Would Jesus Vote?

I saw a headline here at Faithful Democrats the other day that asked, “Who Would Jesus Vote For?” The question gave me pause. What would it even look like for Jesus to vote?

Imagine Jesus walking into a polling place wearing his usual off-white tunic. He waits in line awkwardly and scans the room, secretly trying to guess who’s voting for whom based solely on their appearance and demeanor. (Wait, scratch that; he must already know.) Jesus gives his name to the election volunteer. “That’s Christ,” he says, “C-H-R-I-S-T… No ‘K.’” He takes his ballot and fills in bubbles for politicians who belong to whatever party is slightly less distasteful to him than the other. Or maybe he does a write-in for God—knowing it’s a throw-away vote that won’t influence anything but it’s the only way to stay true to his principles. As he’s walking out the door, he mutters under his breath, “Get behind me, Satan.” Then it’s back to sitting cross-legged on hills, exhorting people to be perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect.

I don’t buy it. Or at least, it doesn’t ring true. My image of Jesus does not involve lesser-of-two-evils compromises. Somehow, in my reckoning, Jesus never manages to get ensnared in situations where he can only make some halting nudge toward what’s Godly. He’s always doing exactly what’s right. Ba-da-bing, ba-da-boom.

Jesus, of course, has the luxury of living in my heart. I have to live in the real world. Here I am in 2012, trying to be Christ-like, hoping I can pray my way to alignment with God’s will, yet facing messy realities in which no decision can be entirely the right one. There’s always a moral price to be paid. I cannot choose pure justice, pure love, pure peace. I am relegated to using what small level of power I have to push for more justice, more love, more peace. There is no Jesus candidate. We all have to find our own ways of heading toward that moral horizon that Jesus represents as we walk in fits and starts, over logs, under branches, through streams, and in spite of the occasional sprained ankle. We come to a fork in the road, and there’s no sign on one side that says, “This way: Jesus.” There’s only the sound of crickets—and the beating of our own hearts.

I know, I know: theologically speaking, Jesus is that bridge between God and man—the signal God sent to show he’s here with us and can guide us in the complicated muck of real life. “WWJD?” is supposed to be a question we live out at every moment. But sometimes that question just doesn’t help. There may even be a certain earthly arrogance to presupposing that an answer to the question exists, as if there’s always a chance to be perfectly aligned with God’s will despite the systemic sin that surrounds us wherever we go. Sometimes, all we can ask ourselves is, What Would Take Me the Least Far from God, According to My Conception of Christian Values?

Unfortunately, “WWTMTLFFGATMCOCV?” doesn’t fit easily on a leather bracelet. But it’s what we have.

So would Jesus vote? The question has no answer. But are we obligated to do what we can to bring slightly more of God into the world, knowing how limited our ability to do so really is? Absolutely. And voting is part of that. Faith can and should provide the principles we use to inform such decisions. If it doesn’t, it’s not really our faith at all.

So as we go into the voting booth on Tuesday, let’s not ask what Jesus would do. Let’s ask what principles define Jesus to us, let those principles marinate inside us, and then ask ourselves a simple yet profound question: What Would I Do?

  • Larry G Smith

    Just remember: LOVE . FEED THE HUNGRY, CLOTH THE NAKED, GIVE TO THE POOR AND DO NOT JUDGE.

  • Frank

    There is nothing Christian about abortion on demand. It’s quite simple really. Voting for a party that has abortion on demand in their platform is in direct opposition to the Christina faith.

    So yes when you go into the voting booth, the over 21,000 innocent unborn children killed last week, 97 % due to reason of convenience will be watching you. So yes vote Christian principles.

    • James

      There’s nothing Christian about imposing our own sense of moral outrage on another person’s conscience. We are charged to work out our own salvation and to work with our own hands, not to tell others what is or is not God’s will for their lives. If it were the case that we all agreed (or even that the majority of us agreed) on when the distinct, individual life of an unborn child began, then it would be as clear cut as you’re claiming. However, we don’t all agree on this so instead of being a clear cut matter of X is “wrong” and Y is “right” we have a whole crap load of gray areas. It’s down to individual conscience and the expectant mother’s walk with God as well as the advice and care of her physician and her own judgement of whether she’s prepared to take that child to term. That’s an area where we ought properly to hesitate to intrude because we are NOT equipped to make that decision for her. Counsel her on the many available options? Yes. Give her loving Christian support no matter which way she decides? Yes. But take away her access to legal, licensed abortion by a trained, competent healthcare provider? No.

      • Frank

        We are not called to “work out our own salvation.” Wherever did you get that idea? And we are commanded by Jesus to go out and tell people about Him and his teachings. Are you not a Christian? No insult intended just wondering whether I am talking to a non-Christian who might not know what the bible teaches or a Christian who has not really studied the bible.

        There is nothing “grey” about the over 21,000 innocent lives killed each week mostly for convenience sake. Its pretty black and white.

        • James

          “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Philippians 2:12
          “And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;”
          1 Thessalonians 4:11

          So, to answer your question, my message above that we as Christians are to focus on our OWN behavior and ensuring that our OWN lives are compliant with Jesus’ commandments comes straight from the Bible and there’s no ambiguity about it. Now, it’s your turn. Where does the Bible say that terminating a pregnancy is murder (without any ambiguity or having to re-interpret a passage like “in the womb I knew you”)?

          • Frank

            First of all:

            What does it mean to work out our salvation with fear and trembling? Paul can hardly be encouraging believers to live in a continuous condition of nervousness and anxiety. That would contradict his many other exhortations to peace of mind, courage, and confidence in the God who authors our salvation. The Greek word translated “fear” in this context can equally mean “reverence” or “respect.” Paul uses the same phrase in (2 Corinthians 7:15) where he refers to Titus as being encouraged by the Corinthians’ reception of him “with fear and trembling,” that is, with great humility and respect for his position as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul himself came to the Corinthian church in “weakness and fear, and with much trembling” (1 Corinthians 2:3), mindful of the great and awesome nature of the work in which he was engaged.

            The sense in which we are to work out our salvation in fear and trembling is twofold. First, the Greek verb rendered “work out” means “to continually work to bring something to completion or fruition.” We do this by actively pursuing obedience in the process of sanctification, which Paul explains further in the next chapter of Philippians. He describes himself as “straining” and “pressing on” toward the goal of Christlikeness (Philippians 3:13-14). The “trembling” he experiences is the attitude Christians are to have in pursuing this goal—a healthy fear of offending God through disobedience and an awe and respect for His majesty and holiness. “Trembling” can also refer to a shaking due to weakness, but this is a weakness of higher purpose, one which brings us to a state of dependency on God. Obedience and submission to the God we revere and respect is our “reasonable service” (Romans 12:1-2) and brings great joy. Psalm 2:11 sums it up perfectly: “Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.” We work out our salvation by going to the very source of our salvation—the Word of God—wherein we renew our hearts and minds (Romans 12:1-2), coming into His presence with a spirit of reverence and awe.

            Second of all:

            there are numerous teachings in Scripture that make it abundantly clear what God’s view of abortion is. Jeremiah 1:5 tells us that God knows us before He forms us in the womb. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks of God’s active role in our creation and formation in the womb. Exodus 21:22-25 prescribes the same penalty—death—for someone who causes the death of a baby in the womb as for someone who commits murder. This clearly indicates that God considers a baby in the womb to be as human as a full-grown adult. For the Christian, abortion is not a matter of a woman’s right to choose. It is a matter of the life or death of a human being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6).

          • James

            you didn’t contradict the meaning I intended to draw from the Philippians passage, which is that we have an individual responsibility before God to work out our salvation. we can’t work out the salvation of another person, only our own. the “fear and trembling” bit isn’t relevant to the point I was making, but thanks for spending a couple of paragraphs on it…

            the passages from the Psalms and prophets that you referenced are taken grossly out of context when applied to the abortion issue. in Jeremiah, God is not speaking broadly to all people saying he knows all of us in the womb before birth. he’s talking to Jeremiah very individually and specifically to persuade him to carry out the work of prophecy that God intended. this is not a “proof” text that the unborn baby is fully endowed with a soul and entitled to the same “personhood” consideration as the mother. Psalm 139 has no application to the abortion issue. so what if God is aware of the growth of the unborn child in the mother’s womb? since we believe God is all-knowing, that should not surprise us. it doesn’t give us any information about whether the baby has a soul or “personhood”.

            in fact, the only Biblical passage that I believe has any relevance is:
            “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.” Exodus 21:22
            a miscarriage induced by trauma isn’t exactly the same thing as abortion, but if God intended us to treat abortion as murder surely he would also have instructed us to treat the above situation as murder? this is the only direct parallel we have in the entire Bible and it shows clearly that the life of the unborn child in the womb is NOT treated the same under the law as the life of one who has been born.

          • Frank

            James salvation comes through faith alone. We do not need to work it out. Yes we need to let our faith dictate our actions and in that sense we “work it out.” We are probably just missed each others points.

            Either way abortion and Christ do not mix in any way shape or form.

          • ToronadoBlue

            James said: “(Exodus 21:22) a miscarriage induced by trauma isn’t exactly the same thing as abortion, but if God intended us to treat abortion as murder surely he would also have instructed us to treat the above situation as murder? this is the only direct parallel we have in the entire Bible and it shows clearly that the life of the unborn child in the womb is NOT treated the same under the law as the life of one who has been born.”

            There are scholarly disagreements on this particular passage. Some conclude that a baby is born early after the incident. If the baby and mother were ok, then only a fine was assessed to the perp. If harmed happened, then it was an eye for an eye.
            Whether this is true or not, because we are made in God’s image, then I’m inclined to err on the side of caution and treat all life in the womb as sacred.

            Furthermore, in Genesis 25:21-26 we find the following:
            “The babies jostled each other within her…”

            “The Lord said to her,

            “Two nations are in your womb,
            and two peoples from within you will be separated;” ”

            ” When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb”

            Whether or not this meets James’ legal definition of person-hood, to me there is clearly life within the womb.

        • James

          oh, and for your other question, the answer is option 3 (that you didn’t write down). you’re talking to a Christian who has made a life long study of the Bible and simply doesn’t agree with your opinion on abortion.

          • Frank

            Keep studying.

      • Jesse Lava

        “If it were the case that we all agreed (or even that the majority of us agreed) on when the distinct, individual life of an unborn child began, then it would be as clear cut as you’re claiming.” Even then it still wouldn’t be clear-cut. If the goal is to reduce the number of innocent deaths, and even if we assume that a pre-born baby has full human rights, wouldn’t pro-lifers be having a vigorous debate about the fact that easy access to contraception is a huge factor in bringing down the number of abortions? And wouldn’t pro-lifers (at least those who believe life begins at conception) be insisting on contraception given that, e.g., the birth control pill results in a lower rate of discarding a fertilized egg than our bodies do naturally? I think we need a little more humility about our ability to read God’s mind and do God’s will.

        • James

          “I think we need a little more humility about our ability to read God’s mind and do God’s will.”

          Amen, amen and amen! ;)

          • Frank

            Humility would cause us to let God decide who lives and who dies instead of playing God and kill innocent lives because they are inconvenient.

        • ToronadoBlue

          Jesse Lava says: ” wouldn’t pro-lifers be having a vigorous debate about the fact that easy access to contraception is a huge factor in bringing down the number of abortions? ”

          I agree, contraceptives should be made available at drug stores everywhere for a nominal cost. However, Sex is like playing with a loaded gun – if something goes wrong you should be liable for the consequences.

          • James

            @TornadoBlue & Frank – see your comments here have finally revealed your agenda. you aren’t so much interested in protecting the lives of unborn children as you are in seeing to it that fornicators and adulterers are forced to face the consequences of their actions. I don’t believe you’ll find anywhere that Jesus advocated taking that approach to our neighbors. the only sin I can find that we’re to be concerned about in the Bible is our own. since none of us can be said to be without sin, we have no business casting stones at others by trying to pass laws restricting the free exercise of their own consciences in matters where neither the science nor the theology are clear.

          • ToronadoBlue

            James says: “you aren’t so much interested in protecting the lives of unborn children as you are in seeing to it that fornicators and adulterers are forced to face the consequences of their actions”

            -Incorrect:
            My mother was extremely poor and had an abusive husband, she could have aborted me.
            My wife’s mother was too old to give birth. She could have aborted her.
            Several children that I work with through various programs, could have been easily aborted. One in particular has problems due to his mother’s drug use. Each of these kids could have been aborted.
            My new adoptive son, born to a woman who was promiscuous and immature could have been aborted.
            In each of our situations, the pro-choice crowd would have been ok with our murders.

            Thankfully we weren’t, and Praise God that we were brought together to bring joy to each other’s lives.

            I humbly ask you to believe me when I say that I do care about unborn children.

          • ToronadoBlue

            James says: “we have no business casting stones at others by trying to pass laws restricting the free exercise of their own consciences in matters where neither the science nor the theology are clear.”

            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.

          • James

            then instead of focusing your attention and energy on combating abortion, where there is no clear-cut mandate from the Bible, how about devoting yourself to advocating better sex education in our public schools, better availability of contraception, better access to women’s healthcare and information about family planning, all of which have been demonstrated to reduce not only the rates of unwanted pregnancies but also the rates of abortions, especially the ones “for convenience”? why make abortion your “watershed” issue where those who are for allowing it to be a woman’s individual choice before God and her own conscience are labeled as un-Christian?

          • ToronadoBlue

            James says: “then instead of focusing your attention and energy on combating abortion, where there is no clear-cut mandate from the Bible,”
            -The human life inside of a woman is made in the image of God and it is nobody’s right to destroy.

            James says: ” how about devoting yourself to advocating better sex education in our public schools, better availability of contraception, better access to women’s healthcare and information about family planning, all of which have been demonstrated to reduce not only the rates of unwanted pregnancies but also the rates of abortions, especially the ones “for convenience”?
            I’m not opposed to anyone wanting to learn more about sex education, or to use contraception which is readily available or to plan for families.
            However I cannot support a party that wants to keep child murder legal.

            James says: ” why make abortion your “watershed” issue where those who are for allowing it to be a woman’s individual choice before God and her own conscience are labeled as un-Christian?”
            -Because abortion is as wrong as slavery, rape, sex trafficking, pedophilia, and banning or impeding the Christian’s right to worship God. Would you allow a religion to worship in this country that performed child sacrifices? Certainly not! Then why would you support a party that wants to allow children to be sacrificed on the alter of convenience?

          • James

            they’re not equivalent. child sacrifice has a clear Biblical mandate against, on more levels than just one. abortion has no clear Biblical mandate on either side, so as a Christian I feel obligated to allow a pregnant woman the freedom for her own conscience and her own relationship with God to guide her choices.

            it’s funny you should mention slavery and religious liberty (or lack thereof). on both of those we have come to a moral conclusion quite separate and distinct from Biblical teaching. where the Bible permits slavery, we view slavery as an unconscionable crime. where the Bible sets up a theocracy in the kingdom of Israel, we view government control of religion as something to be avoided. there is no clear Biblical mandate for freeing the slaves or for permitting freedom to worship (or not worship) as one chooses, yet we have accepted it as the moral choice to do both of these things. why, then, can we not see it as the moral choice to allow a woman the freedom to choose (or not to choose) having an abortion while the unborn child is still at a stage that he/she cannot survive outside the womb?

            there is no clear Biblical mandate, no law or prophet, telling us at which week the baby is an independent life with all the inherent rights and protections due that consideration. there are passages that both sides reference as “proof” of their point of view, but we disagree on how those passages ought properly to be interpreted and applied. instead we have to rely on science and our best judgement to tell us when the life of that developing baby is independent and fully realized enough that its rights can be considered equal to those of the mother. at present, we are nearly all in agreement this point is reached somewhere close to the third trimester. medical science may allow us to push that further into the second trimester and maybe even all the way to the first trimester at some time in the future. until that happens, though, we’re stuck with this being a grey area and the best person to handle the moral, ethical and spiritual decision making within that grey area is the mother, not us.

          • Jesse Lava

            James, that’s a beautiful comment. To those who think their way is the only fathomable Christian way, I ask not that you change your mind, but that you recognize the reality that many choices are not clear-cut, even on an issue as important to you as abortion.

          • ToronadoBlue

            @James
            James says: “abortion has no clear Biblical mandate on either side, so as a Christian I feel obligated to allow a pregnant woman the freedom for her own conscience and her own relationship with God to guide her choices.”

            –I disagree, it falls under ‘Thou shalt not murder’.
            I have pointed a couple of passages that shows that life exists in the womb. Whether you believe it is a person in the womb or not, it has human DNA and is made in God’s image.
            No parent should have the right to kill their child.

            James says: “where the Bible permits slavery, we view slavery as an unconscionable crime.”

            –Not to get off onto the subject of slavery, Paul indicated that the right thing for Philemon to do was to set his slave “Onesimus” free. I only brought it up because as a Christian I couldn’t support it today.

            James says: “there is no clear Biblical mandate for freeing the slaves or for permitting freedom to worship (or not worship) as one chooses”

            –You don’t see my point. Could I as a Christian support a party that wants to ban Christianity? Even further could I support a party that would legalize sex trafficking or pedophilia. The answer is no. The reason I asked these questions was because I wanted to get a point across that there are certain issues as a Christian that I cannot support in a political party. Abortion is one of those issues. No matter how Democrats like to say they want to reduce it, it doesn’t matter. It is like supporting a party that wants keep pedophilia legal and spout bumper sticker slogans about wanting to reduce its necessity. It is still evil.

            James says: “instead we have to rely on science and our best judgement to tell us when the life of that developing baby is independent and fully realized enough that its rights can be considered equal to those of the mother. ”

            –At conception, human DNA is exchanged to form cells that if allowed to develop will be a human being living outside of the mother’s body as opposed to living in it. You and I may disagree if that is a person, although I would assert that human=person.

            If you don’t believe that life begins at conception, then surely you’ll agree that a baby surviving an abortion attempt deserves life, correct?

            ——
            While a Senator in Illinois, 3 bills were introduced regarding Partial Birth Abortion.
            SB1093 – If during the abortion, if there was a chance that the baby would survive, a Dr. must be present.
            SB1094 – Parents have right to sue to protect the child’s rights.
            SB1095 – If baby was alive after abortion, it shall then be legally a person.
            Senator Barak Obama was the only person in the committee to oppose the bill.
            ——

          • ToronadoBlue

            Jesse Lava says: “To those who think their way is the only fathomable Christian way, I ask not that you change your mind, but that you recognize the reality that many choices are not clear-cut, even on an issue as important to you as abortion.”

            –You are correct, many choices are not clear cut.

            However to those who think that terminating the life of a little boy or little girl within the womb is not a murder, I ask that you pray about it and do the best you can look beyond your love of Marxism and hatred of Republicans to see the truth. 1,200,000 children every year are slaughtered because of it.

        • Sus

          “wouldn’t pro-lifers be having a vigorous debate about the fact that easy access to contraception is a huge factor in bringing down the number of abortions? And wouldn’t pro-lifers (at least those who believe life begins at conception) be insisting on contraception given that, e.g., the birth control pill results in a lower rate of discarding a fertilized egg than our bodies do naturally? ”

          I think it comes down to people wanting to control others’ sex lives. There are people that believe no one should be having sex unless you are a man and a woman and married. Any other scenario is sin.

          • Frank

            Its not people that say that its what the bible says. You can reject it of course but there it is.

            On your pro-life comment I don’t think its about controlling other peoples lives at all although that’s a great talking point to put out there even though its not true. Much like the war on women nonsense.

          • ToronadoBlue

            Sus says: “I think it comes down to people wanting to control others’ sex lives.”

            -Really? I think it comes down to people wanting to murder someone in order to avoid responsibility.

            How about we just agree that life (even the unborn life) deserves protections and equal opportunity for living?

  • Sus

    “So as we go into the voting booth on Tuesday, let’s not ask what Jesus would do. Let’s ask what principles define Jesus to us, let those principles marinate inside us, and then ask ourselves a simple yet profound question: What Would I Do?”

    I like what you wrote. In my opinion, it’s arrogant to think we could really know how Jesus or God would vote in this Presidential election.

    Hopefully in 36 hours we’ll know and this election cycle will come to a close.

    • ToronadoBlue

      Sus says: “.., it’s arrogant to think we could really know how Jesus or God would vote in this Presidential election.”
      It will be foolish to suggest that I know what God is thinking or my wisdom surpasses his. I can, however take his word that he has given us and meditate upon it and receive Godly wisdom.

  • http://www.patheos.com Deborah Arca

    “There is no Jesus candidate. We all have to find our own ways of heading toward that moral horizon that Jesus represents as we walk in fits and starts, over logs, under branches, through streams, and in spite of the occasional sprained ankle. We come to a fork in the road, and there’s no sign on one side that says, “This way: Jesus.” There’s only the sound of crickets—and the beating of our own hearts.” Jesse, Thank you for this lovely post. Beautifully said!

  • Tanya

    No, there is no Jesus candidate. For that matter, no Jesus clergyperson, or doctor, or plumber, or teacher. But we need people to do these things. An election is about determining who will take political leadership. Jobs we need people to take. Jesus didn’t live in a democracy. But why would he not have picked a politician the same way he picked a fish wholesaler or a sandalmaker.

    Why do Christians suddenly feel all compromised and oogey when they have to pick a politician, but not when they pick a doctor or a teacher or anything else we need. Somehow the imperfect humanity of a politician is different than the imperfect humanity of everybody else in our lives?

    • ToronadoBlue

      Tanya says: “Why do Christians suddenly feel all compromised and oogey when they have to pick a politician, but not when they pick a doctor or a teacher”

      If a doctor or teacher emphasized a philosophy and made laws that were contrary to my Christian faith, I’d pick new ones.

  • ToronadoBlue

    Jesse Lava says: “We all have to find our own ways of heading toward that moral horizon that Jesus represents as we walk in fits and starts, over logs, under branches, through streams, and in spite of the occasional sprained ankle. We come to a fork in the road, and there’s no sign on one side that says, “This way: Jesus.” There’s only the sound of crickets—and the beating of our own hearts.”

    -If coming to a fork in the road with no sign, sit down, read the roadmap that God gave us with his good word.

  • Sus

    Frank said “Its not people that say that its what the bible says. You can reject it of course but there it is. On your pro-life comment I don’t think its about controlling other peoples lives at all although that’s a great talking point to put out there even though its not true. Much like the war on women nonsense.”

    Some people don’t live according to the bible. It’s not up to anyone to make someone else live according to the bible. I don’t want to live anywhere that does make laws according to religion. The Taliban is controlling people according to religion. How has that turned out?

    Not allowing a people to make a choice is controlling someone.

    • Frank

      If you do not believe in Jesus that’s your choice. This is a blog that claims that Christian and Democrat is comparable. It is not as long as the party supports abortion enough to make it part of their platform.

      Atheist and abortion or maybe some other faith is compatible with abortion but Jesus is not.

      • Sus

        I never said I was an atheist. You are assuming that.

  • ToronadoBlue

    Sus says: “The Taliban is controlling people according to religion. How has that turned out?”
    Not very well for people of the Islamic faith.

    Sus says: “Not allowing a people to make a choice is controlling someone.”
    -Allowing you to kill someone in order to avoid responsibility (especially with so many people wanting to adopt a newborn) makes me as complicit as those who passed by and ignored the beaten and robbed traveler that was eventually helped by the Good Samaritan.

    Am I correct on that, or would you like to advance to the next talking point?

    • Sus

      Although I admire your passion in discussing abortion ToronadoBlue, there isn’t anything you write that is going to change my mind.

      As far as adoption goes, women aren’t babymaking machines for people wishing to adopt. It should be, and is, a viable option for someone with an unwanted pregnancy. However, no one should make a woman carry a baby for adoption. There is no shortage of children in the foster care system right now that are eligible for adoption.

      If you want to call abortion murder, that’s fine with me. If you want to say that I’m complicit in the death of babies because I vote for a pro-choice President, that’s fine too. I’ll still sleep at night.

      I’m very sorry that this blog post turned into a discussion regarding abortion. I was looking forward to reading the comments.

  • ToronadoBlue

    Sus says: “there isn’t anything you write that is going to change my mind.”
    -I wasn’t trying to change your mind. I’ve already recognized that your heart has hardened. However I answered your talking points in the event that someone with a more open mind reads these posts. Maybe they will develop better wisdom or find a flaw in mine.
    If you have any more talking points, please don’t hesitate to shoot them my way.
    toronadoblue@hotmail.com.

    Sus says: “If you want to call abortion murder, that’s fine with me. If you want to say that I’m complicit in the death of babies because I vote for a pro-choice President, that’s fine too. I’ll still sleep at night.”
    -I’m thankful that you haven’t suffered the penalty that you’ve inflicted on others.

    Sus says: “I’m very sorry that this blog post turned into a discussion regarding abortion. I was looking forward to reading the comments.”
    -Read the ones you like, ignore the ones that prick your heart.

    Seriously, if you have any more talking points, lets hear them.

    • ToronadoBlue

      One other point…

      Sus says: “There is no shortage of children in the foster care system right now that are eligible for adoption.”

      This unfortunately is true. There are too many children in the foster care system. Some will be reunited with families, others will be adopted.
      I STRONGLY urge Christians everywhere to consider adoption of an older child. Nearly all infants are adopted to loving families. There are numerous couples on waiting lists to adopt infants, however older children need a ‘forever family’ too. There are financial programs to assist, and believe it or not, adoption is not as expensive as you think.

    • Sus

      “-I wasn’t trying to change your mind. I’ve already recognized that your heart has hardened. However I answered your talking points in the event that someone with a more open mind reads these posts. Maybe they will develop better wisdom or find a flaw in mine.”

      From your comments, it could appear that you think women are babymaking machines for people who want to adopt. Let’s hope the open minded people reading this thread will see that along with my “hardened heart”.

  • ToronadoBlue

    Sus says: “From your comments, it could appear that you think women are babymaking machines for people who want to adopt.”

    If a woman doesn’t want to be a baby-making machine, then she should take the appropriate steps to prevent pregnancy. Once pregnant, I don’t believe she should be a baby killing machine.

    What is your next talking point?

    • Sus

      Thankfully, we have laws that protect a woman’s right to have an abortion. I voted today in part to protect those laws.

      • ToronadoBlue

        You are correct – we unfortunately have laws that allow children to be murdered.
        I will be using my vote today in the hope that one day child murder will be outlawed.

      • ToronadoBlue

        By the SUS,
        You seem to be expending a lot of energy in desperation to have the last word by throwing out easily refutable talking points. DON’T GET MAD- Instead maybe you could expend some energy in trying to prove that Christians following in Christ’s manner would be ok in allowing child murder.

        .. and if you can’t do it, maybe one of your pro-choice friends can help you out.

        Is it ok for someone to die JUST BECAUSE their life is an inconvenience to someone else?

        • miggs

          You both want the last word, so quit acting like she cares about it but you don’t. Also quit acting like you’re not using talking points yourself. It’s not like you’ve put together some rigorous case on why legal human rights should begin at conception as opposed to, say, fertilization, or the point the fetus can feel pain, or the point the fetus can live on its own, or birth. Nor have you put together a serious case as to why we should prioritize the party that wants to ban the procedure as opposed to the party whose policies are more likely to lead, over time, to an actual reduction in the procedure — particularly given the research suggesting that banning abortion does not significantly reduce the frequency at which it happens. You’re spewing the normal stuff about murder and convenience over and over again even though it’s not convincing anyone. Come up with something new or stop arguing.

          • ToronadoBlue

            I’ve given a lot of comments on this topic on this post and other posts.

            Feel free to point out one that is wrong.

            Which one of my points is False?

  • miggs

    the onus is on you to SHOW that abortion is murder. you can’t just assert it and expect the burden to be on everyone else to prove why it’s wrong. or are you incapable of getting beyond your 1-2 talking points? you clearly relish accusing others of using talking points — you say it constantly — but to say your “argument” is only skin deep would be an insult to skin. Please MAKE YOUR CASE as to (a) when, specifically, legal human rights should begin, and (b) why the party that says it wants to ban it is automatically a better choice than the party that wants more contraception, honest sex ed, etc., so as to reduce the number.

    And no, I’m not going to go through Patheos looking for your past comments. You’re a talking point machine who loves accusing others of being precisely that. So put your money where your mouth is. Make a real argument.

    • Ted Seeber

      “the onus is on you to SHOW that abortion is murder. ”

      Go take an animal husbandry class. You’re so sadly misinformed that you need remedial biology 101.

  • ToronadoBlue

    Many arguments are on this page.

    At conception, human DNA is exchanged to form cells that if allowed to develop will be a human being living outside of the mother’s body as opposed to living in it. You and I may disagree if that is a person, although I would assert that human=person. There are many verses in the bible that indicate that what is inside the womb is alive and thus has life.
    Is that incorrect?

    The reason I support the party that wants to ban it is for the following reasons:
    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.
    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.

    Prove this wrong?

    Furthermore, just because there are generous social programs, this does not mean a lowering of abortion. There other countries in the world with very generous social programs that have higher rates of abortion than in the US.

    Since you are the one that advocates for laws that put innocent children to death, even those nearing birth, I believe that the onus should be on you. After all, life is precious. Correct?

    Is it ok for someone to die JUST BECAUSE their life is an inconvenience to someone else?

    • miggs

      More naked assertion.

      “that if allowed to develop will be a human being living outside of the mother’s body”
      What on earth does that have to do with whether that organism should have the same legal rights as a born person?
      “There are many verses in the bible that indicate that what is inside the womb is alive and thus has life.”
      We don’t even need the Bible to tell us that the organism has life. That’s conceded on all sides. That doesn’t mean full legal human rights. Are you saying life alone is the criterion? Plants have life. Cows have life. Fish have life. Yet you have no problem killing them, presumably. Now, you’re right: the organism in question has the potential to one day become human, and that’s different from the examples I gave. But where’s your argument that potential means automatic full rights now? I just see no argument for it.
      “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.”
      This is called question begging: you’re presupposing the very thing you seek to prove. You have not shown why a blastocyst or zygote should be treated as having the same legal rights as a born child. No one wants a party that permits the murder of children; the question is, when is the organism a child, legally speaking?
      All of your arguments are either simple assertion or assuming what you are supposedly needing to prove. There’s no there there.

    • miggs

      Moreover, even if one conceded your premise (which is also your conclusion), one could just as easily (indeed more easily) make the following assertion: “I could never support a party whose policies lead to the deaths of more children.” That’s the operative question, if you’re actually interested in saving children’s lives. So in that case — again, already conceding your premise/conclusion about a blastocyst having full human rights — this would be a research-based argument about which policies are most likely to bring down the number of abortions. This would not be a talking point-laden argument about murder and convenience. Do you want me to present the studies on the matter? Then the burden would be on you to show where their methodology failed (and just say, I dunno, that it was reported in the New York Times or something and must therefore be wrong).

      • ToronadoBlue

        miggs says: “What on earth does that have to do with whether that organism should have the same legal rights as a born person?”

        – An unborn human deserves the same human rights that a born one does.

        miggs says: “Are you saying life alone is the criterion? Plants have life. Cows have life. Fish have life. Yet you have no problem killing them, presumably.”

        –God gave us dominion over the earth and animals (Gen 1:26). We have to eat our salads and burgers.

        miggs says: “Now, you’re right: the organism in question has the potential to one day become human, and that’s different from the examples I gave. But where’s your argument that potential means automatic full rights now?”

        –It deserves the right to live, because it is an organism with human DNA that if left to it’s natural course will be a human living outside of the womb.
        Human = Person = mankind = Made in God’s Image

        miggs says: “No one wants a party that permits the murder of children; the question is, when is the organism a child, legally speaking?”

        –Legally speaking is a separate question because that is decided by mankind. Legal rights is a human institution. God-given rights are however different and are granted by God that no one has the right to take away.

        Proverbs 6:17 The Lord hates hands that shed innocent blood. (Even the unborn child will have blood)

        Children are gifts from God

        Psalm 127:3 Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.

        Ruth 4:13 “So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son.”

        miggs says: “All of your arguments are either simple assertion or assuming what you are supposedly needing to prove.”

        –Yes, some of my arguments are simple assertions. Murder is wrong. Don’t shed innocent blood. Simple as that.

        Do you have any arguments to the contrary?

        miggs says: “..one could just as easily (indeed more easily) make the following assertion: “I could never support a party whose policies lead to the deaths of more children.” That’s the operative question, if you’re actually interested in saving children’s lives.”

        –Yes, you are correct that I cannot support a party who policies lead to the deaths of more children. Supporting the policies of abortion rights activists will guarantee that more children will be killed every year.

        1,200,000 children are snatched from the womb every year, some with scissors still in the skull. We currently have 1,450,000 Armed Forces personnel on active duty. Imagine 83% of our Armed Forces being slaughtered every year.

        We both know that banning abortion will not eliminate it. Just like banning rape and pedophilia will never eliminate either of those. If we legalized rape you would see a lot more of it.

        Now, if the Democrat party were willing to ban abortions, and then implement policies that will reduce illegal abortions, that is a different issue and I can joyously work with them on that.

        I believe birth control should be cheaply available in drug stores everywhere.
        And if desired, a sexually active person can obtain more effective remedies from their doctor.
        I believe people need education on sex, and with the internet at our fingertips, we can provide that to them cheaply.

        Above and beyond that, sex is like playing with a loaded gun… if something happens you should be responsible. And if the child is unwanted, there are plenty of loving parents waiting to take them in. Nobody should be murdered because of inconvenience.

        Because unborn children are gifts from God with God given rights and made in his image, the onus is on you to prove they it is ok to take that away.

  • ToronadoBlue

    FYI, I have to leave now for an appt and won’t be back until tonight. I’ll respond to your post or any others because I believe it is important issue to discuss. God Bless.

  • Ted Seeber

    Jesus Christ was never called Christ before the Crucifixion. It was a title given to him by Greek Catholics converted by St. Paul.

  • ToronadoBlue

    FYI

    James, Sus, Miggs, and Jesse Lava

    I’m still looking forward to hearing your ‘searing’ refutation to any comments I made above.

    • miggs

      Actually I decided you’re not worth it because your last answer was still naked assertion rather than argument. I don’t think you understand what it would mean to prove that a blastocyst deserves the same legal protections as a born person (which is the relevant debate when it comes to illegalizing something). You assert that it’s a potential human, therefore entitled to human rights, therefore the victim of murder when aborted. There’s no deeper argumentation. One could easily say something just as superficial on the other side: it’s a potential human, therefore not yet a human, therefore not entitled to human rights, therefore not the victim of murder when aborted. So how easy it is when you just assert? Neither one is necessarily right. But you haven’t made a real case.

      You also provided no evidence that banning abortion causes the rate to go down. You simply asserted it, without any studies to back that up. You acknowledged that a ban wouldn’t eliminate abortion, but there’s more to the question than that: you haven’t even shown that it would reduce it — let alone reduce it MORE than Democrats’ policies would (which is the relevant question when it comes to voting). So again, you seem not to be capable of grasping what an argument would entail.

      Consequently, I’m done trying to get an argument out of you. I leave you with the last word.

      • Frank

        In other words “I cannot actually refute anything you said in an intelligent and cogent way so I will just run away and blame you.”

        I wish this was not a typical response but alas….

      • ToronadoBlue

        miggs says: “But you haven’t made a real case. ”

        Actually I have using both Science and the bible.
        I used the bible to prove that God gives the gift of conception.
        I used the bible to prove that God refers to the unborn as peoples
        I used the bible to prove that ‘babies’ were inside the womb.
        I further asserted that God hates hands that shed innocent blood – Science shows that the unborn children are starting to pump their own blood around the 22nd day.
        Therefore at the very least, if you were honest… that abortion would be wrong after the 22nd day.

        I also used logic. It has human DNA and will develop naturally unti it is a man or woman.
        Human = Person = mankind = Made in God’s Image

        Here is what you haven’t been able to do:

        You haven’t refuted that an unborn child is made in the image of God.
        You haven’t refuted that God-given rights should supersede ‘legal’ rights.
        You haven’t shown why an unborn child shouldn’t be given equal protections using biblical principles.

        miggs says: “You assert that it’s a potential human, therefore entitled to human rights,”

        –Not a potential human…. IS a human, with human DNA, created in the image of God.

        miggs says: “You also provided no evidence that banning abortion causes the rate to go down. ”

        You and I will both agree that there will be abortions ‘off the grid’ if abortion is banned and it is hard to estimate actual rates. For countries in which we have a good amount of data, those that have restrictions on abortion will generally have a higher birthrate with a lower abortion rate. I can throw out a few examples if you’d like.

        Logically, banning something… such as rape, pedophilia, big-gulps, tax evasion does reduce the rate of it occurring.

        miggs says: “[Which party will reduce abortions] which is the relevant question when it comes to voting”

        As a Christian, I cannot support a party that keeps it legal. However, if the Democrats were to work to ban abortion, I could work with them to implement policies that would reduce the rate of illegal abortions. THAT would be a different story. Keeping it legal is WRONG WRONG WRONG, just as in legalilizing rape, sex trafficking, child prostitution, or banning Christianity.

        If I don’t hear back from you, thank you for taking the time to respond.

        • Sus

          Anyone coming upon this blog post and comments will know the crazy so I’ve nothing to add.

          • ToronadoBlue

            Whats crazy about it?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X