allowed. With a left leaning (at best, ultra-liberal at worst) SC, the arguments never make it.

Did you read Weigel’s piece (and the corresponding rejoinder and surrejoinder)?

No comments: