I had another big, long post written out and I've decided to nix it. I mean, at what point should I stop examining the hearts of people and let happen what is going to happen? Don't get me wrong - I am trying not to judge people. It's difficult though. My basic point in my whole thought process is this: How can a Christian vote for someone who is pro-abortion? I have always wondered it. But this election, we finally have a candidate for senate (Joe Miller) who is clearly the most conservative out of all three.
We have asked for people to step up and run for office and then when they do, (if they are conservative) they are picked apart. If they don't use the right credit cards, we'll hear about it on the 5, 6, and 10 o'clock news -- top story. Joe Miller has definitely not run the smoothest of campaigns and I'm sure he made some mistakes in his life he's not proud of. Haven't we all? Even little ol me has some skeletons I'd rather not tell the world. My opinion on Joe Miller is that the millions of dollars that have been spent to uncover his entire past amount to NOTHING!
I've seen Lisa Murkowski in action ever since she was in local government. I even thought then that she was too liberal to be a Republican. She is more of the same in Washington - wants to just print more money and then spend it. Borrow and spend...borrow and spend. She is listed on a pro-abortion website as being one of their top three pro-abortion republican woman senators they want to see re-elected. (http://www.thewishlist.org/LMurkowski.htm) That should tell a Christian person something. You might say I have no right to judge. I am merely questioning. I truly do not understand it.
-------------
- Lisa voted to rescind the law which prevented US tax dollars from paying for abortions around the world (See S.Amdt 65 to H.R. 2, January 28, 2009)
- Lisa voted to affirm “Roe v. Wade” was a Constitutional right that applied to all citizens, including Alaskans (See S.Amdt. 260 to S. 3, March 12, 2003)
- Lisa voted multiple times to support taxpayer-funded abortions (and embryonic stem cell research) in the US (See S.Amdt. 3330 to S.Amdt. 3325 to H.R. 3043, October 18, 2007 S.Admst. 2708 to H.R. 2764, September 6, 2007 and Senate Bill 5, April 11, 2007)
--------------
She is pro-amnesty/open borders, pro-cap and trade (cap and tax), she is part of the "global warming is man-made" cult, and I could go on.
Some say it's her seniority that they're voting for. Whatever. We don't even know if she'll retain it - that's still in question. And with the unions and other democrats supporting her, do you really think she'll stay as a Republican and, if she does, do you think she'll actually vote the way you would want her to?
I know I won't change the minds of people who have already made the decision, but I would ask those of you who are still on the fence to use your vote wisely. You can even leave it blank. Just please consider the unborn and the candidates who will do their best to save them.
NOTE: I moderate comments before they are published. Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate all of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Bonnie,
ReplyDeleteObviously I am not in AK any longer and I am not voting on these particular candidates but since you seem to be asking the question “how is it that someone who calls themselves a Christian can vote for a pro-choice candidate?” I thought I would answer it as this is an issue that has been on my mind since the last election.
Personally I have become incredibly frustrated with Christians who write a blank check to politicians who are pro life. How can some Christian’s ignore all other issues and just vote for a candidate based on the fact that they claim to be “pro life”?
We had a pro-life president for 8 years and a pro-life Republican Congress for much of that time that did nothing to change the status quo. It’s easy to see now that oil interest were way more important to them. Personally I think that a lot of politicians play Christians for fools. They play the Pro-life card to get fundraising and votes but in reality it is far from an important issue to them and they lack the power and interest to do anything about it.
The truth is that even if there were enough votes in the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and the issue was brought to the court, overturning Roe would not mean a nationwide ban on the practice. Rather, it would give jurisdiction back to the states, each of which would be able to decide whether or not to allow abortion within its borders. So maybe you would have about 5 states ban abortion out right, and a handful of other states put some restrictions on it but for the most part nothing would change and women would be free to cross state lines to get the abortion they seek.
Even if every state banned abortion I am really unconvinced that legislating abortion is a way to stop it. Instead I think if we really stop and ask ourselves what should Christians do? The answer would be more along the lines of increasing birth control access to populations at risk for seeking abortions (disproportionally poor black and Hispanic women) and increasing education and access to parenting resources to these women.
Personally I see all the money spent on Pro-life v. Pro Choice politics as a huge freaking waste. I think that if Christians really wanted to end abortion they could do so or nearly do so just through charities and organizations that helped women to seek other alternatives and provided them with the resources to do so. Also I think it’s rather a ridiculous thing to focus on when you look at the stats. Every day in the US there are 3,700 abortions (yes, that is very high) but world wide over 22,000 children die every day of hunger and poverty related causes. Why is so much time and money spent on the 3700 neglecting the 22,000? I think our priorities are really messed up.
When I start evaluating a candidate I pro-life/ pro-choice is far from my top concern. Instead I look at the issues that they are likely to actually effect and legislate on. I am sure that a lot of other Christians are similarly frustrated with their votes being taken advantage of and that is why they no longer make pro-life/ pro-choice their top issue.
with all due respect,
-Emily Weaver Brown
Thank you for putting 'meat' (references) in your discussion. While we are not to judge the motives of a person's heart (that's reserved for God alone), we can look at a person's actions and discern whether or not we agree. Stephanie T.
ReplyDeleteWell said.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that candidates never do anything for that issue once in office.
ReplyDeleteGood for you, well said.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Bonnie. I am SO FRUSTRATED with the media right now! It is so apparent that they are incredibly biased!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I agree with you and will Support Joe Miller. I know there are many other issues and I believe that the "right to life" is just one, but demonstrates the morals or character of a candidate. Lisa Murkowski has proven to be one who does not uphold the truths taught in the Bible and I cannot support that. Thanks for standing strong in such a frustrating time for those who do!
Emily,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that we can engage in meaningful dialogue. I think these discussions are healthy, beneficial, and should be encouraged among friends as long as there's a mutual understanding to keep it sane, respectful, and to not take anything personally. There's a lot of people I know that I have great respect for, even though our opinions and worldviews have collided tremendously. If you don’t mind, I have a few challenging thoughts that I would like to share concerning your reply to Bonnie.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, you seem to be implying that pro-life Christians are single-issue voters who ignore all the other issues. With some, that may be true, but what does that have to do with this post? Bonnie referenced many issues that were on her mind (borrowing/spending , immigration, cap and trade, global warming, etc.). In this particular post, she happens to be expressing her opinion that it's unchristian to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Just because she's expressing that opinion in this particular post doesn't mean she thinks it's the only issue worth considering. She never said anything like that. Maybe the abortion issue happens to be the primary issue on her mind right now, but it's kind of a leap to assume that she or anyone else is ignoring all the other issues.
How can you say that nothing was done to change the "status quo" (of abortion) at the time Republicans had the majority? As I recall, The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed in 2003. In 2007, the law's constitutionality was challenged, but upheld in the U.S. Supreme court. More recently, Republicans fought tooth and nail trying to make sure tax-funded abortions weren't included in the health care legislation. In my mind, those are pretty big deals, which I'm sure required more than just half-hearted support. I wouldn't agree at all that pro-life politicians do not consider it to be an important issue. Maybe this is just a matter of perspective. If it seems enough progress hasn't been made by politicians to tackle the abortion issue, there could be many factors involved (other critical issues at hand, caving in to too much pressure from the media, lobbyists, or someone higher up, etc), but not necessarily a lack of interest.
If Roe v. Wade was overturned, you're probably right in saying that not every state would eliminate abortion. Even so, I think it's still easy to understand why a pro-life supporter would see the merits in overturning Roe v. Wade. If nothing else, it would be one step forward (out of many steps needed) to eliminate abortion. One step forward is better than nothing.
(more to come)
Do you really think increasing birth control access to "disproportionate poor black and Hispanic women" is the most "Christian" way to limit abortion? For one thing, race or economic status does nothing to change the fact that contraceptives are actually very cheap and can be accessed by anyone quite easily at Wal-Mart, pharmacies, service stations and some vending machines.
ReplyDeleteI really don't think lack of education is the problem either. As far as I can tell, we're all but drowning in our exposure to safe-sex education. It's everywhere – TV, movies, the Internet, school curriculums. Some schools are starting to hand out condoms to 1st graders, (which at that age, I think is nothing more than an open invitation to play with fire). The bottom line is that if there is anyone who doesn't know what "safe-sex" is in our 21st century culture, I would suspect that person of being completely unteachable all together. Parenting resources are also just as plentiful. For those who truly have the heart to be parents, their questions can be answered simply by searching the Web or talking to other parents.
Ultimately, I don't think there's a need for any sort of organized campaign to increase access to birth control or produce more educational resources. Perhaps a more effective method of lessening the number of abortions (other than legislation) would be to simply encourage the people we know who are considering abortion to seek wisdom first. All the information in the world is at their fingertips. All they need to do is choose.
Of course, abstinence is the cheapest, easiest to understand, and most effective form of birth control there is. I'm amazed at how often abstinence is overlooked as an alternative to practicing safe-sex. I personally think the reason why most people don't choose abstinence is because they don't possess the self-discipline, or perhaps they have never been taught to see it as a moral necessity. After all, why abstain from pleasure when spending 50 cents is all you need to do to prevent the consequences? (Oops… it broke/forgot to put it on; Bummer! Now what?) It's amazing how easy it is to make a life-changing mistake when morality and purity get swept out the door.
How is it a waste for pro-life people to financially support their cause? Is it really a waste if statistically a bigger tragedy has happened somewhere else in the world? Should we then shut down all the hospitals, blood banks, disaster relief organizations, fire stations, police departments and anything else that requires money or attention until child starvation is finally stopped? I guess the only way this argument would make sense is if we assume that people are only capable of supporting one cause at a time. However, there are countless Christian-based organizations devoted to combating world hunger. Just because the stats are higher with child starvation does not prove that anyone's priorities are wrong. Sometimes a problem can perpetuate regardless of how much money or aid you throw at it – That doesn't mean that anyone is to blame.
One possibility as to why abortion is looked at as a more pertinent issue than child starvation is probably due to the fact that it's a highly controversial topic. Whereas no one would argue against feeding starving children, the plethora of disagreements over the abortion issue is probably what inevitably shines the brighter spotlight. Most pro-life supporters do not see the termination of the unborn as simply an "unfortunate tragedy". They see it as 1st degree murder. Through the same lens, the starvation of a child halfway across the world is an unfortunate tragedy that no one particular person can be held responsible for. It's really an apples to oranges comparison. Yes, we should have compassion and care for the needs of starving or impoverished children, but I can understand why some would look at premeditated murder as requiring a much swifter application of justice.
I'm not a single issue voter, so in that way I agree with Emily. A voter has to look at the complete package and everything the candidate stands for, not just any one issue by itself. That said, I don’t recall that I’ve ever run into a candidate that represented enough of my views to warrant my vote who didn’t also oppose abortion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I’m not a ‘citizen of the world’ and don’t fall for that lie either. I’m personally responsible as a voter in a country where the voters make the rules for the nearly 4000 babies a day that are murdered here in my country. Their blood is on my hands before G-d. Yes, I have a secondary responsibility after the infants being murdered in my country for the 22,000 children in the world who are dying of hunger and poverty related issues. In addition to the fact that I’m responsible for what goes on here first, it’s one thing to address an issue of helping people in need and quite another to legalize murdering unborn infants. In the case of abortion, people are deliberately killing someone. In the case of children dying in general, it may be that someone could help them and prevent their deaths, but no one is deliberately going to them and murdering them without facing any punishment because it’s promoted and condoned in their land. Pure religion includes helping the widow and the orphan, but murder is forbidden.
It’s also a little hard to say that making abortions illegal will not stop them. When trying to push to legalize abortion back in the early ‘70’s, a much inflated number of 500 abortions per YEAR were supposedly taking place; less than 170 of those were ever actually verified by anyone. That’s a far cry from 3700 per DAY! I can say that it’s highly unlikely that putting money into charity organizations alone would halt abortion to that extent because right now, abortions are subsidized…that is, paid for by tax payer dollars. There’s a tremendous industry (we’re talking lots of money) in murdering babies and selling their bodies for commercial purposes. If abortion is illegal, that goes away, but it won’t otherwise. Furthermore, as a believer and a citizen of this land, I’m responsible for the laws of the land, I’m not responsible for the law breakers before G-d, so the blood of the few hundred lawbreakers a year is not on my hands the way the blood of thousands of law abiding citizens is. We have a lot of other sad murders going on in this country every day, but no one suggests that we legalize murder and put money into alternative resources to help the would-be murders find an alternative instead. That said, the heart issues won’t be solved by changing the laws, but very few people will go break the law to abort their children as history has shown.
Also, we did make tremendous gains on the abortion issue during the 8 years when we had a pro-life president and many pro-life friends in congress. No, Roe v. Wade wasn’t thrown out, but late term abortions were and how second trimester abortions were allowed changed and laws were also put in place so that people who had an issue of conscience against abortion didn’t have to be involved in performing them. In the last 2 years of the opposite kind of leadership I believe each of those measures have been thrown out (they’ve certainly been challenged) and far worse laws have been put in place. It’s not fair to say that nothing happened on the abortion issue when we voted in pro-life candidates.