Friday, November 7, 2008

Dr. Burk on Mohler’s Remarks about the Election on ABC News
I think that the other life-protection bills not passing in other states is directly a result of the continued willful rejection of seeing a fetus as a human. With RvW, people have a crutch to say it won’t matter. Many use it as a definition (meaning, RvW defines it and it means that life is defined as at least not some time in the womb). It’s too easy for opposition to promote the idea that with a federal case on the books, props such as the SD ban or California’s notification law would just get struck down by a higher court (well, there’s really only one higher than the state constitutions, right?). It’s simply a continuation of the ease of sliding it out of our minds. The specific outworking on this was the OK law recently. Out of sight, out of mind.

But when it comes down to it, I think what we see is just what Dr. Mohler, et al have been saying. Abortion is being minimized. It’s tossed into a bucket of “concerns” and it’s far easier to just not care as much. And that’s reflected in voting. SD saw the restrictions as too much. It’s a fundamental shift that life no longer begins in the womb. We vote the way our consciences allow us. And it’s not popular enough to see this as a transcendent value. It’s not cool to be a one-issue voter*. And if they don’t care, why should I?

Paul is right about acting. We should act out our convictions. But that doesn’t mean a new game plan. It has never been vote this way or work at a crisis prengnancy center. That’s an unfair caricature (and if it’s what you’ve witnessed, then shame on those around you). Justin Taylor had an interview with Scott Klusendorf. I think it speaks well to the issue overall. Plus there are a couple of other really good guest blog posts on there about the election. Worth checking it out!

* - See the recent boundless article on Cool Compassion

New Comment
Just to beat the proverbial dead horse, I liked this thought out of Klusendorf’s interview:

The moral logic in play here is baffling. First, if abortion does not unjustly kill an innocent human being, why is Obama worried about reducing it? But if it does unjustly kill a human being, isn’t that good reason to legislate against it? Second, laws which allow—indeed, promote—the killing of unborn human beings are unjust even if no one has abortions. Imagine a candidate who said he was personally opposed to spousal abuse while he had a 100% voting record in favor of men having a right to beat their wives. Suppose he told the public the underlying cause of spousal abuse is psychological, so instead of making it illegal for husbands to beat their wives, the solution is to provide federally funded counseling for men.

No comments: