If You Are Truly Pro-Life, You’d Vote Democrat

It’s disappointing to see Christianity watered-down to a single hot-button political issue, but since so many of the responses to posts on this site and facebook have focused exclusively on abortion, I wanted to address it.  If you believe “Life” is the sole issue Christians should vote on, I don’t see how you could do anything but vote Democrat.

Some could argue that what a Party says is more important than what it actually does when it comes to abortion.  But if you really care about protecting the unborn and believe saving those lives is more important than merely talking about how we should, you need to vote Democrat.

The truth is that whether a person IDs as “pro-life” or “pro-choice,” we should all be able to agree that 1-in-5 pregnancies in this country ending in abortion reflects a serious societal problem that needs to be addressed.  The question is what do we do about it? 

The Republican and Religious Right’s focus on criminalization and overturning Roe may makes proponents feel good, but it does not help the unborn.  Republicans first made this a political issue back in the late 1970s, and we have as many abortions now as we had then.  Despite decades of campaign promises and a period where 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices were GOP appointees and Republicans controlled the White House and both branches of Congress, Roe remains the law of the land. 

There are two possible explanations for this: 1) Republican leaders aren’t serious about saving the unborn and prefer abortion as a campaign issue; 2) their solution of trying to criminalize abortion doesn’t work.  I think the answer is both, but let’s leave motivations out of the conversation and look only at solutions.   

Even if the GOP Holy Grail was achieved and Roe was overturned, all that would do is kick the decision on whether abortion is legal back to the states.  And if you look at states that might outlaw abortion—states where their legislatures have tried to limit abortion in some way or where 50%+ of the population IDs as pro-life—as one might imagine those 18 states account for only a small portion of all abortions performed in this country:  only around 10%. 

So if Roe was over turned and all 18 of those states completely outlawed abortion and none of the women in those states went across the border to get an abortion, the most we could hope to see is a 10% reduction in abortion.  Now compare that to the fact that decades of demographic data show that if we cut the number of women living near poverty in half, we would see a 30% reduction in abortion.  If you really care about protecting the unborn, which of those goals should you pursue?

There is a reason abortions went up under Reagan, up under Bush I, saw their largest decline since Roe under Clinton, and then leveled out again under Bush II (abortion data isn’t available yet for Obama’s first term).  Democratic policies reduce abortions, and Republican policies tend to result in more.

I’m not saying the question of when life begins isn’t an important theological question.  But when it comes to abortion policy (the outcome of politics), we know that the best way to actually protect the unborn is what Democrats have been championing for years. Democrats even had a bill (the Ryan-DeLauro bill which was mostly included in Obamacare) that the Bush CDC estimated would reduce abortions by up to 50% by tackling the their root causes.

If we want to actually reduce abortions, we need to prevent unwanted pregnancy.  That means better access to contraception and family planning, and more funding for programs to prevent teen pregnancy (which are at all-time lows under Obama, by the way).  It also means increasing access to pre- and post-natal and pediatric health care, child care assistance, domestic violence prevention programs, and improved adoption services.  That is how we prevent women from ending up in a situation where they need an abortion or help them reach a place where they decide to carry the child to term.

I’ve mostly avoided the “pro-choice” and “pro-life” labels in this post because the labels have done a lot to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for special interest groups, but they have done little to help women, protect the unborn, or create a productive conversation.  As a result, I’ve focused on abortion, not “Life.”  But I’ll break my no-label rule for a moment.  If you consider yourself “pro-life,” consider that ten times as many children in the U.S. die from inadequate healthcare each year as from late-term abortions.   Needless to say, there are numerous other examples of how much more the balance tilts in the Democrat’s direction if we expand the conversation to actually “protecting life,” rather than just preventing abortion.   

It is true that to many Christians the answer the GOP gives to the question of when life begins sounds better than the answer from Democrats.  But to the unborn, there is no question that what Democrats do is much better than what Republicans do.  So if you feel results are more important than words when it comes to “Life,” there is really no debate that Democrats are the Party for you.

  • BobRN

    A couple of points: when you ask which policy pro-lifers should pursue, restricting access to abortion or working to reduce poverty, the obvious answer is: both. Please explain how Obama has done either of those. The poverty rate is higher than it’s been since the mid-60′s. Obama’s answer to poverty seems to be: screw the people who actually create jobs so people can move up and out of poverty, and simply put more people on the government dole. No one can seriously argue that Obama wants to limit access to abortion.
    Also, what sources are you using that show that abortion rates went up under Republican presidents and down under Democrat presidents?
    The Republicans may be far from perfect on abortion (though in my state they do pretty well), but no one can seriously argue that the Democrats are pro-life. Rather, the Dems favor policies that help some people (or their intention is that they do), but pretty much throw others (ie: the unborn) under the bus. And that’s pro-life how?

    • Eric Sapp

      Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Politics is always about imperfect choices, and no person (and definitely no political Party) will govern as Christ would. Politics will always be about choosing the best of imperfect options in a fallen world. For people who feel abortion is one of, or the, top issue they should vote on, I wanted to ensure we got past some of the rhetoric and looked at the actual choices.

      On the poverty point, it’s important to look at reported rates vs actual poverty. Obama has managed to keep the number of people in poverty level in real terms despite inheriting the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The reason the reported “rate” has gone up is b/c the change in how govt gives out aid and how the “poverty rate” is counted. The rate only measures income, but govt aid has changed from income to “tax refunds.” Food stamps are also no longer counted as income. If you count in food stamps and the money people get from Earned Income Tax Credit system for helping the very poor, poverty has actually remained constant during this record economic downturn, which is pretty remarkable. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/magazine/obama-poverty.html?pagewanted=5&_r=2&ref=magazine

      And for the purposes of abortion, it’s actual poverty not the way it’s counted that affects the number of abortions.

      The sources for abortions are the official CDC rates and Guttmacher Institute, which are the two non-partisan organizations that measure and track abortions in this country. Lest there be any question about sources, here is the count by National Right to Life (using the same two I did): http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html

      • Ted Seeber

        A genocide is still a genocide. Planned Parenthood, and all who support them, are just Eugenicists trying to Eliminate Poverty By Murder.

        • Alisa Deigert

          Simple thinking is still simple thinking.
          To force a woman to carry an unwanted child when we have the means to terminate the process of fetus growth very early in development is barbaric.
          The decision to have a child was the second most important decision in my life. I knew my life would never really belong to me again, I knew the baby would need hours and hours of love and nurturing. I knew I would be responsible for my child to have a safe, secure warm home with ample food, ample learning opportunities so on and so forth. Best decision I ever made. But do not make this choice for other people for then you are playing God and neither of us are God. This is the woman’s choice and to overturn roe v wade would be regression of both human intelligence and kindness.

          This said, if you can guarantee every child born will have loving ,responsible parents willing to devote their lives to the maturation of this child, providing unconditional love, a safe, secure, comfortable home and there are no more babies shaken to death left in dumpsters, beaten, and shamed etc.. I am all for overturning Roe. Have you ever seen some of the absused and neglected babies and children that are not wanted?

          • Frank

            How tragic that allowing an unborn child to be born as God intends is called barbaric. What an upside down world we live n.

          • Ted Seeber

            Better a bad childhood than no childhood at all. Due to undiagnosed Asperger’s, I spent most of my childhood, even with loving parents, being abused at school every day by both peers and people older than me.

            I’d still rather be alive than not have that abuse.

          • Andy Ivy-Townley

            A dodged issue is still a dodged issue. Ridiculous that people like you think that the abortion issue has anything to do with you or any other child-bearing woman. It doesn’t it has to do with the life you created that you’re asking for the right to murder (or at least let someone else murder.)

            How about you don’t think about yourself so much? That’s what caused the problem in the first place.

          • Diane

            Alisa ..Let’s start with God…you stated… “But do not make this choice for other people for then you are playing God and neither of us are God.” Yes you are right in saying we are not God. Are you not playing God to decide if the unborn child is to live or die. Are they not innocent until proven guilty? Are you handing down a death sentence ?God loves His creations….”you knit me together in my MOTHER’S womb. ” (Psalm 139:13)” God doesn’t say in a WOMANS’S womb but in the MOTHER’S womb. This unborn baby is referring to his or her MOTHER. God created the womb for a place it give life not a tomb of death. God is the creator of all life..only He can take a life. His commandment says , ” THOU SHALL NOT KILL.” To force a woman to carry an unwanted child when we have the means to terminate the process of fetus growth very early in development is barbaric.Yes God gave us free will. a choice ..whether a mother who killed her unborn child or a mother loving their baby, Blessed with God’s most cherish gift. “You will reap what you sew.” Next you write, To force a woman to carry an unwanted child when we have the means to terminate the process of fetus growth very early in development is barbaric.” Whether you abort an “unwanted ” child in early or late pregnancy is balbaric and is MURDER. In the 4th week of gestation the brain,spinal cord, heart begin to form 6 weeks gestation the lungs are forming, brain activity can be recorded , heart is beating,8 weeks gestation essential organs
            form, fingers, eyes, nose,lips,tongue develop,organs controlled b y brain,10th week gestation now a fetus have arms and legs,can make a fist, red blood cells are produced, 12th week gestation face is well formed , all body parts and organs are present, some believe can feel pain, heartbeat can be heard with electronic devices, 14 weeks gestation baby can swallow makes sucking motion, 16 weeks gestation movement felt, 18 weeks gestation can punch and kick, sucks his/her thumb, gender is evident, 20 weeks gestation , may feel pain, turns entire body side to side front to back,has breathing movements, 24 weeks gestation has fingerprints hiccup s,squints, smiles ,lungs maturing,28 weeks gestation good chance of survival if birth occurs,30-36 wks gestation continues to grow and mature,38 wks gestation full term. Whether in early pregnancy, via suction or later via tearing their tiny body part by part, or in late to full term forcing into breech and puncturing the back neck to suck the brains out these are the most balbaric torture known to man.In closing God loves the sinner but hates the sin. Those who truly repents , God is a forgiving God. He knows your heart and hurts. Put God first and you second. God is our ultimate judge, there is nothing greater than being in the favor of God ….Diane

            Unborn Child’s Plea

            Mommy mommy will we ever meet
            Will you ever tickle my little feet
            feed me, and hold me in your arms
            look in my eyes, protect me from harm
            Mommy Mommy keep me away
            Do not let them hurt me in anyway
            For I am not a glob of tissue as they say
            Mommy do not let the lies have their way
            Mommy Mommy please let me stay
            I am life growing inside of you everyday
            Mommy I am your flesh and bone
            Please mommy don’t leave me all alone
            I can move side to side, front and back
            I can suck my thumb, and kick too
            Mommy Mommy think it through
            I have a brain and a beating heart
            Please, Mommy don’t let them dismember me
            part by part
            I plea with you…give me life
            Spare me from the knife
            Mommy I have no say
            My rights were taken away
            For you made your decision
            you gave permission for an abortion
            OH mommy why didn’t you want me
            I am scared, so very scared …hear my plea
            no place to go, no place to hide
            I am trapped inside
            OH Mommy the knife is coming my way
            It is cutting me away part by part
            I have no more beating heart
            I have no more fingers and toes
            I have no more arms and nose
            I once was very happy in your womb
            Mommy you made into my tomb

            My body parts thrown away
            like common garbage to feed the stray
            Did you ever love me to give me a chance at life
            spare me from the knife
            I live no more so it is to be
            only a flashback for you to see
            I am not in your way anymore
            You are free to do as please and so much more
            I wanted you to be my mommy
            But it would never be
            Mommy I love you
            Mommy did you ever love me too

        • Steve Avakian

          This was a hard issue for me. I spoke with my preacher about this recently. It really depends on whether or not your look at any other issues whatsoever, particularly those that involve killing people. Please follow me down the rabbit hole of rational discussion for a moment.

          It is the belief of my church that fetuses have souls–it is also the belief of my church that (as Pro-Lifers constantly intimate,) aborted fetuses are innocent of any wrong-doing. If they have souls and are innocent of wrong-doing, we can rest assured they are resting in the heavenly realm–they are sent directly into the watchful hands of our maker.

          Now, let’s look at war. When my aunt and I argue, I have been wont to say recently when she tells me that “Democrats are baby killers,” that I reply with “Republicans are grown-up killers.” The folks we have killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are full-grown adults, many imperfect, and most not Christian. Unlike with abortions, we are damning these people to hell when we kill them–not to mention that “Jesus don’t like killing, no matter the reason for,” as John Prine reminds us. Republicans, at least those of today, are hell-bent on war, it seems, and are only concerned that a fetus/child is born, but don’t help care for it after a woman is forced to have it.

          So. My choices are these then:
          1. Reduce the number of abortions by voting Democrat (Clinton’s work with Pro-Life leaders helped to dramatically decrease the number of abortions that happen in this country by increasing education and access to birth control), with the assurance that aborted souls are heaven-bound.

          and

          2. Vote Republican when they don’t really reduce the number of abortions (they use it to get folks like you and I who care about reducing abortions to vote with them even though they don’t responsibly decrease the number that happen); vote to send my friends to die in foreign wars we don’t need to be fighting; vote to decrease the median income; vote to kill non-Christians at an alarming rate, sending folks directly to hell; and vote to help large corporations with tax cuts whose pockets are bulging after the cut-happy policies of the last thirty years (the idea that giving rich people–not medium and small-sized businesses–will mean the money will come back to us ten-fold has been pretty much borne out as a false doctrine).

          That’s my piece. Thanks for your thoughts and for actually listening to what I have to say.

          • ToronadoBlue

            Steve,
            Appreciate your thoughts. Regarding your comments about killing the unborn who will go to heaven, that may be true but it is also wrong. First of all, I believe 5 year olds are innocent and would go to heaven, but it would be just as wrong for me to run into a pre-school with an AK-47 sending 5 year old souls to heaven. Other than the killing, I believe it to be wrong for a different reason. What we have done is to rob God from what he wants by allowing abortion. If we believe that what God wants is a faithful following who worships him in spirit and truth, we are robbing him of that by taking away these lives.
            Now, lets take a look at war. If you view Republicans as bent on war, I would highly disagree with you. I personally am a contientious objector but can understand war if it is for self defense or is in the defense of others. The Democrats conduct wars too, Libya, Kosovo, Bosnia, countless drone attacks that are still ongoing. Whether these wars/battles are justified is a reasonable debate, but you would be wrong if you believe that Republicans are ready to have a war for any willy-nilly reason.
            In response to your choice 1: Abortions have been dropping as the population was growing since the second half of Bush 1′s administration till 2008. Furthermore, you will notice that it dramatically increased during the Democrat administration of Carter.

            Steve: “2. Vote Republican when they don’t really reduce the number of abortions (they use it to get folks like you and I who care about reducing abortions to vote with them even though they don’t responsibly decrease the number that happen);”
            Fortunately you are wrong on this.
            Republicans have fought democrats and passed laws reducing abortions.
            Examples:
            The Unborn Victims of Violence Act signed by President Bush
            The Federal Abortion Ban signed by President Bush
            An amendment to the Labor Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill allowed health care companies and providers to refuse to provide abortion services on moral or religious grounds.
            The Born Alive Bill was passed and signed by Bush and it appears that Obama voted against a similar one in Illinois.

            Steve: “vote to send my friends to die in foreign wars we don’t need to be fighting;”
            Fair point, but don’t forget that Democrats are pro-war as well. Even Obama referred to Afghanistan as the ‘good war’.

            Steve: “vote to decrease the median income;”
            Incomes have dropped under Obama. More people on food stamps. Food prices are soaring due to inflation.

            Steve: “vote to kill non-Christians at an alarming rate, sending folks directly to hell;”
            3000 children are killed everyday due to abortion. That is a tragedy everyday that claims more lives than terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001.

            Steve: “and vote to help large corporations with tax cuts whose pockets are bulging after the cut-happy policies of the last thirty years (the idea that giving rich people–not medium and small-sized businesses–will mean the money will come back to us ten-fold has been pretty much borne out as a false doctrine).”
            The US has the highest corporate tax rate as of April 1st, 2012. The higher the tax, the more jobs are sent overseas.
            I do sympathise with you that I’d like to see more done for small and midsize businesses. I think that sector will be the backbone of getting more Americans to work. I’d also like to see more done to allow people to start their own businesses. I tried to a couple of years ago, but the regulations were just to much of a headache to deal with. So instead of starting a private company and hiring 2 or 3 people starting off, it is much easier to be an overpaid and underworked government hack who sits at home making a fortune while wearing pajamas.

            Take a look further down in this post for my long rebuttal to Eric’s article and let me know if you have any questions or can offer a comment or two. I asked some questions in that post that I’ll repost here, I’d be interested in your answers:

            Are unborn children innocent?
            If the unborn child has life, is not ending it ‘murder’?
            Is it ever justified to legalize child prostitution or vote for a party that wants to keep it legal?
            Is it ever justified to legalize slavery based on race, or vote for a party that wants to keep it legal?
            For a Christian, is it ever justified to make the worship of Zeus mandatory for all, and vote for a party that wants to ban Christianity?
            Is it ever justified in legalizing child murder, or vote for a party that wants to keep it legal?

            Thanks for reading and have a blessed day.

            FYI – I tried to include links but my replies got held up for a moderator to review and verify that they are not malicious/porn links. If you would like to review them, pop me an email to toronadoblue at hotmail.

          • KCRed

            Steve,
            That is the best, thought out reply I have read. I would like to go to your church. They seem compassionate and in touch with reality, unlike so many alleged churches full of hypocrites.

          • Brooke

            First of all, you seem earnest in your post and I don’t want to come across as disrespectful in response. Abortion is a moral absolute. If one adheres to the Bible as his religious doctrine, then he simply cannot argue this point. War on the other hand is not a moral absolute, but a phenomenon that at times even righteous men of the Bible were actively involved in. To see what radical Islam has been inciting around the world you have to look no further than: Iran, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, etc. This is a self perpetuating war that doesn’t depend on us to sustain itself. I’m not going to get into the nuances about whether or not we should have interfered in Iraq and Afghanistan because frankly I don’t know. But what I do know is that we were not indiscriminately killing people for the sake of them being an inconvenience.

            And as people of faith, surely we recognize that the Lord would not allow someone to die before they’ve had a chance to believe. We know that all are given the opportunity, is it logical then to propose that any human is capable of sending another human to his or her eternal destiny before then?

            To another of your points: Republicans cannot reduce abortions, only women can reduce abortions. Period. On the other hand, democrats can and are financing, endorsing and ultimately ensuring abortions.

            In closing, I believe that the Lord will hold those Christians accountable who support regimes that enact such wicked polices as killing the unborn. Out of all people, we as Christians should know better!

        • Holly

          Planned Parenthood does not sole focus on giving abortions. They really only perform a small number compared to the other services they make available. They provide exams and birth control to under age teens who are sexually active. As well as adults can get these services at little or now cost. They also console about adoption and how to seek that route.

          • KCRed

            PP…3% abortions that do not use government funding. 97% helping with family planning, diagnosing breast cancer, cervical cancer, helping with healthy pregnancies. People just don’t want to KNOW the facts because hysteria is more effective in election years.

          • ToronadoBlue

            @KCRed

            If you thought that Steve’s post was well thought out, then I’d like to know what you think of my response to him since he hasn’t responded.
            Oh, and please don’t overlook the questions that I’ve asked him because I haven’t had an honest ‘pro-choice’ response.

          • Theo

            If someone kills one child or 50 million children, a murder is still a murder. Planned Parenthood should not have a hand in the murdering of unborn children. They should not have a hand in convincing mother’s to murder their children.
            Hitler would’ve been evil if he had killed only 1 Jewish/Black/Gay/ German person instead of 7,000,000.

          • Frank

            Then PP should have no problem stopping abortions and focusing on their other needed services.

          • Bob the Chef

            How does that justify legal abortion? It doesn’t.

            Also, the point of opposing abortion is because it’s evil. We all know that babies don’t land themselves in Hell. But those who have murdered those babies do. That’s one of the major points here. By your logic, the loss of an innocent person is less wrong or lamentable than the loss of a wicked one. And by your logic, since the innocent go to Heaven or some comfortable place, then reducing the number of abortions isn’t really all that important anyway. So why bother?

            Those who participate in the abortion are in danger of Hell. The secondary evils which stem from this is of course a culture wherein we grow increasingly callous to life, especially innocent life. We start to unravel, rationality goes down the tubes and we increasingly turn away from God. We begin to resemble beasts more than human beings. Hell is the only place for beasts.

            Now, just so the bipolar out there know, the Republicans are a miserable group of people. If the Democrats don’t believe in God, then Republicans might but they don’t care. These issues aren’t all on equal footing. That PP provides other services doesn’t justify their abortion machine. How absolutely ludicrous to claim that it does! Contraception isn’t the solution, it is the gateway to abortion. Contraception is intrinsically evil. It INCREASES the number of abortions because it encourages irresponsible and distorted sex. Contraception necessarily means objectification of the other. It turns sex into something disgusting and not the act that is meant to bring or at least be open to life and self-giving and receiving of the other. The more we treat sex as a recreational activity or some weird occult practice or therapeutic act done by psychologically and emotionally screwed up people, the more this disease festers and the more abortions we will see. DO NOT compare senseless wars to abortions. THERE IS NO COMPARISON.

  • Ted Seeber

    “The truth is that whether a person IDs as “pro-life” or “pro-choice,” we should all be able to agree that 1-in-5 pregnancies in this country ending in abortion reflects a serious societal problem that needs to be addressed. ”

    The Democratic Party seems to disagree with that statement:
    http://caelumetterra.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/democrats-reject-reality/

    I don’t vote Republican because I can’t figure out what lowering taxes on the rich is going to do to stop this genocide. But I can’t vote Democrat either because I can’t figure out how killing off the children of the poor is supposed to be living up to our Gospel Duty.

    We need a constitutional crisis to solve this. And we’re NOT going to get it by voting for the major parties.

    • Tim

      The economics are simple (and it’s lower taxes on everyone, not just the “rich”) and are taught in every intro to Economics course in the country. I’ll simplify for you. The parallel is the relationship between price and revenue. Say Apple sold their I-phone for $1 each. They would sell lots of I-phones, but get little overall revenues. Now say they sell them for $ 1 million each. They would sell few I-phones and again would get little overall revenues. The higher they raised their price, the less revenue they would get. Their exists a price point which maximizes the revenues they can receive. Taxes work the same way. If the tax rate is beyond the maximum revenue point, tax receipts go down with increased tax rate (less economic activity) and conversly, tax receipts go up with decreased tax rates (more economic activity). Democrats and Republicans differ as to where the current tax rates fall on the revenue curve, though current results indicate that the rates on on the wrong side of the curve.

      • Ted Seeber

        Capitalism is as Atheistic as Communism. Economics should not determine the worth of a human being EVER.

        • John2

          “Capitalism is as Atheistic as Communism.”
          Source, please. Your bland assertion is not sufficient to carry such a headless comment.

      • RT

        Tim, your premise is wrong. Taxes do NOT work that way. The marginal tax rates in the country were 70%+ up until the 1980 and was even as high as 94%, yet during the 40′s, 50′s and 60′s, the economy experienced near constant economic growth, innovation, invention. If your premise was correct those years should have performed horribly. There is almost no hard evidence that supports the idea that lower taxes lead to higher economic activity and what evidence does exist shows that the effect is much smaller than it is made out to be.

  • Ted Seeber

    Also- PREVENT UNWANTED PREGNANCY? How about instead, valuing human life to the point that every pregnancy is wanted?

    I guarantee you that the fetus involved wants the pregnancy to complete to term.

    Neither major party wants to get rid of abortion, because our entire legal and economic system is based on murder.

    • Eric Sapp

      Ted, I don’t think wanting to be pregnant and valuing life are necessarily connected. Plenty of people decide to keep unwanted pregnancies, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were unwanted. And the number one reason by an exponential amount that women have abortions is b/c they did not plan to get pregnant and did not want to be. So reducing the number of women who got pregnant by accident when they didn’t want to would have a significant impact on the number of abortions in America.

      I can understand your frustration with both Parties (regardless of the issue). Personally, I think we need to engage in flawed systems, but I can understand how you and others might feel differently. This post was obviuosly more in response to those who said their concern for the unborn required them (and everyone else) to vote Republican.

      • Ted Seeber

        No pregnancy is unwanted- the child who will become an adult wants to be born. To call a pregnancy unwanted is discrimination and bigotry against the fetus.

        Anybody who votes for a Republican because of pro-life issues alone, is just Charlie Brown kicking Lucy’s Football again. Pro-life doesn’t even break the top ten priorities for Republicans- but Obama has proven that killing “unwanted” children is #1 on the hit parade for Democrats, they’re not even willing to sacrifice one red cent to help mothers in that situation.

        Parenthood happens, and the only reasonable response is to embrace it, planned or not. EVERY other response to sex causing children is irrational.

        • kristen

          Just to clarify, the democratic platform does not condone ‘killing children’. Embryos are not children. Zygotes are not children. Fetuses are not children. Just trying to help you out with your terminology.
          However, regardless of when life begins or what label you want to put on it, pregnancy requires continued consent of the person carrying it. If something is within my body, the government does not have jurisdiction over that. If I don’t wish to allow something or someone access to my body, I don’t have to. Owning a uterus is not implied consent to pregnancy.

          • Frank

            If you want to maintain complete control of your body then protect it. Once a child is conceived its no longer just your body anymore. How selfish can you be?

          • C

            I am confused by the statement “Fetuses are not children.” Are you saying as women we are not allowed to mourn miscarriage? Are you saying the thumb-sucking entity in my womb last year, the one that responded to loud noises and my voice, was not a child?

          • Sagrav

            Frank: A woman’s body remains hers no matter what happens to be growing in it.

            C: No, a fetus is not a child. It may appear to suck its thumb or respond to stimuli, but not until pretty late into the pregnancy is the fetus in possession of anything that we would call a conscience. Without conscious thought, one does not have a personality. Without a personality, one in not truly a person.

            A human body kept alive with machines may respond to stimuli the same way that an underdeveloped fetus would. However, if the brain of that human body is mostly liquefied (as in the case of Terri Schiavo), then all you are observing is a primitive nervous system reaction. Nothing more. There is no “person” left there. Similarly, there is no real “person” present in a fetus until the later stages of pregnancy at the earliest. Without this higher brain activity, “you” would not be “you”.

            A miscarriage is tragic in that it is the loss of a potential, wanted, future person. I’m sorry, but it was never an actual baby. A baby has a rudimentary personality. As a result, it is much more tragic when a baby dies than if a woman miscarries. In the former, a person had their life snuffed out far too early. In the later, no actual person came into existence.

            This is an emotional issue, and emotions are what cloud people’s minds and cause them to think that there is some crazy baby genocide going on. There isn’t. Things are what they are. An embryo is not a baby. A fetus is not a baby. A baby is a baby.

          • Frank

            You can believe that but that does not make it true. When a child is growing is growing inside a woman who made choices and got pregnant her body is no longer just her own. That’s a biological and moral fact.

          • Sagrav

            No Frank, it is neither a biological or a moral fact, even if you assert that it is. There is no biological “law” determining the human concept of bodily ownership. As long as a woman controls the fate of her body, she “owns” it. This is still true when something is growing in it.

            Morals are a human invention, and they are determined by human societies. Yup, “morality” is relative, and human morality evolves over time. At one time, it was considered “moral” to stone someone to death for homosexuality or adultery. Then, over time, most of us came to the conclusion that this was idiotic and evil. Thus, our morality changed.

          • Frank

            Fact: an unborn child shares the woman’s body.
            Christian Morality: sanctity of life

            I will have to answer to God for many things but killing or supporting the killing of a defenseless, completely dependent baby won’t be one of them. Sleep well!

          • Ted Seeber

            You can lie to yourself about the pre-born not being children, but science fails to back you up. An acorn is just an embryonic oak tree, a fertilized chicken egg is still a chicken.

          • Diane

            CLARIFICATION : zygote ,embryo and fetus are the stages for human development,…a play on words ….for it is common to say..I can’t wait until my baby is born. Medical Definition of ZYGOTE: a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell Definition of embryo: In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo. Definition of FETUS: a developing human from usually two months.after conception to birth. Definition of uterus: A hollow muscular organ located in the pelvic cavity of females in which the fertilized egg implants and develops. Definition of Pregnancy The period from conception to birth. After the egg is fertilized by a sperm and then implanted in the lining of the uterus, it develops into the placenta and embryo, and later into a fetus. Pregnancy usually lasts 40 weeks, beginning from the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period, and is divided into three trimesters, each lasting three months. Cell: All living beings are made up of cells. many cells. The adult human body is made up of about 60-90 trillion cells. In fact, if you lined up all the cells in a human body end-to-end, you could actually circle the earth 4.5 times. So when does life begin? According to scientific evidence a fact well proven” Science has quite clearly and decidedly proven that a new, human life begins at conception (i.e. fertilization. AKA the moment sperm and ovum meet and form an entirely new, self-directing living organism of the human species with its own individual DNA distinct from both mother and father.”Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”4In his film, The Silent Scream, Nathanson later stated, “Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us.” Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader.5 At the time, Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His CLARIFICATION : zygote ,embryo and fetus are the stages for human development,…a play on words ….for it is common to say..I can’t wait until my baby is born. Medical Definition of ZYGOTE: a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell Definition of embryo: In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo. Definition of FETUS: a developing human from usually two months.after conception to birth. Definition of uterus: A hollow muscular organ located in the pelvic cavity of females in which the fertilized egg implants and develops. Definition of Pregnancy The period from conception to birth. After the egg is fertilized by a sperm and then implanted in the lining of the uterus, it develops into the placenta and embryo, and later into a fetus. Pregnancy usually lasts 40 weeks, beginning from the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period, and is divided into three trimesters, each lasting three months. Cell: All living beings are made up of cells. many cells. The adult human body is made up of about 60-90 trillion cells. In fact, if you lined up all the cells in a human body end-to-end, you could actually circle the earth 4.5 times. So when does life begin? According to scientific evidence a fact well proven” Science has quite clearly and decidedly proven that a new, human life begins at conception (i.e. fertilization. AKA the moment sperm and ovum meet and form an entirely new, self-directing living organism of the human species with its own individual DNA distinct from both mother and father.”Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”4In his film, The Silent Scream, Nathanson later stated, “Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us.” Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader.5 At the time, Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.
 conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.


      • Frank

        It does! If you value life there really is no choice but to vote Republican no matter how many other side issues may challenge you to vote differently.

        • Tim

          I understand the concept of a woman should have control of her body. Sure wish she was able to do that (obviously a result that is unattainable or abortion wouldn’t be an issue)

        • Ted Seeber

          Nope. Voting Republican for being pro-life is falling for a bait-and-switch no different than voting for Obama to end the war in Afghanistan.

        • Diane

          The current Congress has introduced 67 abortion bills. Fifty-four of them were introduced by Republicans. A sampling:
          H.R. 212: Sanctity of Human Life Act: “To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.”
          H.R. 1096: Sanctity of Life Act of 2011: “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, and for other purposes.”
          S. 91: Life at Conception Act: “A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and unborn human person.”
          H.R. 374: Life at Conception Act: “To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.”
          S. 314: Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2011: “A bill to ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.”
          S. 2103: District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act: “A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.”
          H.R. 3805: Ultrasound Informed Consent Act: “To ensure that women seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound and the opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion.”
          H.R. 3130: Heartbeat Informed Consent Act: “To ensure that women seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound and an opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion.”
          H.R. 3802: National Pro-Life Waiting Period Act of 2012: “To require an abortion provider, before performing an abortion, to wait for a period of at least 24 hours.”
          S. 3290: Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2012: “A bill to prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or gender, and for other purposes.”
          H.R. 5646: Homeland Security Respect for Life Act: “To prohibit funds appropriated for the Department of Homeland Security from being used to pay for an abortion, and for other purposes.”
          H.R. 6173: PRO-LIFE Act: “To amend the General Education Provisions Act to prohibit Federal education funding for elementary schools and secondary schools that provide on-campus access to abortion providers.”
          H.R. 3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act: “To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes.”
           
          Democratic pro-choice/pro-abortion obsession opinion or facts, true or false?If those bills seem ridiculous, not to mention redundant, that’s because they are. None of them are based on facts of any kinds. There is no such thing as taxpayer-funded abortion. There is no such thing as fetal pain. There is no such thing as on-campus abortion providers for elementary schools. There is no such thing as sex-selective abortion. And there is no reason to require a woman to undergo and view an ultrasound before undergoing an abortion. Since I have a free choice, I support the Republican’s obsession with Abortion!!

        • Diane

          The current Congress has introduced 67 abortion bills. Fifty-four of them were introduced by Republicans. A sampling:
          H.R. 212: Sanctity of Human Life Act: “To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.”
          H.R. 1096: Sanctity of Life Act of 2011: “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, and for other purposes.”
          S. 91: Life at Conception Act: “A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and unborn human person.”
          H.R. 374: Life at Conception Act: “To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.”
          S. 314: Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2011: “A bill to ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.”
          S. 2103: District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act: “A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to protect pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.”
          H.R. 3805: Ultrasound Informed Consent Act: “To ensure that women seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound and the opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion.”
          H.R. 3130: Heartbeat Informed Consent Act: “To ensure that women seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound and an opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion.”
          H.R. 3802: National Pro-Life Waiting Period Act of 2012: “To require an abortion provider, before performing an abortion, to wait for a period of at least 24 hours.”
          S. 3290: Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) of 2012: “A bill to prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or gender, and for other purposes.”
          H.R. 5646: Homeland Security Respect for Life Act: “To prohibit funds appropriated for the Department of Homeland Security from being used to pay for an abortion, and for other purposes.”
          H.R. 6173: PRO-LIFE Act: “To amend the General Education Provisions Act to prohibit Federal education funding for elementary schools and secondary schools that provide on-campus access to abortion providers.”
          H.R. 3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act: “To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes.”
           
          Democratic pro-choice/pro-abortion obsession opinion or facts, true or false?If those bills seem ridiculous, not to mention redundant, that’s because they are. None of them are based on facts of any kinds. There is no such thing as taxpayer-funded abortion. There is no such thing as fetal pain. There is no such thing as on-campus abortion providers for elementary schools. There is no such thing as sex-selective abortion. And there is no reason to require a woman to undergo and view an ultrasound before undergoing an abortion. Since I have a free choice, I support the Republican’s obsession with Abortion!! OBAMA AND THE PRO-CHOICE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS AN UNBORN BABIES NIGHTMARE!!!

    • Holly

      by that it means protection from pregnancy, you via contraceptives and birth control.

  • mccgeno

    What is the GOP going to do with all those unwanted fetuses, once they become unwanted, neglected children? They’re still against welfare, right?

    • Tim

      And what would the democrats do? 40 years and trillions of dollars later, poverty is worse than ever, family support groups are shattered, especially with minorities, and hopelessness abounds. The only beneficiary of their war on poverty has been the federal government, which has grown immensely in size and power, and the democratic party, which has been able to stay in power dispite making the problem worse and not solving anything. The only somewhat successful program was welfare reform which was imposed on Clinton by a Republican congress.

      • Rachel

        Tim,

        I won’t re-type the response I just posted to Ben. Instead I’ll simply say, go back and read Eric’s first response about poverty levels in the country. The President inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, but poverty is not actually “worse than ever.”

      • Diane

        Take all the millions of government funds given to the largest abortion providers, Planned Planned Parenthood and use it to feed and clothe the poor……

        • Holly

          By law Planned Parenthood is not allowed to use the government grants for the actual abortion procedure. Think about long term effects. I guess it will be cheaper to support a child on welfare in your eyes. Plus the risk of abuse at the hands of the parents who didn’t want them in the 1st place. Casey Anthony wanted to abort her baby. But didn’t because her mother didn’t want her to because of their beliefs and look how that all turned out.
          http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

          • ToronadoBlue

            @Holly,
            My mother could have aborted me because she was extremely poor. My wife’s mother could have aborted her because my mother in law was pretty old to be giving birth. Several children that I work with could have been aborted because of their mother’s circumstances, one of them having severe problems due to the mother’s drug abuse. Our new adoptive son could have been aborted because of his mother’s poverty and drug abuse.

            In each of our situations, we could have been aborted and no one in the pro-choice crowd would have faulted any of them.
            Fortunately we weren’t, and through God’s handiwork, we have been brought together to give and share love.

            Look at how that turned out.

  • Noelle

    A zygote is a rock, a book, a tree? What a contemptible view of unborn human life.
    Have you ever witnessed an abortion?

    • Sagrav

      A zygote is not a rock, book, or tree. A zygote is a zygote. However, it is also not a person.

      • Ted Seeber

        Only because you have subjectively defined it not to be a person, no different than a Southerner in 1850 defining a black man not to be a person.

  • Eric Sapp

    Interesting and a bit sad how none of the actual arguments in the piece are being addressed. There appears to be a real lack of depth to the critique of Dems on abortion once folks get past the “baby-killer” accusation…

    Let’s stop calling names and have a conversation…much more productive that way. Perhaps a good place to begin would be to respond to this piece instead of just bandying bumper-sticker critiques.

    • Sagrav

      If someone already thinks that you are a satanic baby murderer, do you really think you can have a (sane) conversation with them?

    • Ted Seeber

      You can have one once your party stops supporting Planned Parenthood’s attempt to abort all children who might have a bad childhood.

  • Ben

    What you are trying to argue is a justification of voting democrat when the platform lacks moral character on this issue. If you need to justify yourself, go ahead and accept that. On the other hand, consider, if looking at this election alone, the shear drop into poverty that our nation has seen. The amount that are unemployed, underemployed, and no longer looking has reached devastating numbers. If your hypothesis of high poverty = high abortion rate, then expect massive numbers of fetus in the landfills. Your argument ties this to the presidency as well. Why do you tie the numbers to the executive branch and not to the legislative branch?

    Better access to contraception? There is a CVS or Walgreens on most every corner, but that doesn’t matter in the real world. People have to still make choices for themselves, including taking the time to wrap it up in the heat of the moment. It’s not governments responsibility.
    If you have to justify a position by making numbers say what you want them too, feel free. Don’t forget the numbers that are now. This President is the first to have a Net total of new jobs at 0. That is according to the NLRB numbers. According to your theory, abortions should be at all time highs under THIS President.

    • Rachel

      Ben,

      Go back and read Eric’s first comment about the importance of looking at rates of poverty vs actual poverty. Yes, we are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression (a crisis the President inherited), but the number of actual people in poverty (as opposed to poverty rates) has remained level. That is not to dismiss the struggles of millions of families and those who are unemployed or under employed, but we haven’t plummeted into poverty. And given the full extent of this crisis, that’s pretty remarkable. Furthermore, as Eric mentioned, it’s actual poverty, not rates of poverty that impact abortion levels.

  • Frank

    The Dems are desperate because even they can see the inevitability of a one term Obama presidency.

  • Matthew R

    How about we stop having government sponsored housing/welfare/healthcare that encourages no consequences for people’s actions? That might make a big impact to start with. If there are consequences, then more people may think twice about either having sex in the first place outside of marriage that could cause an unwanted baby , or at least cause them to actually use protection.

    What I do not understand is the root of your argument which is revealed towards the end–it’s better for a life to be aborted than to live a crummy life. Basically, unless a life is totally provided for, might as well kill it before it gets going too far. That makes no sense with anything the Bible says about life.

    If you want to talk about the rest of your argument, then here we go. Even if we stop 10% of all abortions, that’s 80,000-100,000 babies a years. You make that seem like nothing, yet if a town of 80,000 people suddenly died, that would be a big deal. Also, if R v W was overturned, I think you might see more than 18 states outlaw it. And if it was outlawed totally, I doubt you’d see 800,000 illegal abortions each year. I bet you’d probably see less than 50,000 because that many people aren’t going to take the risk. I’ve see a number in the past that 50%+ of abortions in the North East are while middle-upper class women and I don’t think they are the kind that are going to be getting an abortion done in an illegal clinic.

    Look at how much education and access people have to contraceptives over the past 30-40 years and see how that is NOT working. Education and access don’t matter if people don’t care. Heck, you can go to Wal-Mart, CVS, Wallgreens, etc and get multiple kinds of birth control without any prescription. Do people do it? Nope, because they don’t care. It’s the mentality of, well I can “fix” the problem if one arises instead of avoiding the problem to begin with. Take away the method to “fix/abort” the problem and people will start being more careful. It’s really basic human nature.

    But here’s the biggest thing I think you are missing. It seems like what you think can fix the issue is more government giving help (handouts) to the poor. And while the Bible says many things about helping the poor (more so the orphans and widows though), it does not say anything about stealing stuff from other people to provide for the poor. In fact, everything aimed at helping others is a direct command, not an indirect. Why? Because the reason we are supposed to help others is that Christ will be shown through us. If we are having money taken by the gov and then given to the poor, there is no witness for us is there? That’s why if you want to help others get out and do it. As Christians we can do a 100 million times better job than the gov, plus we can have a much better witness.

    • Frank

      Amen!

    • Tim

      Amen!!!! As Christians, we need to remember that the commisions was given to us, not the government.

    • Rachel

      Matthew,

      I’m sorry to say, but your argument that removing abortion as an option will reduce unwanted pregnancy is just wrong. Southern states have some of the most restrictive abortion laws and least accessible means for obtaining an abortion, and yet their rates of unwanted pregnancy (teenage pregnancy, single mothers, ect) is just as high and higher than the rest of the country. And the problem with making inaccurate assertions like the ones you’ve made is that it actually leads to more abortions by distracting people from actually tackling root causes. The simple facts are, restricting access to abortion doesn’t prevent unintended pregnancy, all the programs and policies Eric lays out in his post do lead to fewer abortions. So what is the ultimate goal, punishing people who have sex or reducing abortions?

      Your comment that people view abortion as a “fix” also shows a very low opinion of women faced with abortion – along with any men involved in the decision. Choosing to have an abortion is an incredibly difficult and emotional decision no matter who you are. The majority of women who have made it did not do so without great grief and don’t think “well if I get pregnant I’ll just ‘fix’ it.”.

      • Frank

        I can understand how choosing to end an innocent life that you helped create would cause stress and agonizing . It should. It should to the point of changing the woman’s mind but alas….

      • Kristen inDallas

        “and yet their rates of unwanted pregnancy (teenage pregnancy, single mothers, ect) is just as high and higher than the rest of the country. ”
        SOURCE PLEASE…
        The reason I ask, is that I have a very strong feeling your data is closer to true to the numbers of out-of-wedlock pregnancies being similar and the assumption that the rates of UNWANTED pregnancies is based on your assumption that all out-of-wedlock pregnancies are unwanted. That’s just really poor social science, and an idea so wrong that even my 3 year old son knows better…

  • Bobby B.

    We all heard repeatedly this week at the Democratic National Convention that the Democratic Party is the pro-abortion party. It took a bit of parliamentary bullying to put “God” back in the party platform. Time for the social justice and pro-life Christians to check out of the Democrat Hotel and look for other accommodations. To remain much longer will be the moral equivalent of holding a youth convention at a Nevada brothel.

    • Eric

      Jesus spent a lot of time with prostitutes…just saying. But again, you are completely ignoring (or I guess answering by default) my question about whether people care more about actually protectingthe unborn or just talking about it.

      • Frank

        There is nothing to take care of when their life is snuffed out for convenience sake.

  • Sagrav

    Eric Sapp, you made the mistake of assuming that the pro-”life” hoard is really interested in listening to your argument. This mass of “baby genocide!!1!” comments should show how pointless this effort is.

    They refuse to acknowledge a difference between embryos, fetuses, and infants. They have invented a holy war in their heads. When one starts with that kind of bizarre worldview, they have thrown reason to the four winds.

    • Frank

      And you refuse to acknowledge the sacredness of human life. I cannot think of any position more pointless than your justifications.

      Thanks but I will happily and comfortably stay pro life even if it inconveniences people.

      • Sagrav

        I refuse to accept your definition of human life (as should be obvious from all of the other posts I’ve made on this thread). In addition, as a non-religious person, I don’t feel the need to classify things as either “sacred” or “non-sacred”. Even if I did, I wouldn’t use your repetitive sputtering as a guide towards “sacredness”.

        “I cannot think of any position more pointless than your justifications.”
        That’s fine, though I don’t believe you put much thought into your declarations at all. Every post that you’ve added here has been either a tired, worn out Evangelical Republican talking point or emotionally charged hyperbole. When someone doesn’t just surrender to your extreme notions of fetal personhood and infant genocide, it doesn’t give you pause or cause you to analyze the position of those who disagree with you. You simply restate your previous talking point (sometimes with extra shrillness). You gain nothing by doing so, and no one new joins your side of the issue. It is the internet equivalent of the shouting man on a street corner holding up a sandwich board sign reading “REPENT OR BURN!” There is a reason society doesn’t listen to those people, and it is not because they often smell of their own urine. Well, that may be part of it…

        • Tim

          Look, if you refuse to accept his definition of human life, then end the discussion. Go back to Daily Kos, or whatever forum exposues your beliefs, and argue there. You’re just trolling here.

        • Ted Seeber

          Ok, I get it, you’re as anti-science and biggoted as a KKK member.

      • Eric Sapp

        Again though Frank. The question is if you want to stay pro-life in word or deed? Is the point to say you are and fight over what life is and when it begins, or is it to protect the unborn? If the former, then the GOP is clearly the place to be. If the latter, then the Democrats are the Party for you. Discussing when life begins is a valid pursuit, but my post asks whether it is enough.

        • Frank

          That’s a mischaracterization bred out of politics and the desperate need to demonize the other side in the face of an inevitable loss.

          There is only one choice this November for those that care for life and it’s not the Dems.

  • Lisa

    As a teacher who has taught poor children for almost 30 years, I can tell you that poverty has a huge impact on most kids. The negative impact lasts a lifetime, and causes people to make bad decisions, it’s a vicious cycle that goes on generation after generation. And according to Christian doctrine, most of these people will end up in hell for eternity. Wouldn’t a fetus, zygote, baby have a better chance at heaven if he/she is aborted, and thus never sinned?

    BTW – My biological mother was forced to carry me to term and it destroyed her life. If I had been aborted, neither of us would have suffered.I’m not a nihilist, I’m just honest.

    • Kristen inDallas

      God teaches us not to stand in judgement on the fate of someone else’s immortal soul. The idea of killing someone to prevent them from the *inevitable* sin and eternal damnation they will *surely* face because, you know, “poor people aren’t blessed with the same free will as other human beings” has got to be about the most condesending thing I’ve read on the internet in quite a while. Thanks for that. You do remember who else thought it would be a good idea to take away people’s free will in order to keep them from sinning, right??

    • Kristen inDallas

      BTW – I am truly sorry that you and your mother have suffered. But you understand that we all do, right? Even the pre-born babies who wriggle away from the abortionist, and especially post-abortive women. This world is suffering. The next world is not. And I can’t help but believe you’ve got just as much of a shot at that world with out suffering right now as you did way back when.

    • Ted Seeber

      If you’d rather be dead and think that the Christian version of hell is better than this life, why didn’t you commit suicide?

      • Maryanna

        “Never having been born” isn’t the same as “wanting to be dead,” but how very pro-life of you to suggest suicide.

  • Kristen inDallas

    Agree that anyone truly pro-life should not vote the republican ticket. A party that has no intention of of changing our laws re. death penalty, that won’t do a thing about torture at guantanamo, favors drone warfare, and doesn’t do much to help those that die in poverty or abort do to fear of poverty is not pro-life.

    But the jump to the assumption that pro-lifers should vote democrat, especially this year makes no sense to me. Sure abortions went down under Clinton, but clinton was also one of the most economically savvy, good business climate democrats we’ve seen in a while. His policies were very different from Obama’s policies (just look at what the Obama admin has done to the Clinton admin’s welfare reform policy, and look at the difference in the economy and social aid programs) Obama may claim to care about the disadvantaged but he has done very little that has actually proved helpful and he has gutted and handcuffed a lot of the private, non-profits that have historically done a good job of helping those in need when the govt can’t. Things have gotten a lot worse for poor people and until the data comes in, I would resist the urge to assume their are fewer hunger related deaths or povery related abortions now just beacuse there were fewer under Clinton. Besides, a party that has no intention of of changing our laws re. death penalty, that won’t do a thing about torture at guantanamo, favors drone warfare and doesn’t do much to help those that die in poverty or abort do to fear of poverty is not pro-life. And that description fits the dems as easily as it does republicans. So yeah, this pro-lifer, who does actually care about life, ALL life, will be voting 3rd party this year.

  • Frodo

    Eric,
    I resonate with a lot in your original post. I wonder, though: do the Christians at Faithful Democrats support freedom of conscience and religion for their fellow Christians, or for people of other faiths for that matter, who find it unconscionable to perform abortions, or to facilitate the purchase or usage of abortofacients or contraceptives? What do you think about whether either party sincerely supports that freedom?

  • Eric Sapp

    Thanks Frodo. Sticking with the actions speaking louder than words themes, Democrats sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which was even championed by more “liberal” members like Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, and Pelosi to extend conscience protections and protections for practice to the workplace. The bill was backed by pretty much every religious group in America (but opposed by the ACLU), and it received strong bi-partisan support in both the House and Senate. It did not allow individual employees to deny services to people at hospitals (e.g. Hari Krishna not wanting to do a transfusion or someone refusing to sell birth control pills at a pharmacy), but it did require employers to make accomidations for employees that had moral objections so they wouldn’t have to be the ones who did so. That seems to be pretty much exactly what you are asking about, and the support within the Democratic Party (from backbenchers to leadership) was rather overwhelming.

    • Frodo

      What about the HHS so-called “contraceptive mandate,” which includes abortofascients? As an “accommodation” to some religious organizations, the mandate gives them a one-year extension to comply, and thus still violate their consciences, or else pay millions in fines every year (possibly $100 per employee per day). One has probably heard the rhetoric that this is the greatest threat to religious freedom in decades, and by examining who has filed lawsuits, this is evidently not just a Catholic thing.

  • eric

    Let’s see what happens with the mandate. It’s been tweaked to accomidate for churches and then for religious organizations. The year was time for HHS and the groups to work out an arrangement, and I think we’ll see one that meets the conscience needs. The rollout of the rule was unquestionably poorly done, and they did not consult enough. It was bad politics and just dumb. But it’s being fixed and everything I’ve seen and heard (from both sides of this) is encouraging that a solution will be found. The main issue is with birth control though. The concern of non-Catholic groups is not primarily with the birth-control mandate or what has to be offered as with the potential principle and implications of some of the definitions of what counts as a religious group.

    • Frodo

      Hobby Lobby today filed a lawsuit against the HHS mandate, opposing the requirement to cover abortion-inducing drugs. Hobby Lobby is a privately held, for-profit business run by evangelical Christians. As a for-profit business, Hobby Lobby is not covered under the “safe harbor.” The Green family faces the choice of violating their beliefs, or paying the government fines of $1.3 million per day if they offer health insurance without covering abortion-inducing drugs. For the kicker, the complaint filed in court asserts that the HHS mandate violates Section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act, which stipulates that “the issuer” of a plan “shall determine whether or not the plan provides coverage” of abortion services. How would you and the other bloggers at Faithful Democrats respond to this?
      For the news release: http://www.becketfund.org/hobbylobbysueshhs/

  • ToronadoBlue

    A couple of other things that are not mentioned that may account for a reduction in abortion rate that should be considered:
    The attitude of Americans have become more pro-life.
    A reduced number of Planned Parenthood Centers.
    More abortions may be done ‘non-surgically’ and may not be included in statistics (morning after pill)

    FYI, it seems that abortions are also going down all over the world, so this doesn’t appear to be just an American phenomenon.

  • ToronadoBlue

    This is my response to Eric Sapp’s post. I apologize that it is long but I wanted to reply to what I think are Eric’s main points:

    ********************
    Eric Stated: [we have as many abortions] “…Despite decades of campaign promises and a period where 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices were GOP appointees and Republicans controlled the White House and both branches of Congress.”
    You’ll get no argument from me that the GOP has let me down time and time again. Some liken voting for them is like Charlie Brown kicking a football held by Lucy. With that said, you are more likely to get a pro-life Supreme Court judge with a Republican President than a Democrat. Looking at recent appointments , you’ll find intense opposition from NARAL against Scalia, Alito and Roberts for their expected votes on prolife issues. Furthermore, for Justices appointed by a Democrat, Kagan is expected to vote prochoice and Sotameyer is most likely leaning prochoice. I cannot see a situation in which a prolife judge will ever be nominated to the Supreme Court by a Democrat president for quite a while. The prochoice crowd would never have it.

    As far as I understand, the issue of Roe v Wade will not be settled (overturned) any where other than in the Supreme court. Even if every single justice is pro-life, it can only decide on Appellate cases and it would have to wait for abortion related cases. Again that is as far as I understand, correct if I’m wrong.

    The only period of time since 1973 that I can find where the GOP held the Presidency, House and Senate was during the 108th and 109th Congress (2003-2006). During that time the following took place that attempted to limit abortion:
    The Unborn Victims of Violence Act signed by President Bush
    The Federal Abortion Ban signed by President Bush
    An amendment to the Labor Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill allowed health care companies and providers to refuse to provide abortion services on moral or religious grounds.
    The Born Alive Bill was passed and signed by Bush and it appears that Obama voted against a similar one in Illinois.
    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/
    The National Abortion Federation says that 20 anti-choice votes were held during the 108th Congress (including those above).
    Furthermore, The Freedom of Choice Act was introduced by Democrats that would prohibit government intrusions into abortions.

    Therefore, no one can say that Republicans have been doing nothing. As a matter of fact, NAF and NARAL would assert that Republicans are always seeking to limit abortions.

    ********************
    Eric Stated: “Even if the GOP Holy Grail was achieved and Roe was overturned, all that would do is kick the decision on whether abortion is legal back to the states.”

    This is true and from what I understand abortion will be banned or somewhat restricted in as many as 30 states. Therefore Eric makes the point that a pregnant woman will drive to where it is legal to have her child’s life terminated. In other words, what Eric seems to be implying is ‘Why bother making it illegal?’

    My answer is, because it is the right thing to do. What Eric won’t admit to is that Democratic states will fight against any attempt to saving these children’s lives. More over, the activists will be working in the states where it is banned in order to legalize it. Wherever abortion is allowed, I believe it is our Christian duty to fight it.

    Let me bring up another thought as an example,… are homosexual activists satisfied with same sex marriage laws in only a few states? Or do they think that the right thing to do is to legalize it in all states? If RvW is overturned, pro-death advocates will be working in pro-life states to legalize abortion. Just wanted to iterate that the Roe v Wade is only a stepping stone and I recognize that Democrats will fight to keep it legal.

    ********************
    Eric Stated: “There is a reason abortions went up under Reagan, up under Bush I, saw their largest decline since Roe under Clinton, and then leveled out again under Bush II (abortion data isn’t available yet for Obama’s first term). Democratic policies reduce abortions, and Republican policies tend to result in more.”

    The number of abortions have been dropping since 1990 (Bush Senior), and down thru the Administration of Dubya. This is not the same as the abortion rate which is also affected by population growth. From what I’ve found, the number started climbing in 2008, but that is as far as we got on data.
    http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html
    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/01/10/abortion-rate-stalls-years-decline/

    How much of this rests on whoever is President is up for debate but it does seem to correlate with economic conditions. The abortion rate really jumped (31%) during Carter’s administration (With both the house and Senate in Democrat hands). I don’t know but i”ve heard he was a Democrat which is why I suppose Eric left that tidbit out.
    Other things that ‘may’ skew the numbers is that (I use ‘may’ because i have no definitive proof):
    -the attitude of Americans have become more pro-life.
    -reduced number of Planned Parenthood Centers and affiliates.
    -more abortions may be done ‘non-surgically’ and may not be included in statistics (morning after pill)
    FYI, it seems that abortions are also going down all over the world, so this doesn’t appear to be just an American phenomenon. One piece of good news to consider is that the number of abortions were declining even as the population was growing.

    So with that said, I would agree that economic conditions has an impact on the number of abortions. Keep this in mind because we have a congress and President that doesn’t know how to stop spending and running into debt. I hope and pray that the economy improves despite our government.

    ********************
    Eric Stated: “If we want to actually reduce abortions, we need to prevent unwanted pregnancy. ”
    Agreed, I personally have no issue with birth control and encourage sexually active people to use them with the understanding that they are imperfect. If the birth control fails, they will be liable. If a gun accidentally went off while you were just having some fun and you shot someone, you would still be liable, right?

    ********************
    Eric Stated: “ten times as many children in the U.S. die from inadequate healthcare each year as from late-term abortions.”
    I don’t know where the statistics came from and I can neither confirm or deny. But it is a bogus argument. I understand what Eric is implying. He is saying that the Democrats want to make healthcare more ‘adequate’ and the Republicans don’t. Therefore don’t worry more lives will be saved by voting Democrat. Let me rephrase his argument: “Vote Democrat… we’ll still keep child killing legal, but healthcare will be cheaper!”.
    First of all, there are numerous reasons why health care is so expensive. Google that and you will get many answers, everything from not enough doctors, too much lawyers, too much government interference, cost of research…and so on. But none of these reasons have anything to do with keeping child killing legal. They are two separate issues.

    Let me rephrase the above. What if I said “Vote Republican, we’ll make healthcare cheaper and keep slavery legal.” You’d think I was nuts, right?

    If you are still not convinced then lets examine further. The best estimate that I could find is that late term abortions are about 1.4% of all abortions. That would mean roughly 17,500 abortions are late term per year. If 10 times that number are children dying from inadequate healthcare, then that would be roughly 175,000 children. Compare that number to 1.25 million who are aborted annually. Again, I don’t think this portion of my argument is valid, but am using it show that Eric’s point is moot.

    ********************
    Ok, I believe that I have responded reasonably to the main points of Eric. Now let me bring up some of my own.

    I don’t believe abortion is evil, I know it is evil. Evil just like pedophilia, or slave trading, sex trafficking, kidnapping, murder, and rape. It is the deliberate taking of human life and punishing it into extinction because someone doesn’t want ‘It’. Imagine knowing nothing except the warmth of the bosom until the moment you are poisoned, vacuumed, or stabbed.
    Can anyone deny that pedophilia is wrong? or kidnapping? how about rape or prostituting young girls? As a Christian, could you justify voting for a party that wanted to keep any of those legal?

    Take a minute to sit back and think. Over 3000 boys and girls are murdered everyday. Someone, somewhere, right now, is getting ready to put on the coat to head to the clinic. She may have a heavy heart as she contemplates her choice, but she decided that she is going to go thru with it. She isn’t ready, she doesn’t want a kid now, she only knew the guy for a little while, she consoles herself by reminding herself that she has little money and her career is stalled. Whatever the reasons, the outcome is still the same… She doesn’t want ‘It’. In a few minutes there will be one less. One less little boy. He’ll never get a name. He’ll never have a first kiss, a dance, or pick a flower for Mom. He’ll never grow up to throw that winning touchdown. One less little girl. She’ll never giggle with her friends, put a bow in her hair, or pick a flower for Mom. She’ll never grow up, to show her winning smile.
    They never got a chance at life because someone else made that decision for them.

    Abortion is the absence of God’s mercy and more often than not is a decision based on finances. If the woman doesn’t want ‘It’, there are many couples lining up at the door for a newborn in their lives. And as a side note, I encourage Christians everywhere to consider adoption and if possible to consider children who are older. Over 100,000 children are in the foster care system, some of which will reach their 18th birthday never getting a family. Another tidbit, adopting a child older than 14 and most if not all states will pay for that child’s college.

    When it comes to my priorities as a Christian, there is only one time in the Bible where Jesus lays out the criteria he’ll use to judge the world: Matt 25,” whatever you do unto the least of these”. That is why the subject of abortion (life termination) should be important to all of us.

    Eric used Matt 25 and suggested that the ‘least of these’ were the 47% (those who won’t vote for Romney, pay no taxes, dependency on the government) that Romney referred to. No Eric, they are not the least of these. Unborn children who are totally dependent are the ‘least of these’.

    Would you advocate legalizing sacrificing aborted fetuses to the God of Thunder? It is a silly question I know, but no more sillier than sacrificing unborn children on the alter of convenience. If you weren’t so blinded by your love of Marxism and your hatred of Republicans, you’d see that. But no matter how much propaganda you dress it up in, abortion is nothing more than a train to Auschwitz and I refuse to throw children on it.

    So for those from the pro-choice camp, please answer these questions:
    Would you like to be a slave or be aborted? Then have a little more compassion for your unborn neighbors. Do unto others as you would have done to you.

    Are unborn children innocent?
    If the unborn child has life, is not ending it ‘murder’?
    Is it ever justified to legalize child prostitution or vote for a party that wants to keep it legal?
    Is it ever justified to legalize slavery based on race, or vote for a party that wants to keep it legal?
    For a Christian, is it ever justified to make the worship of Zeus mandatory for all, and vote for a party that wants to ban Christianity?
    Is it ever justified in legalizing child murder, or vote for a party that wants to keep it legal?

    I apologize again for the long post.

    “In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one.” (Ephesians 6:16)

    “And he [Jesus] took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, ‘Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.’ ” (Mark 9:36)

    • jim hayes

      well the study indicates that it was free family planning, leads to fewer abortions: “There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally: 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women”
      “one abortion could be prevented for every 79 to 137 women given a free contraceptive choice”
      http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-leads-to-fewer-abortions/

      no evidence about change of attitudes, number of planned parenthood centers, or effect of criminalization.
      now then you have a dilemma: if you cut planned parenthood funding for family planning are you not causing more abortions?

      where are the pro-life family planning centers? where is the pro-life pre-natal care? where is the pro-life adoptive mother’s centers? is this about solutions, or moral superiority?

      • Eric

        Couldn’t have said it much better!

      • ToronadoBlue

        The mountain labored and brought forth a mouse.

        Jim, is this the best you’ve got?

        Alright, I’ll answer your questions even though you don’t have the guts to answer mine.
        No problem, I come across people who sidestep hard questions all the time because they want to ‘win an argument’ or feel superior in some way. Don’t worry, I understand.

        If free contraceptives help reduce abortions, then cool, I’m all for it. I don’t like it, I hate the idea of society subsidizing sex lives and the idea of people developing a dependency for government to take care of their needs. If they can’t afford birthcontrol that is cheaply available at the pharmacy, then they shouldn’t be screwing. What right do they have of expecting the tax payer to pay for them to have sex.

        Regarding your statement of “no evidence about change of attitudes, number of planned parenthood centers, or effect of criminalization.” There is a shift in attitudes towards pro-life and there does appear to have been a reduction in Planned Murderhood centers. How this affects the number of abortions I do not know, but these points needed to brought up and considered since Eric stated that who was President was a factor. There are several factors and to be intellectually honest we need to consider them.

        Jim Hayes asked “if you cut planned parenthood funding for family planning are you not causing more abortions?” If you cut funding for abortion centers, hopefully it will reduce abortions.

        Jim Hayes asked “where are the pro-life family planning centers? Where is the pro-life pre-natal care? where is the pro-life adoptive mother’s centers?”
        All over the country. Found several within 25 miles of my home.
        Please use Google.

        Jim Hayes asked “is this about solutions, or moral superiority?”

        It’s about justice and fighting for the ‘least of these’.

        I’ve answered your questions, now answer mine…. but I know you won’t dare to. Thats right just look away, pretend you didn’t see them. Here I’m about to list my questions again… cover your eyes… don’t look. Here they go…
        .
        .
        .
        Are unborn children innocent?
        If the unborn child has life, is not ending it ‘murder’?
        Is it ever justified to legalize child prostitution or vote for a party that wants to keep it legal?
        Is it ever justified to legalize slavery based on race, or vote for a party that wants to keep it legal?
        For a Christian, is it ever justified to make the worship of Zeus mandatory for all, and vote for a party that wants to ban Christianity?
        Is it ever justified in legalizing child murder, or vote for a party that wants to keep it legal?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvS34icpA2s&list=PLE11CFA4632C213B5&index=1&feature=plpp_video

    • Leo

      If you really believe that about the “genocide” happening, you’re a coward for not fighting back with violence, simply sitting back and pretending to care by voting and then moving on with your life. You’re as pathetic as someone who sat back during the Nazi holocaust as Jews died around you, but you decided to let them die, and vote to change the problem instead.

      Either that, or you don’t believe that it’s actually murder, you don’t believe that there’s actually a genocide going on. those are your two options- cowardice or hypocrisy, if you claim so firmly that abortion is murder, yet you don’t physically go out and wage actual, violent war against them.

      I bet you would just sit by and watch Jews get taken to concentration camps, with the way you sit idly by as abortions happen. Worse: you have guns, and the citizens of Germany didn’t. “I don’t sit idly by! I vote!” or “I protest”

      LOL, okay. Rationalize your inaction how you’d like.

      Note: I am not condoning violence against abortionists. That’s insane. But this is the ONLY logical, inescapable, consistent conclusion for people who believe that it is murder.

      • ToronadoBlue

        Leo,
        You didn’t answer my questions in my post, does that make you a coward?

        Now, am I a coward for not fighting back with violence? Sure I am. I am very much of afraid of hurting someone. I hope I can live out the days of my life without ever hurting or harming a person. I feel extreme guilt for the pain (physical and emotional) that I’ve inflicted on people throughout my younger life, especially during the time period when I was a liberal athiest.

        So should I fight back with violence? From what I understand, the Lord says that vengeance is his.
        Rom 12:19: Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.

        This means that I cannot conduct evil in my quest to ‘live in a Christ-like’ manner.

        But suppose I change my mind and convinced myself that ‘violence’ is the only answer.
        Suppose I take up some guns, and go down to the local abortion clinic and kill a few people. What did I just do?
        The news would hit that a fundamentalist Christian has shot up a Women’s clinic. The press would crow with report after report of how violent christians are. Republican lawmakers will be quick to distance themselves and mutter about how wrong this individual was. Democrat lawmakers will rush to the microphones in order to take advantage of the situation. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart will have a comedic bonanza by linking Republican lawmakers to various christian groups, thereby making them guilty by association. Eric Sapp would post on Faithful Democrats about pro-life christians are not really pro-life.
        What I did was to harm the ‘Pro-life’ cause by using evil tools. And the abortion doctor I killed will only be replaced by someone else. Laws against abortion will only be tougher and I never saved one single life.

        So what can I do? Tell me what your ideas are Leo. All I can do right now is to vote for politicians who will ban abortion. All I can do is educate people on how evil abortion is. Hopefully sooner or later we’ll have true progress and save lives, not with violence, but with votes. Above and beyond that, I am active in promoting adoptions by christian families. I am in the process of adopting myself. I volunteer with various agencies to help poor families. I don’t know what else to do.

        Leo, again, if you have any ideas on what I can do without resorting to using evil then let me know.

        Now, here is your chance to show your courage. Since you didn’t answer my questions above… here is another chance:
        Are unborn children innocent?
        If the unborn child has life, is not ending it ‘murder’?
        Is it ever justified to legalize child prostitution or vote for a party that wants to keep it legal?
        Is it ever justified to legalize slavery based on race, or vote for a party that wants to keep it legal?
        For a Christian, is it ever justified to make the worship of Zeus mandatory for all, and vote for a party that wants to ban Christianity?
        Is it ever justified in legalizing child murder, or vote for a party that wants to keep it legal?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvS34icpA2s&list=PLE11CFA4632C213B5&index=1&feature=plpp_video

        • Eric Sapp

          Leo has a valid point, and so do you Tornado. I think a better way to highlight the difference between rhetoric and reality of what many “pro-life” people believe is how popular the exception for rape and incest are. With a few high-profile (and remarkably poorly articulated) exceptions of late, that is the position virtually all pro-life politicians are taking. But here is my question, which of course was the point of this piece, do you truly believe that voting for Romney or any Republican is a vote for a politicians who will make abortion illegal? Seriously, if your honest with yourself, do you really think Republicans actually want to make it illegal? Or do they just want the fight so people like you will keep voting for them? If the former, why did they not do anything when they controlled the WH (with the most “pro-life” President ever), both branches of Congress, and 7-9 Supreme Court justices? We have not had that much Republican control of government in nearly a century, and they did nothing…and abortions increased during those years! So you have one Party that gives lip-service but does nothing and never will. You have another that says abortions should be allowed but enacts policies that result in many fewer being performed. Why do you keep trying to kick that Republican pro-life football when you know Lucy’s just going to pull it away again?

          • ToronadoBlue

            Eric asked: ” But here is my question, which of course was the point of this piece, do you truly believe that voting for Romney or any Republican is a vote for a politicians who will make abortion illegal? ”

            -Not directly. But with a Republican president, it is more likely that a pro-life judge will make it to the Supreme Court where an appeal could overturn Roe V Wade at the national level. Even the ProChoice America website agrees:
            “The next president could nominate enough Supreme Court justices to determine the future of Roe v.Wade and women’s constitutional right to choose.”

            This issue is not going to be an easy fight and it will take a long time. Electing Romney is not going to make abortion illegal overnight.

            Eric asked: “Seriously, if your honest with yourself, do you really think Republicans actually want to make it illegal? Or do they just want the fight so people like you will keep voting for them?”

            -I hear this question all the time with various issues including environmental issues, same-sex marriage, immigration, etc. It is possible that politicians like to keep issues alive for the sake of votes and I don’t think that it is limited to one party or another. You are not going to get an argument from me that Republicans can be disappointing. Never the less, I do believe that there are some pro-life Republicans.

            Eric asked: “why did they not do anything when they controlled the WH (with the most “pro-life” President ever), both branches of Congress, and 7-9 Supreme Court justices? We have not had that much Republican control of government in nearly a century, and they did nothing…and abortions increased during those years!

            -Incorrect, abortion decreased between 2003-2006 (not even taking into account the growing population). Abortion was higher in 2006 than the previous year, but dropped in 2007. As for the rest regarding Republican control, I’ve answered this in another post. I’ll copy/paste the relevant portion that addressed this, yet you haven’t responded to:
            ———————
            You’ll get no argument from me that the GOP has let me down time and time again. Some liken voting for them is like Charlie Brown kicking a football held by Lucy. With that said, you are more likely to get a pro-life Supreme Court judge with a Republican President than a Democrat. Looking at recent appointments , you’ll find intense opposition from NARAL against Scalia, Alito and Roberts for their expected votes on prolife issues. Furthermore, for Justices appointed by a Democrat, Kagan is expected to vote prochoice and Sotameyer is most likely leaning prochoice. I cannot see a situation in which a prolife judge will ever be nominated to the Supreme Court by a Democrat president for quite a while. The prochoice crowd would never have it.

            As far as I understand, the issue of Roe v Wade will not be settled (overturned) any where other than in the Supreme court. Even if every single justice is pro-life, it can only decide on Appellate cases and it would have to wait for abortion related cases. Again that is as far as I understand, correct if I’m wrong.

            The only period of time since 1973 that I can find where the GOP held the Presidency, House and Senate was during the 108th and 109th Congress (2003-2006). During that time the following took place that attempted to limit abortion:
            The Unborn Victims of Violence Act signed by President Bush
            The Federal Abortion Ban signed by President Bush
            An amendment to the Labor Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill allowed health care companies and providers to refuse to provide abortion services on moral or religious grounds.
            The Born Alive Bill was passed and signed by Bush and it appears that Obama voted against a similar one in Illinois.

            The National Abortion Federation says that 20 anti-choice votes were held during the 108th Congress (including those above).
            Furthermore, The Freedom of Choice Act was introduced by Democrats that would prohibit government intrusions into abortions.

            Therefore, no one can say that Republicans have been doing nothing. As a matter of fact, NAF and NARAL would assert that Republicans are always seeking to limit abortions.
            ———————

            Eric stated: ” So you have one Party that gives lip-service but does nothing and never will. You have another that says abortions should be allowed but enacts policies that result in many fewer being performed. Why do you keep trying to kick that Republican pro-life football when you know Lucy’s just going to pull it away again?”

            I’m going to change a couple of words in your statement, hopefully it will help you realize how silly your argument is:
            ” So you have one Party that gives lip-service but does nothing and never will. You have another that says slavery should be allowed but enacts policies that result in many fewer slaves. Why do you keep trying to kick that Republican pro-freeman football when you know Lucy’s just going to pull it away again?”

            Again, Eric… because it is the right thing to do. Substitute any of the following words for abortion— pedophilia, sex-trafficking, slave-trading. Can you see my point yet?

      • Frank

        Lee I hope you are not being serious and do not believe what you just wrote.

        The difference is that we are to love our enemy which means we are to take a peaceful path to stopping the killing of unborn children. Killing is not an option for a person committed to Christ, either inside or outside the womb.

  • Pingback: Pro-Life/Pro-Family Congressman Asks Mistress to Abort Their Child

  • Brent

    Fair is foul and foul is fair…Shakespeare knows what to call this spin job. Disgraceful. Abortions have steadily declined since the early 80s regardless of who was in office. I guess you missed factcheck.org’s refutation of Obama’s 2008 claim that Abortion did not go down during Bush’s terms (using Guttmacher’s numbers oddly enough). Sounds like you’re a democrat more than anything, playing for the team and all. Yes, I should definitely vote for leaders who want to end all restrictions on abortions if my goal is to reduce the number of abortions. Makes sense. Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child. That’s all I need to know. Peace.

  • dave

    Yes, and if you were really pro-Jewish in the 1920s and ’30s in Germany, you would vote Nazi. For the Nazis would restore prosperity, and as everyone knows people who are prosperous are less inclined to be anti-Semitic.

    • Eric Sapp

      Really Dave? Come on. That isn’t contributing to a discourse here. There is no parrallel whatsoever between Nazi’s helping the economy while killing Jews and Democrats actually reducing abortion while Republicans don’t. I guess it’s not surprising though b/c I wrote this piece since the critical response to most every other argument we’d made (no matter the topic) was “Abortion!” Now that the abortion trump card has been removed from your arsenal, I guess playing the “Nazi!” one was the obvious next step. But it would be so much more productive if you’d answer the specific points or add your own. Quoting bumper stickers back and forth don’t get us very far.

    • Frank

      Dave the truth is often lost here among those who have created their own God. But keep up the good work!

  • Jacqueline Knight

    Are you really this stupid and obtuse or are you just pretending and shilling for the Democrats. I’m willing to be it’s a little bit of it all!

  • TKnTexaas

    First off, I am against abortion. When I took pre-med I saw fetus that were stored (natural miscarriages). I saw how complete the fetus is an the early stages. Second off, my sister-in-law had two abortion procedures at the fifth months. The hospital committee recommend the procedures due to extreme birth defects. Both were microencephalic with downs. The second had no jaw or ears. Republican lawmakers would have overruled the panel of doctors and made my sister-in-law go through these to term.

    Third, I have said I am against abortion. But I am pro-life for the mother. As a man I do not know what a woman is going through. I have an opinion. But that is the most I can do not being an OB/GYN. I am as qualified as Rep Akin and Rep Ryan. Abortions did not magically come on to the scene with Roe v Wade. Abortions were happening. If the the woman had the money she could make a trip abroad. Think that won’t happen again, and who are the woman who can afford that? Some doctors would do a D&C procedure without a pregnancy test, and whoops abortion. And for the rest, those women who felt trapped. Maybe one of those incest rape victims for whom her body betrayed her by allowing the pregnancy, well there were back alley abortions. Maybe a med student that needed some money for school. Or just someone who knew how to use a 6-ft rubber hose or coat hanger. THOSE WERE THE REALITY.

    I wish abortions would never happen. Especially late term abortions. My sister and brother were delivered at less than 7-months gestation. Thank God both were normal) except for size. No birth defects. Why are late term abortions not just carried to term and delivered.

  • rocky2005

    The Republican Party….love the fetus, hate the mother. Women who vote Republican should be embarrassed to support a party that thinks women are incapable of making decisions for themselves and therefore need to be told what to do.

    • Diane

      Just as women have a choice to vote Democratic so do women have a choice to vote Republican. To say the Republicans love the fetus and hates the mother it also says the Democrats hate the fetus and love the mother. We have the freedom to express an opinion but is is our opinion and ours alone. You may convince some on your pro-choice views but argumentative to others. It is one’s right to support either party. I myself do not feel embarrassed to vote for the party that best supports the unborn’s right to life.

      • Reggie Jackman

        Are you unable to comprehend what you just read?

        Democrats love the fetus and love the mother.
        Republicans love the fetus until it is born, and then hate the child and hate the slut which created it. I mean mother.

        Gonna go get me on some of the welfare mmhmm. Dirty liberal scum!

        Yeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaawwwwwww!!!!!!

    • Chris Candide

      False. It is conservative Christians who run adoption services (and adopt at far higher rates), pregnancy care centers, donate to charity and actually get out into the field and do the work. You? Run your mouth and no more.

  • Brenda

    By far one of the best essays I have heard explaining the difference between policy and elections slogans. I live in New Hampshire, a state with a large Republican majority since 2010 In the state legislature. For years this state has had an exploding problem with poor women getting pregnant because they will only give Medicaid to women who have a child under 3. They do have an exemption for the seriously and totally disabled, but there are hundreds of single woman who work full time job in one of the many industries the does not provide health insurance. The moment they develop a health condition – become diabetic, develop asthma, or even something as simple as high cholesterol, the woman simply will not be able to pay for medicine, doctors, testing unless she gets pregnant. Every year, as a lay Franciscan religious, I spend more time driving poor women to have the mirena taken out than to an abortion clinic, and every poor woman in the state dreads the “toddler letter” that they are going to have no health insurance after Junior’s 3rd birthday party. Almost always the children are brought upin shocking poverty and too many of them die. We also enjoy the reputation of being a state where women still die from having too many children too often when they aren’t really healthy enough to be having them.

    That is merely one example of what happens when was the republican slogans get drunk by the populace much as Jim Jone’s followers drank poisioned kool aid. They get to be elected and then the enact policies that kills many more than they save.

  • Frank Gr

    I admire your guts Eric to even bring up this issue. But everything else aside, you hit it right on the head when you said its not about ” preventing abortion” , but rather ” protecting, And respecting Life”.Right wingers (all over the world) are the same; “pro-life” but… Pro WAR. Pro WMD, Pro Militarism, etc…
    It doesnt make sense to call themselves “Christ-ians” with such priorities. It is anv insult and an abomination to Jesus Christ.

    • Frank

      The abomination is those Christians that not only allow over 6000 unborn children to be killed each week but also celebrate and defend the choice to do so. I’d be careful about thinking you know what Jesus cares about more.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithfuldemocrats/2012/09/if-you-are-truly-pro-life-youd-vote-democrat/ eric

        Yes Frank. Because it’s much more important to talk about helping the unborn and campaign on how you care about them but then do nothing as the Republicans do than actually reduce the number of abortions as Democrats do. What what it Jesus said about proclaiming your righteousness from street corners to be seen by men? Neither Party is perfect or anywhere close. The question is do you want to help the unborn or just talk about it?

        • Frank

          Both! My effectiveness will increase if more people wake up and let their hearts break as they should. First step: do not vote for any party hat has abortion on demand in their platform.

          Yes we should do all we can to make sure that abortions are desired less and less but we shouldn’t sacrifice over 6000 innocents a week while we do it. It’s inexcusable and an anathema to our faith.

          And do stop your misrepresentations about Republicans, they do far more than you do and it only makes everyone take you less seriously and appear more partisan.

    • ToronadoBlue

      @FrankGr,
      I hate war and I don’t know anyone who wants war for the sake of having a war. I personally am a contentious objector, but can have some understanding if war is conducted for the purpose of self defense or if by doing so saves lives. When Republicans were all over Clinton for bombing Serbs in Bosnia and then later in Kosovo, I sided with the democrats because I was familiar with the situation and felt the actions were saving lives. Oh yes, democrats believe in wars and bombing too… more recently in Libya and Obama’s war of necessity in Afghanistan. Maybe you conveniently forgot that… and ooh, all those drone strikes.

      Whether these wars/battles are justified is a reasonable debate, but you would be wrong if you believe that Republicans are ready to have a war for any willy-nilly reason.

  • Annie

    Alisha,

    That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard! First of all, you sound pretty selfish! Second, how about having some respect and morals and it sounds like your lacking both! To you people abortion is no big deal..like deciding what’s for breakfasts. So sad this is the world we live in. Whether you believe it or not, life begins at conception. Just because you can’t hear a heart beat, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If you are responsible enough to have intercourse, then you should be responsible enough to have a child, not abort this innocent child. It is murder no matter how you look it. If you don’t want your child, then put it up for adoption, there are tons of families wanting a child and can’t have one of here own. Not only is this a good deed, it is also saving a life instead of committing murder. If you have a problem with that, then maybe you should have some morals and rethink having intercourse in the first place, since this should be between a husband and wife!

  • Annie

    Toronto Blue, you just said it all right here and I agree100%!!!!!

  • Jeff

    thanks to toronadoblue for actually quoting Scripture. There may have been two more near the top. Anytime I hear and/or read the comments from “progressive” Christians, my heart grieves at the direction of the Church. I appreciate the apparent desire of the faithful Democrats to champion the cause of the poor, the downtrodden, etc. but I have to ask where is your biblical basis for assuming the government holds the key to social justice? As 1 Peter says, the government is established to punish evildoers. There it is. It is not the solution to the world’s sin. BTW, not one time have I read that abortion is the result of sin. Have we come so far from the Gospel that we now call sin a life saving choice for the mother? If we just pass out contraceptives and educate, then abortion will diminish. Is condoning sexual sin our new mantra to gain a following? I believe Paul stated emphatically in 1 Corinthians 6:9 “Do you not know that the wicked will NOT (emphasis mine) inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” That pretty much includes every Republican, Democrat, and registered voter that I have ever met. So how can this website, with it’s Christ following Democrats, think the government holds the key to the healing of people? If not for the hope found in the Lord Jesus, there is no program, no tax, no revenue, no speech that can heal this nation. Eric, you speak of politics as if it is the solution or the problem. The problem is SIN. When will the Church stop white washing what God has clearly called sin? Call sin as Jesus did. He did not come to bring about social justice, he came to call sinners to REPENTANCE and offer His life as a ransom for many. Mark 10:45. That’s service.

    Why are we calling for the government to do what we should already be doing? Dwight Moody said, If God be your partner, then make your plans large. So, dream big Church. Call for sinners to repent. Give them hope as you, not the government, meets their needs. Loving people is relational as God intended, not taxpayer funded welfare. What purpose is served when a government establishes a program to help people? Some are helped, many are made rich off of that program, much is wasted. What purpose is served when a disciple of Christ lends a hand, pays a bill for someone, takes them in, teaches them about the grace of the living God? He is honored and that is our purpose on this earth. 1 Corinthians 10:31 “Whether then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”

    • Diane

      Wake UP!! Obama’s record says it all !! “Barack Obama supports killing the unborn and if by chance the infant should happen to “burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion” by refusing to die, Barack disagrees with providing a helpless being medical care.  Plain and simple, Obama is cold and heartless.” I have read many of your articles on Abortion…development, whether it be a person, animal, plant and even a thing is not created at the snap of a finger. – DNA, CELLS, CHROMOSOMES etc. are the blueprint for life. No matter what point the fetus has a functioning brain, a personality, or a heart beat and spinal cord ,at 9 months a baby is ready for birth. While you are defending and debating why you are pro-life has little to no impact on saving the unborn, meanwhile the pro-choice are dissecting and finding a just cause for abortion. The unborn needs an advocate, someone to be their voice, to hear their silent screams. The Republican and Democratic Party Platforms on Abortion (1976- 2012) “The theme, however, is consistent with the fact that President Obama—whether you agree or disagree with his philosophy in other areas, has to be acknowledged as the most extreme presidential advocate of abortion-rights in American political history.” Politico: “In the Illinois legislature, he opposed the “Born-Alive Infant Protection Act” three times. President Obama is an extremist on abortion. He has never supported any meaningful restriction on it, and never will.In 2007, he told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that his first act as president would be signing the Freedom of Choice Act..He opposed a partial-birth abortion bill in Illinois, even as the federal version passed the House with 282 votes and the Senate with 64 votes and was signed into law by President Bush in 2003. He arrived in the U.S. Senate in time to denounce the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the ban.” THE OBAMA WATCH Obamination By LISA FABRIZIO on 1.26.12 @ 6:07AM “How this president “marked” the 39th anniversary of RoeJanuary 23 — a day of mourning for all who cherish life — to offend the largest segment of them; pro-life Christians. A man who is the first U.S. president in my memory to issue a statement in favor of abortion on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.”Yes, Obama’s sorry statement is not only insulting but also instructive, as it displays the same perverted outlook on the subjects of life and love he evinced when he opined that, should his daughters make a “mistake,” he didn’t want them “punished with a baby.”

  • Chip Atkinson

    You stated that 10, ooo, ooo ( 10 times the number of abortions annually) children die every year due to inadequate health care. Actually, from my research, given the worst case scenarios, the opposite is true. Thousands of children die in the U S annually from any cause.

    • Eric Sapp

      I said ten times as many as late-term abortions.

  • Chip Atkinson

    Indeed, it is our strict moral duty to care about our neighbor’s needs, but this concern can never justify our breaking a moral law with an absolute veto. There is no conceivable moral justification for endorsing Obama’s position.

    Let me repeat: there is a hierarchy of truths, and there is a hierarchy of moral obligations. All those who intend to vote for a president who clearly justifies not only abortion, but homosexuality, same sex marriages and self assisted suicide in the name of “social concerns” are gravely “sinning” against this hierarchy established by God Himself. We should be “socially concerned,” but such concerns are legitimate only to the extend that they respect the natural law. Moreover, they should never “allow” us to violate a moral law with an absolute veto. I am not allowed to kill one person in order to save another person’s life. Alice von Hildebrand http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2306

    • Frank

      You indeed expose the major flaw of “progressive” Christianity.

  • Chip Atkinson

    Thank you Eric, you sure did. Nevertheless your logic seems to suggest Republican rhetoric increases abortions. Most laws limiting abortions never survive the legal process. I think Dr. Von Hildebrand’s point of moral absolutes is the best argument here.

  • J.S

    The only truth about the last four years can be summed up by the following quote. “The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

    • Brooke

      Yep, that about says it all!

  • Brooke

    Abortion is violent and barbaric…. equating social support to protecting the rights of unborn children is intellectually indefensible. And here’s a big dose of reality, brace yourself: democrats are not the ones running the vast majority of aid organizations throughout the world.

  • Diab Kief

    @TornadoBlue Do Christians realize that by standing in the way of gay marriage and gay adoptions, they are preventing loving households that could house children if they weren’t aborted?

    I know they always say you need a mom and a dad, but isn’t 2 dads better than no moms and no dads in an orphanage? Isn’t 2 moms better than abortion?

    • ToronadoBlue

      @Diab Kief
      I’ll be more than happy to answer your questions, however I request that you answer my questions which were posted earlier, but no-prochoice person have answered. I have no problem responding to yours, but I’ve found that when arguing and asking tough questions, pro-abortion people will side-step questions knowing that they can’t answer them honestly…. so here is your shot:

      Are unborn children innocent?
      If the unborn child has life, is not ending it ‘murder’?
      Is it ever justified to legalize child prostitution or vote for a party that wants to keep it legal?
      Is it ever justified to legalize slavery based on race, or vote for a party that wants to keep it legal?
      For a Christian, is it ever justified to make the worship of Zeus mandatory for all, and vote for a party that wants to ban Christianity?
      Is it ever justified in legalizing child murder, or vote for a party that wants to keep it legal?
      What do you think Jesus would say regarding partial-birth abortion?
      1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s leg with forceps.
      2. The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
      3. The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.
      4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
      5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The baby’s brains are then sucked out and the head is removed from the womb, completing the procedure.

      If you can’t answer these questions, that’s cool… I didn’t expect you to.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithfuldemocrats/2012/09/if-you-are-truly-pro-life-youd-vote-democrat/ eric

        Tornado, one reason you probably didn’t get answers is that these are prett self-evident and obviously heavily loaded questions. Do you really have to ask if people think child prostitution is a good idea or that everyone in America should be forced to worship Zeus? I’m guessing you thought this was a gottcha that when we said forced Zeus-worship was not a good idea you’d be able to show that is the central plank of the DNC platform or something. But you’re really going to have to stretch to make any of these apply to Democrats. On the partial birth abortion concern, I agree it’s very hard to justify. But it’s also only 0.2% of abortions: http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin
        As I stated in my piece, more children die each year from inadequate healthcare in America by far. And the Ryan-Romney budget wants to cut Medcaid and pre- and post-natal healthcare. So if you really care about protecting life instead of making political hay with the issue, why not focus on the bigger threat to children and side with the Party doing something about it instead of the one actively fighting to make it worse so they can give more tax breaks to the wealthiest among us?

        • ToronadoBlue

          @Eric,
          Yes, the questions were heavily loaded as a point to make. Abortion is a clear wrong, at least to me. To get my point across, i try to substitute other ‘wrongs’ in the place of abortion, such as slavery, child prostitution, etc. Hopefully by doing that I can get the point across that some things are soo wrong that it would be hard to justify our christianity by support parties that in turn support those wrongs.

          Thank you for admitting that partial-birth abortion is hard to justify. I’m sure you’ll notice that Democrats are pretty much for keeping it legal.

          Eric said: “As I stated in my piece, more children die each year from inadequate healthcare in America by far.”

          Whether or not that is true doesn’t matter because it is a separate argument. What if instead of abortion, we were talking about sex trafficking in young girls. And then you used the ‘well more kids will live by voting Democrat, even though we’ll keep sex trafficking legal’ argument. It is a moot point and separate issues.

          Eric said: “why not focus on the bigger threat to children and side with the Party doing something about it instead of the one actively fighting to make it worse so they can give more tax breaks to the wealthiest among us?”

          1.2 million children being slaughtered every year IS a big threat. That is more than an inconvenient statistic, that is 1200000 lives – every year. Why not side with the Party that wants to do something about it instead of the one actively fighting to keep it legal in the blind quest of marxism and government dependency?

          • Eric Sapp

            Two things that are informative and helpful in your reply. “Whether or not that is true doesn’t matter because it is a separate argument.” I think this is key. It’s not a separate argument when it comes to whom you vote for. You only get one vote and have to pick between 2 imperfect options. So you have to weight all considerations: abortion, war, caring for the least and last, climate, taxes, jobs, etc. You can weigh certain issues more than others for sure, but you cannot talk about which Party is better for a Christian if you ignore tons of issues. And to narrow it even more, you can’t talk about which Party is better at protecting Life and then exclude everything after the child is born.

            Your final point is also important, but you’ve circled so far around in comments to have left the starting point of this conversation and entire focus of this piece. I start by saying how 1-in-5 pregnancies ending in abortion is a tragedy that must be addressed. Republicans don’t “want to do something about it.” They want to talk about it and keep people worked up about it so those people will ignore the fact that unwanted pregnancies and abortions go up when they are in control and ignore all the horrible things they are doing to endanger the lives of the born, and how they have completely turned their back on the least of these whom Christ said we had the greatest responsibility to protect. Again, Bush was President, GOP controlled the House and Senate and had appointed 7-9 Sp Ct Justices. Any progress on Roe? Anything real or meaningful on any legislation that actually reduced abortion, let alone eliminate it? No. Abortions climbed under Bush and only started leveling out and dropping again once Democrats retook the House and Senate and started passing abortion reduction legislation. So yes, why not side with the Party doing something about abortion, instead of the one that only talks about it but will never take action to fix the problems…b/c without the abortion problem, what to Republicans have to win over the evangelical and Catholic votes?

          • ToronadoBlue

            @Eric
            I see your point. Your point is that we have 1 vote between 2 imperfect candidates. Therefore we must weigh everything such as war, economic policies, climate, taxes, jobs, etc. The whole package that each party brings must be considered. Everything should be considered including healthcare and a ton of other issues.

            I want you to know that I believe that I understand your position correctly. You’re basically saying, look at the whole thing, not one or two issues. Ok, I got it, I know what you are saying.

            Now please understand what I am saying. There are some policies that as Christians, we cannot support. I apologize, but to get my point across I feel the need to repeat it. There are some policies, that as Christians, we CANNOT support.

            For instance, as a Christian, I cannot support a party that wants to legalize pedophilia.
            As a Christian, I cannot support a party that wants to legalize slavery.
            As a Christian, I cannot support a party that wants to legalize banning Christianity.
            As a Christian, I cannot support a party that wants to legalize child prostitution.
            As a Christian, I cannot support a party that wants to legalize restricting my right to worship God as he wants me to.
            The list is short, but there are several clear boundaries that as Christians we shouldn’t support.

            Eric said: ” I start by saying how 1-in-5 pregnancies ending in abortion is a tragedy that must be addressed. Republicans don’t “want to do something about it.”
            This is incorrect as I’ve stated in other posts, Republicans have passed legislation against Democrat opposition to reduce abortions.

            Eric said: ” Again, Bush was President, GOP controlled the House and Senate and had appointed 7-9 Sp Ct Justices. Any progress on Roe? Anything real or meaningful on any legislation that actually reduced abortion, let alone eliminate it? ”
            Yes. During 2003-2006 the following took place that attempted to limit abortion:
            The Unborn Victims of Violence Act signed by President Bush
            The Federal Abortion Ban signed by President Bush
            An amendment to the Labor Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill allowed health care companies and providers to refuse to provide abortion services on moral or religious grounds.
            The Born Alive Bill was passed and signed by Bush and it appears that Obama voted against a similar one in Illinois.
            The National Abortion Federation says that 20 anti-choice votes were held during the 108th Congress (including those above).
            Furthermore, you are more likely to get a pro-life Supreme Court judge with a Republican President than a Democrat. Looking at recent appointments , you’ll find intense opposition from NARAL against Scalia, Alito and Roberts for their expected votes on prolife issues.
            For Justices appointed by a Democrat, Kagan is expected to vote prochoice and Sotameyer is most likely leaning prochoice. I cannot see a situation in which a prolife judge will ever be nominated to the Supreme Court by a Democrat president for quite a while. The prochoice crowd would never have it.

            Eric said: ” Abortions climbed under Bush and only started leveling out and dropping again once Democrats retook the House and Senate and started passing abortion reduction legislation.”

            Incorrect, Abortions have been dropping as the population was growing since the second half of Bush 1′s administration till 2008. Abortion did go slightly higher in 2006 than the previous year, but dropped in 2007. Furthermore, you will notice that it dramatically increased 31% during the Democrat administration of Carter.
            What legislation specifically targeted to reducing abortions that Democrats passed are you referring too.

            Eric said: “So yes, why not side with the Party doing something about abortion, instead of the one that only talks about it but will never take action to fix the problems.”
            I agree. One party wants it legal, one party doesn’t. Easy choice.

            Eric said: “without the abortion problem, what [do] Republicans have to win over the evangelical and Catholic votes?”

            Economic issues, jobs issues, national security issues, welfare issues, education issues, religious persecution, healthcare, same sex marriage issues, religious freedoms, movements to tax churches. There are numerous issues that are important to Christians.

      • Fiver

        @TornadoBlue

        Hey there, Tornado, I think you gave good questions. Here are my answers, just as food for thought.

        1. Yes, unborn children are innocent.
        2. No, simply having ‘life’ does not mean ending that life is murder. Unfertilized egg cells are obviously alive: removing them is not murder.
        3. No, I don’t think legalization of child prostitution can be justified (it inherently infringes on the rights of the child). However, a vote for a party who wants to keep it legal CAN be justified, if the alternative party actually increases the number of child prostitutes.
        4. No, the government endorsing any religion violates the separation of church and state.
        5. No, legalization of child murder cannot be justified. Having said that, abortion is not equivalent to murder.
        6. Being an Iron Age Jewish Palestinian, I think Jesus would have mixed feelings on abortion: on the one hand, the old testament very clearly supports the idea of Jahweh purposefully causing miscarriages as punishment to the mother (therefore, abortion cannot be considered murder). On the other hand, he might consider human-caused abortion as intruding on God’s prerogative (that is to say, God, and not the woman, should decide whether the fetus lives or dies).

        • ToronadoBlue

          @Fiver,
          I appreciate your opinions and taking the time to post them.
          1. I’m glad we agree on that. Maybe it was a stupid question to post the obvious, but I wanted to start my questions with a reminder that the unborn are completely innocent and dependent on others.
          2. I think I see your point and would agree that removing an unfertilized egg would not constitute murder. But an egg for me is different than an unborn child. I’m not sure at what point I would consider that life begins, but I would want to err on the side of caution that once conceived it is a child. Thus ending it purposefully for me would be murder.
          3. Could you explain for me the inconsistency that I see?
          On one hand you say that you can’t justify legalization of child prostitution unless the other party increases it. But by legalization you are thereby increasing it.
          4. I agree. The government shouldn’t be endorsing religion. The point I was trying to make with the question was that as christians that there are various issues that we cannot support. (slavery, pedophilia, banning of christianity,etc)
          5. I think we’ll disagree on this one. I equate the deliberate ending of a child’s life (born and unborn) as murder.
          6. I disagree on the first part. If Jahweh ends the life of the unborn, it is his prerogative as to all our lives belong to him. In that situation it is God’s to take. In other situations, that life growing in the womb does not belong to us and is murder.

          Thank you again for your opinions. I’m not very good at getting my point across, but I do hope we learned something from each other.

    • Reggie Jackman

      Pseudo-christians don’t care about anything. This includes the baby that is born or unborn.

      They are just sheep who do what the GOP tells them to do.

      When someone lives off every word lunatics like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh say, they have no thought processes. They don’t think. Not for themselves, not for anyone. They are told what to believe, and get rammed in the ass by these mental-rapist lunatics.

      If they had any thought of their own, they’d immediately call those lunatics on their BS and disown them along with the political idealogy and hateful lifestyle they belong to.

      To know God, to be a real Christian, is to be so unlike cultural christians, who only claim a faith because their culture told them to.

      Unfortunately, this same theory applies to ALL people of ALL groups. So replace “christian” with atheist, and “Glenn BEck” with some other leader or authority figure.

      That is because it is irrelevant what group you belong to. All groups will compose of humans, and most humans have a teenager’s level of moral development. That is, Kohlberg’s theory, which entails morality equating to whatever your culture and authority figures tell you is moral and immoral.

      It’s sad, but ever-so true.

  • Reetsarama

    I love how all you so called “Christians” are so worried about unborn children, yet when the children are actually born and go to your churches, you make them feel like dirty worthless trash unless they blindly follow your teachings and if they do follow your teachings, you make them feel like crap if they make a mistake. Depression is treated as a satanic caused defect and there is so much hypocrisy that goes on with preachers acting like they are Oracles of God, when in reality they are just as flawed if not more flawed than most parishioners. This is not how the God I know would want any of us to feel. I speak from experience and thank God, I feel free from having to follow this line of thinking anymore.
    What makes me even more amazed is that all of a sudden “Christians” are backing a Mormon. When I grew up in Christian Evangelical churches, we were taught that Mormons belonged to a cult and were all “hellbound”. No one talks about the Mormon agenda here…and believe me, they have one. All you “Christian” Romney backers have a lot of explaining to do.

    • ToronadoBlue

      It sounds like you went to the wrong church. There are many wrong “churches” out there. I encourage you to find one that does its best to follow Christ and his teachings.

      As far as the presidential candidates go, it is either the Mormon or the Marxist. As much as I’d like a better choice, I’m not going to get one this time around.

  • http://bobbyparsa.com bobbyparsa

    well said! It nailed it!

  • http://bobbyparsa.com bobbyparsa

    Well said….you nailed it!

  • http://facebook Nell Hannon

    This is the very best explanation I have ever seen and exactly my thoughts

  • Pingback: Does God Want Obama to Win?

  • Pingback: Romney Takes Stand on Abortion (and another, and another, and…)

  • Angelo

    Mr Sapp:
    Thanks for your article. But some questions:
    I think I understand a point u are making that the GOP might not be serious about fighting abortion. But some questions:
    1) wouldn’t a vote for Romney stop the US funding of abortion murders overseas?
    2) I feel like a vote for Obama is the more Christian way to vote except for point number one above. I have a hard time voting for someone giving our money to kill babies overseas that might not have been killed otherwise.

    I really want to vote for Obama but with a clear conscience. Can you help with my questions above?

    Thank you.

    • Eric Sapp

      I just posted a piece detailing what Romney has said in his own words on abortion: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithfuldemocrats/2012/11/romney-takes-stand-on-abortion-and-another-and-another-and/

      This past month, Romne’s said there isn’t any legislation or actions he’s aware of that his administration would do to limit abortion. He has an ad running now in swing states saying Romney thinks abortion should be an option. One of his lead campaign surrogates just said Roe would be protected under a Romney administration. Based on that, there is no reason to believe he is going to take any meaningfully different approach to abortion. But what we know historically and what of Romney’s economic plans and policy indicate is that a vote for Romney will increase the number of abortions performed. Republican efforts (when they actually try, which Romney is promising he won’t) to limit abortions always fail and have little impact. But their other policies around sex education, birth control, and economic policies (especially affecting the working poor) dramatically increase abortions b/c they all worsen the conditions that lead women to choose an abortion. On that note, while there isn’t good data on abortions yet under Obama’s first term, we’ve seen one of the biggest drops in teen pregnancy in history under Obama.

      We live in a fallen world with imperfect choices. If by a clear conscience, you mean you can feel confident Obama will always do the right thing and either he or the Democrats are the Christian Party that will follow Christ’s example, you won’t get it. But not voting (and obviously voting for Romney) is also a choice that would leave your conscience even more troubled. So I’d encourage you to think of a clear conscience as doing your Christian duty as a citizen to engage the world and support a flawed candidate (b/c he’s human and working in worldly institutions) who most closely shares your values (including ensuring that the fewest unborn die), then you should be able to vote for Obama with a clear conscience. Elections are choice. You can vote for one candidate or the other or not vote. All are a choice with consequences, and in his case, there is no question that a no vote or supporting Romney will be much, much worse. I’d encourage you to watch the video linked in the blog on Romney’s abortion stance of his video statement to pastors contrasted with what he said to funders. Then read Matt 25: 31-46, and ask yourself is that is the man you want leading our country. That should help with your decision.

      • ToronadoBlue

        Eric has consistently spread the falsehood that under Republican administrations, abortions go up and under Democrats, abortions go down. When looking at total number abortions, each year of the Bush (Dubya) Administration was lower than every single year of the Clinton administration.

        Compare:
        During the Clinton administration, abortions each year ranged in between 1,313,000 and 1,495,000.

        During the Bush administration, abortions each year ranged in between 1,206,200 and 1,291,000.

        That means there were significantly less abortions under a Republican administration- every single year. But I personally don’t believe this is absolute proof because there many other factors to consider. And to tell you the truth, I believe that one dead aborted child is too many.

        ************
        Eric is correct that Romney is not as pro-life as i’d like and may not have pro-life specific legislation in mind. However it is the Congress who makes the laws with the President signing them and hopefully a Republican congress will pass pro-life legislation for Romney to sign. A lot of this depends on the Democrat opposition.

        With regards to the Supreme Court where Roe V Wade can be overturned, Romney is more likely to nominate a pro-life judge than Obama. As a matter of fact, NARAL- a pro-abortion advocacy group says that Romney is a danger to abortion rights.

        There are some policies that as Christians, we cannot support. I apologize, but to get my point across I feel the need to repeat it. There are some policies, that as Christians, we CANNOT support.

        For instance, as a Christian, I cannot support a party that wants to legalize pedophilia.
        As a Christian, I cannot support a party that wants to legalize slavery.
        As a Christian, I cannot support a party that wants to legalize banning Christianity.
        As a Christian, I cannot support a party that wants to legalize child prostitution.
        As a Christian, I cannot support a party that wants to legalize restricting my right to worship God as he wants me to.
        The list is short, but there are several clear boundaries that as Christians we shouldn’t support.

        Therefore, if you believe that each child is created in God’s image, then as a Christian, we cannot support a party that wants to terminate it’s existence.

        Romney may not be as pro-life as I’d like. I hope progress will be made in that one day, all unborn babies will be given the equal right to live a life. I doubt I’ll see in my lifetime because I recognize that it is going to be a long road and the devil will have his allies.

        I am reminded that Lincoln, although celebrated as the man who gave the slave his freedom, was also the same who said that the ‘negro’ was not equal to the ‘white’. Although the march for rights was long, God eventually granted a victory.
        Although Romney may not be the perfect choice for giving equal rights to the unborn, I pray that he will be useful in the march for that victory.

  • Kevin

    For the adventurous voter who can’t come to peace with “either” option, Joe Schriner is a consistent life candidate. He’s also a good writer with with extensive policy statements.

    Joe Schriner – http://voteforjoe.com

  • John

    And this is why most do not take the Evangelicals very seriously, you like the Pharasees of old focus at the nominal without looking at the full picture. Its sad that you have allowed yourselves to be so ill used, and ill represented. Silly sad sorry evangelicals a sad representation for christianity

    • ToronadoBlue

      Could you provide specifics of what you mean?

  • Sage

    I’ve read a lot of stupid articles, but this one may take the cake.

    • Reggie Jackman

      The best part is your intellectual, rational, fact-filled counter-argument as to why it’s stupid.

      OH WAIT.
      You don’t have one, because you’re an ignorant sheep who believes whatever your culture tells you to believe.

      Nice. It’s always good when people ignore rational thought, logical reasoning, facts, and all of reality. All to choose…what your pastor told you to think? Weird.

  • Rigal

    So if you’re truly pro-choice you need to vote Republican. Freedom of choice is a very good thing.

    • Digger

      *snicker* great point!

  • Pat

    Death penalty + coerced births inconsistent for pro life.

    If all Americans were requied to place their 1 month old children in day care, the wealthy might be able to understand the basis of natural ethics, and how humans accomplish them, and who shall dictate the model.

    Wealth has always been a tool for conveying rights and privileges in humanity, distinguishing the difference between freedom and enslavement, but Americans have lost their way of what it means to be human, and to recognize other humans – to prevent bias, discrimination, and unnecessary risk that can be borne of companies using wealth to dictate those rights and privileges, to distribute to the public, even through government.

    In no way should children suffer the unfairness of a society built upon corporate greed or corporate excuse.
    This is why America was created, to escape oppression from dictators and monarchs, in any fashion or form, and government is obligated to retain that freedom, not sell out its people, regardless of the method of counting, and how it is presented through fear, coercion, necessity or negligence. People are not meant to be persecuted for power, regardless od who has it, wants it, or takes the nation hostage for it.

  • Jay

    Did you consider any 3rd variables before saying that it was Clinton era policies that caused a reduction in abortions? For example, if the use of emergency contraception-which many equate to be akin to abortion-increased substantially when Clinton was in office, then couldn’t that more effectively explain declines? Many would not consider that a decline in abortions, simply a decline in a particular manner in which a life is killed. Dont know the history of use of emergency contraception, but it is just one of many 3rd variables to consider. It seems like such a sweeping statement, and I’m not sure I buy it. Also, looking at the provided statistics, to say that abortion declines “tapered off” during Bush simply isn’t an accurate way to read the statistics.

  • Rachel

    The way to really reduce abortion is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost and transform hearts and minds. Not to sway a person to one political party. Abortion is wrong. It is murder (and as such, it SHOULD be criminalized). However, to state that if the sole issue you are voting for is “life” then you need to vote democrat is ridiculous! Which party did the Supreme Court Justices belong to who decided that Dred Scott couldn’t have his freedom? Which party started the KKK? Which party overwhelmingly defends the right to KILL your unborn child? At any stage of development, as long as they are in the womb… Our current president supports the “choice” for a woman to murder her child ANY time and for ANY reason, as long as that child is still in the womb. How can you a be a Christian and support a man who supports that? Sorry, I don’t like what the Republican Party has become, but I most certainly cannot reconcile the Democratic Parties stance on abortion with the teachings of Jesus Christ. They cannot co-exist. Please, examine what Jesus has to say about life. And vote accordingly…not just because someone is or is not a Democrat (or Republican).

  • Ashley Pagonis

    This is the one of the most ignorant articles I’ve ever read. Republicans do not think worm can’t make choices on their own they are realistic knowing that abortion is another word for murder. Abortion isn’t a social class issue, similar to drugs. It’s an issue that you want to sleep around but not take care of the baby because that would get in the way of them sleeping around. I mean raising a kid. …. ain’t nobody got time for dat.

    If you want an abortion do it before there is a heart beat. That gives you 6 weeks. After that is murder.

    If someone attacks a pregnant lady cuts her open and kills the baby that’s 2 counts of murder. Why is it different for a mother to give the okay. She is lazy and that’s why people vote Democrat because they are lazy

    • Digger

      I LOVE your post. Brava. I do disagree with giving six weeks–by stipulating that it is not murder prior to then I think you are inserting your wisdom above that of God’s. However, despite this one criticism, I can see you are person who has God’s love in her. One up-vote from me.

  • Chris Candide

    “…consider that ten times as many children in the U.S. die from inadequate healthcare each year as from late-term abortions.” Don’t think that the entire world didn’t see what you tried to pull here. Please define your terms and provide your numbers just so those who may have missed it understand.

  • Pingback: clash of clans gem hack

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: http://tinyurl.com/purenatralhealth

  • Pingback: cheap backlinks

  • Pingback: laptop repair galway

  • Pingback: מכוניות בנזין

  • Pingback: 狐臭

  • Pingback: Avery Distributor

  • Pingback: Overseas jobs

  • Pingback: myoptimind.com

  • Pingback: seo

  • Pingback: How to Remove

  • Pingback: leather dress cleaning

  • Pingback: internet tv software watch tv online

  • Pingback: How to get rid of anal skin tags

  • Pingback: εκκενωσεις βοθρων

  • Pingback: Trading

  • Pingback: security camera

  • Pingback: kosmetikshop online

  • Pingback: tech gadgets

  • Pingback: apple iPhone

  • Pingback: routt gregory james

  • Pingback: Free Submitter

  • Pingback: porriga underkläder

  • Pingback: aftonbladet

  • Pingback: hosting

  • Pingback: log garages

  • Pingback: Nuvida diet pills

  • Pingback: meitaiup

  • Pingback: aftonfelet

  • Pingback: g4i8CqnfHH

  • Pingback: Minecraft Host

  • Pingback: professional trackback and comment submitter

  • Pingback: cheap jordan shoes

  • Pingback: Online games

  • Pingback: prescription weight loss pills

  • Pingback: Reserve your Flight Tickets

  • Pingback: maca

  • Pingback: Virginia Norfolk Floor Cleaning

  • Pingback: Virginia Norfolk Floor Cleaning

  • Pingback: Watch hindi movies free

  • Pingback: get more twitter followers

  • Pingback: Purchase Leather Material

  • Pingback: log garages

  • Pingback: log buildings

  • Pingback: photographers

  • Pingback: москва

  • Pingback: wälder

  • Pingback: computer repair destin

  • Pingback: gel toe straighteners

  • Pingback: airport limo deals

  • Pingback: скачать mp4 Неудержимые 3 бесплатно

  • Pingback: kıbrıs özel üniversite

  • Pingback: www.bellenews.com

  • Pingback: book of ra echtgeld android

  • Pingback: endurochat

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: Mobile

  • Pingback: iPhone 5s unlocked black

  • Pingback: unlocked I phone 5s cheap


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X