The debates have been interesting to watch. I have appreciated the opportunity to hear Gov. Romney’s positions on various issues. He is certainly not the diabolical person that the president and the biased liberal media have painted him to be. But among the debates so far, perhaps the most striking comment came from Vice President Biden in his debate with Congressman Paul Ryan.
Near the end, the issue of religion was brought up. Both men are lifelong Catholics. Having co-written Indivisible with Jay Richards, who is Catholic, I have come to understand their social views in greater depth. While I disagree with many of their theological positions, I appreciate their commitment to our common values. One of these is, of course, their position on abortion.
Congressman Ryan stated that in his view life begins at conception, which is the Catholic church’s position. He then stated, “The policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.” Clearly, Ryan’s personal position and Romney’s political position are not exactly the same. The Catholic church does not consider rape an excuse to terminate a child’s life. (Since rape caused my mother’s pregnancy which led to my birth, I personally have a problem with this idea also.)
Vice President Biden said, “My religion defines who I am. And I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help.” He then turned it to abortion. “Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life, but I refuse to impose it…on others.”
To me, it sounds as if the Vice President’s social doctrine is terribly uninformed. If there is anyone who “can’t take care of themselves,” is it not those in the womb?
All of this raises a challenging question: Where do we draw the line between our personal convictions and the social, political, and legal policies we advocate? This is especially difficult for politicians, since they are lawmakers. If they push too much, they are called zealots. If they push too little, they are called hypocrites. How candidates handle this inherent tension reveals a lot about their character.
It’s often repeated, “You can’t legislate morality.” But if not, then what else is left to legislate? All laws reflect someone’s system of values and the principles guiding their decisions. “Thou shall not murder” is not just one of the Ten Commandments, it is law. Nobody argues that this is the imposition of religious values on a secular society. But “thou shall not kill a child in the womb?” Suddenly, that crosses a line with many people.
The challenge for believers is to take biblical principles and convince a majority of people of their truth. This is essentially what happened with abolition and more recently in the Civil Rights movement. In a democratic society, this can work. We cannot convince every person of the truth of God’s word, but we can convince a majority, which can directly impact legislation. Then it is not coercion, but a healthy case of majority rule. In the words of the apostle Paul, “we are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.”
When a politician believes one thing personally, but does not seek to establish it legislatively, we must ask why. Take the case of prostitution. I haven’t heard it addressed much, but I would bet one would have a hard time finding a candidate who would openly say, “Yes, I support prostitution.” At the same time, we don’t hear much opposition to Nevada’s legal brothels. Is that simply the laissez-faire attitude ingrained in Americans, especially in the west? Is it hypocrisy? Or, even worse, is political silence really an advancement of something most people consider wrong or perhaps evil?
I believe the preferred approach to all of the moral issues we face is to do exactly what Paul said: destroy the ideas that oppose God. In other words, we change people’s minds. We do this through gracious confrontation. Screaming and yelling doesn’t work. Legislation doesn’t always work (study prohibition to see its failure). But changing people’s minds almost always works.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is an extremely liberal Democrat and a Mormon from Nevada, has spoken out against prostitution. Granted, his opposition has been couched in economic benefits rather than moral conviction, but at least he is pointed in the right direction on this issue.
Which leads me back to Vice President Biden’s comments and the Obama administration’s actions. If Biden’s religion defines him as a person and, as he stated, particularly influences his social doctrine, wouldn’t he at least seek to convince people that abortion is wrong? If he truly believes that life begins at conception, his words and actions should reflect it. He may not seek to overturn Roe vs. Wade, but he should seek to convince Americans it should be overturned and especially to see life as precious and worthy of protection.
Instead, the current administration has been actively thwarting pro-life legislation while increasing funding to groups that advocate and provide abortions both domestically and internationally. As for President Obama, he claims to be a Christian, though many theologians reject his “liberation theology” as valid. Regardless, there is no logic in promoting abortion as a means of birth control, especially in the minority communities he claims to care so much about. Planned Parenthood, which has seen increased funding under the Obama administration, has been caught protecting under-age prostitution, promoting abortions based on gender selection, and designating funds to provide minority abortions. Yet Obama mocked Romney in this week’s debate for wanting to cut off millions of taxpayer dollars that go to Planned Parenthood.
In both cases – the President and the Vice-President – we have claims of religious beliefs that directly contradict the words and actions of both. This is not simply a “hands-off” approach that respects majority opinion. This is intentional political activism directly opposed to a supposed belief, which can only lead to one conclusion: what they claim to believe is not what they actually believe.
This is a serious moral dilemma.
Yet Obama mocked Romney in this week’s debate for wanting to cut off millions of taxpayer dollars that go to Planned Parenthood.
and why does he do that? So he can inflame those that want the monies to pay for the continuance of wrongful sex practices outside of marraige who do not want to cease from such..but want others to pay for their mistakes even when they were given condoms to try to stop the overpopulation when they go about having a one nighter only to find that the girl got pregnant. That same man could get a different woman preganat almost every day cause they are not dating to marry these days..they are dating to engage in sex and fun together. So if the taxpayer picks up the tab for their ‘mistakes?” they will not learn to be responsible parents that way.
and why does the Pres. and VicePres. want to get Planned Parenthood involved, cause they are known as abortion clinics to the majority of people and that would cut off their supply for funding to those who cannot afford to do so. Thereby they know that there are more children and even adults that practice sex without restrictions or caring about parenting then ever before…and thereby that costs votes. Harloting for the vote is what that is.
Let’s all stop deciding when an infant is really an infant in the womb…and realize it is much more involved than the flesh.
when does the soul of a baby enter the sperm/egg? can anyone tell? If all babies go to heaven, why preach the gospel? The fornicators will continue getting pregnant and having you pay for the abortion and tell you that it’s okay cause the baby went to heaven? hUH?
I tell you the truth of my own story…I was 16 and my dad had just remarried. I was pregnant from an office party while drinking and under age. I wanted the child, but my step mom didn’t. It was illegal in the states, so they and the young man decided to send me alone to England for an abortion. I arrived there a few days by myself and started in morning sickness (i did not know christ then)…and something was telling me not to do it by making me think I shouldn’t (conscience) and I almost got away with it but those people knew better and had me talk to one of their staff and he convinced me how foolish I would look if I went back to the USA and didn’t get the abortion. So I did.
I came to the Lord in my forties, after two marraiges I was unable to have a child. I inquired of the Lord what happened to my baby regarding heaven when I learned about the gospel. I had heard many say that all babies go to heaven but I didn’t understand how that would be as why is there a choice when an adult or even a teenager? I heard back from Christ. He told me ‘if their name is in the Lamb’s book of Life then be assured that the child made it”. What an answer! not knowing for sure but resting in the fact that He does. Then He told me…go and preach the gospel and tell them, it isn’t just about the flesh as the embryo…it is about the soul of the flesh. Now why this??? cause the same Lord tells the church of Thyatira that if they continue in their fornications that He will destroy the babies of those fornicators…was He speaking of destoying the flesh or the soul? Look it up, Revelation chapter 2 if we are to beleive that it is our Lord that said that.
Now I am 60years old, no children, no parents… so what do I think of that arranged abortion? I wish that there had been a choice for me to make the decision and someone as wise about such to talk with me. I think that a way should be made for those seeking an abortion under age, should be the responsibility of the parent to pay for such (one time and they will set new rules at their home)..but give them an option that if they speak with a counselor (another job creator) about a foster home then I think that the govt. should come up with a program that pays the foster parents for the delivery and early care of the baby if they take that option. However if there is a couple that wants an abortion and they are of age..then let them pay for it and take the responsiblity but if they choose to have the baby then perhaps there could be some financial help. I do not think we can ever get all to avoid abortions as an option…but I trust if we spend our tax payer dollars in finding those wise in counsel to speak with them and offer incentives financially to keep the baby that more will do that. But don’t put the burden on those who do not care for birth control or abortions to pay for them. The government is trying to get out of financing the mother and children is why they want the birth control..and quite frankly I can’t blame them for that… but what they fail to understand is that the problem can be better solved following GOD’s way with teaching abstinance but in this day and age many parents won’t…and that is why they should have to pay for their child’s abortion or delivery.
GOD made families to be families…not fornicators to get tax money to pay for the offspring whether kept or not as a way to get around learning responsibility.