I have heard some “Christian” leaders say that Obama will reduce abortion. Really??
Read this quote and decide for yourself.
I’ve got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.Barack Obama, March 29, 2008
Sarah Geis, a fellow blogger, is doing an excellent job on her site discussing theological and political issues. With her permission I am reprinting an excellent blog entry, titled “Enough is Enough.”
An inexcusable justification for Obama support is rapidly gaining popularity. Those who adopt this commonly championed yet false case that abortion is no more important than other issues must be set straight, especially during a political campaign as monumental as this. Hip, trendy, and deliberately contra-Religious Right, the argument typically takes this form:
Abortion is a single-issue.
Single-issue politics is naive and wrong.
Therefore we should not vote based upon the abortion issue.
A severe problem for this argument lies in its assumption that single-issue politics is indeed wrong. Though combating slavery was unpopular in his day, William Wilberforce chose to devote the majority of his time, energy, and resources to passionately and successfully fight this one issue. Hardly a human being would claim that Wilberforce was politically irresponsible due to his functionally single-issue politics. Single-issue politics is not necessarily wrong; in fact, as Wilberforce’s moral victory displayed, it can be a wise course of action. Therefore, this argument fails.
Moreover, it has become popular in the young evangelical community to “dethrone” the fight against abortion by trying to broaden what it means to be pro-life. For instance, many will claim that if a voter is primarily or even strongly concerned with the issue of abortion, then she can’t possibly be equally concerned for the poor and the downtrodden. If she isn’t equally concerned with the poor and the downtrodden, then she is not fully pro-life. Such uncritical disciples of the new left will sometimes adjust the argument by replacing the “poor and downtrodden” with “war”. This anti-war version claims that those who oppose abortion but fail to oppose war are not fully pro-life. Both of these claims are untenable for these (but not only these) reasons:
1) Abortion is active murder of the defenseless and innocent. The poor and downtrodden should receive concern, sympathy and aid (from the private sector, I might add), but no one I am aware of has condoned their murder.
2) Abortion is active murder of the defenseless and innocent. War by contrast is intended to protect as many of the innocent as possible by solemnly fighting an enemy whose defining quality is hardly innocence.
Ergo, an issue hierarchy absolutely exists. Again, all issues do not carry equal weight. Despite the reality that a strong anti-abortion stance has recently fallen out of favor, such a position is still of utmost importance. To use Doug Groothuis’s coined term, fetus fatigue is no excuse for such an egregious lapse in judgement.
Barack Obama needs to be exposed for his tenaciously held, heinous positions, namely his fight and defeat of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and his outspoken desire to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. While Christians should absolutely pursue civility in disagreement, morally atrocious policies such as these must be vigorously and unapologetically fought.
So, should McCain and Palin use the offensive strategy of negative campaigning? Absolutely. Isn’t this mudslinging? If the charges are true and pertinent, absolutely not. After all, sometimes it takes a pit bull to deal with a snake.