Barack versus Jesse

I suggested yesterday that we could do a lot worse than Barack Obama by making a reference to Jesse Jackson. To be fair, I may have revise my comment. In a recent editorial, Father Jonathan Morris compares Barack and Jesse on the selective application of their religious faith. His analysis is worth considering, particularly for those of you who may be smitten by Obama's positive message. His position on abortion gets overshadowed by his sunny disposition.

While were on the subject, I must say, I find it extremely difficult to understand how professing Christians can justify a pro-choice position on the issue of abortion. The Bible is replete with multiple passages which make a strong case for the reality of human life in the womb (Exodus 21:22-23; Psalm 51:5, 139:13-16). The Christian has a responsibility to act on their behalf (Proverbs 24:11-12) and to "speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves" (Proverbs 31:8). For we are all made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27, 9:6).

If this is what the Bible says about the value of humanity and the gravity of unjustifiably taking human life, where does a Christian justify abortion? In fact, in his book, Family Driven Faith, Dr. Voddie Baucham addresses this inconsistency. He writes about Dr. Peter Singer's view on abortion. Dr. Singer, a leading bioethicist, advocates abortion. But he goes radically further. Dr. Singer actually advocates that parents should have the option to exterminate their children after birth if they determine that the child is not viable. You see, his view on such life-and-death issues is built around his definition of personhood. A person is truly a person only when they have self-awareness and the capacity to communicate and sustain their own life without help. Therefore, until a human being reaches that state, he/she is expendable.

Dr. Baucham's point is this:

What is the difference between my thirteen-month-old son and a six-month old fetus? The answer is, location. If it is acceptable to kill a child in the womb, it is also acceptable to do so outside the womb. Peter Singer is not being morbid; he is being consistent. The only difference between him and many Christians who take a pro-choice stance in the abortion debate is the coherence of his view of man. (p. 79)

Friends, you may recall my rationale for how I come to vote for a particular political candidate, that my starting point is an evaluation of their position on the sanctity of human life. And there are many who would challenge that philosophy, suggesting that we can't just be a one-issue voter. I agree. We shouldn't just be one issue voters. But rarely does our evaluation of the options come down to one issue. Thus, the starting point for me is the the issue of life. As I asked back in June,

When considering a candidate's political convictions, I wonder, what is the price tag on a human life? I mean, how much of a tax credit would I need to receive to sufficiently justify eroding basic human rights?

I said it back in June and I still believe it today as the election draws ever closer. And no matter whether the candidate of our choice is a Democrat or a Republican, it would be irresponsible to diminish the significance of this issue when we get to the ballot box.

Comments

[Abby]

If abortion was the only issue I would vote pro-life. Unfortunately there are many more basic human life issues that our current president doesn't seem to care about yet he plays the pro-life card and gets most of the Christian's votes....

[John]

Abby, regardless of whether a candidate is Republican or Democratic, which issue(s) for you trump culture of life issues?

[Abby]

War and basic human rights- food, shelter, dignity

[Peter Eicher (an unashamed one-issue voter)]

I have often thought about the historic issue of slavery and what an atrocity that was. People were right to do whatever it took to end that practice. It was such a violation of human rights. Then I look at the issue of abortion, and I can't imagine how people can think of it as just one of many issues. Our society would be appalled at the thought of revitalizing slave trade, yet, we sit idly by as millions of defenseless humans are killed. John, you stated it so well when you said, "what is the price tag on a human life?"

[Abby]

Peter-
I read your post and have thought about it quite a bit...and it is convincing...
I am a whole-hearted pro-lifer...even more than some Christians in regards to what I think is OK even with some forms of birth control. So all that to say I need to pray more about the one-issue vote....I'm not sure that is where God has led our family...when there are so many other issues near and dear to the heart of the Father that I feel get swept under the rug. Thanks though...I have a lot to think about....Abby

[Peter Eicher]

Abby,
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your willingness to think this through. I'm not sure what the answer is...Certainly, there are issues that get swept under the rug, and while I feel that many of these aren't the government's job to take care of, the simple truth is that the Church isn't doing what it should be to address the needs of the poor and the oppressed. My desire is to vote for people who will protect All the rights and human dignity of people who were created in God's image, and then empower the private sector and the church to provide for the needs of those who are hurting.

[Abby]

That does make sense...and I agree that the Church needs to do our job of helping the poor and oppressed....More to think about...

[Tim]

I am pro-life, but I am always challenged by additional questions - What other political platform positions of candidates need to be Biblical in order for me to vote for them? How can I justify voting for a pro-life candidate on Biblical grounds who holds other positions that are not Biblically sound and may sink us as a nation [i.e., economic positions that run the country into eventual bankruptcy or positions on war that eventually that bring enemies to our shore and destroy us with nuclear weapons]? If a pro-life candidate is inconsistent with four or five other Biblical standards, should he/she deserve my vote more than a candidate who is weak on pro-life but right on the other four or five issues? And further, should I "waste my vote" on the most Biblically sound candidate and possibly allow a much worse candidate to eventually win the election? In other words, will I be judged by God for voting for a candidate other than one who is pro-life regardless of his/her other unbiblical stands? I wonder.

[Abby]

Excellent point Tim...and said much better than I could have done!!

[Resident Atheist]

"While were on the subject, I must say, I find it extremely difficult to understand how professing Christians can justify a pro-choice position on the issue of abortion." You know, I often ask myself the same question regarding capital punishment. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the support. I like a good revenge killing as much as the next guy. I just never understood how someone could be on the opposite sides of those two issues.

Now, regarding your question. Let me hypothesize a few answers off the top of my head:
1) The Christian or someone close to them was faced with this extremely difficult choice and made what they believed to be the best decision for them at the time. Despite choosing abortion, they know that they are a intrinsically decent human being.
2) They interpret the Bible differently than you (understandable considering how one must use a single, ancient book to interpret all of the modern life’s dilemmas), and don’t consider the fetus a living being, or they do realize that development is on a continuum and a line must be drawn somewhere.
3) They weigh the potential life of an unwanted fetus versus the impact of its future generations on an already over-populated Earth.
4) They are half-hearted Christians that tackle this problem like they do the rest of their faith, and only follow those doctrines that suit them.

Finally, regarding single-issue voters. I think each of us internally weights each issue and tries to find a candidate who scores highest on this ‘personally adjusted scale’. Some just heavily weight one specific issue. My problem with single-issue voters is that they must fail to see how problems are interdependent. It is an oversimplification of the world; a desire to see the gray in black and white terms.

[Peter Eicher]

I guess, even if I stripped away all of scripture from helping me to decide, I would see protecting the unborn as more important than any other cause.

Yes, I agree, the issues are interconnected. As such, I believe that as we continue to devalue human life, we will continue to see our society be degraded.

RA, I respect your oppinons, but have a hard time seeing how you can compare an innocent unborn with a murderer. Even if I didn't believe in capitol punishment (frankly, I'm still up in the air on that one), I would see that this is not an apple-apple comparison.

Thanks, all for the dialogue.

[Resident Atheist]

Peter-
You just got done complaining about the devaluation of human life, and then you can't see the comparison between an innocent unborn LIFE (in many's opinion) and a murderer's LIFE? It's still life, and you devalue it if you think it is okay to kill someone for a crime.

Now I, fortunately, don't have this problem, as I don't value life in the first place. So, I have no problem wiping out those individuals that can't conform to society's rules.