quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

For me it is very simple, if a candidate does not value life, especially the life of our most innocent and helpless citizens, then how can I trust him on any other issue?

I think the "devaluing life" charge can really only be leveled at a handful of people. I think that, for the most part, abortion-rights supporters see the fetus as something less than a full person worthy of full-scale human rights. I'm not advocating that position, but IMO to say that these people just "devalue life" does more to hamper dialog and damage our credibility than it does to further our agenda and convince people of our position.

And as writerchick said, "valuing life" can manifest itself in many forms. It can come in the form of pushing for stronger diplomatic efforts instead of rushing into war. It can come in the form of using our resources and political capital to push for humanitarian causes instead of business interests. I wouldn't say that the far right is hypocritical on this issue, but it does have a serious case of tunnel vision. For example, about a million people (mostly children) die of malaria each year; about 2 million die of AIDS; about 2.2 million die of other water & sanitation-related illnesses. If you were to ask a "pro-lifer" if this is bad, of course they'd say that it is, but the manner in which the political energy is distributed doesn't really say "pro-life" to a lot of people; it just says "anti-abortion."

-Dan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

quote:

A candidates stance on abortion is only a small area in which he/she can value life. What about the lives of homeless people? Why aren't they valued? What about the people who work their butts off, but still can't afford to buy groceries? Why aren't their lives valued? What about ex convicts who've paid their debt to society but can't get a job? Why aren't their lives valued?

If a candidate were promoting the wholesale legalized murder of homeless people, poor people, and ex convicts, pro-lifers would definitely prioritize that to be voted against as well.

"Make life easier on some people who have it hard while callously murdering others" is not a platform that seems rational to vote for. Even if it includes making my own life easier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: writerchick

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonrise

The difference between the three examples that you gave and the pre-born baby? They're alive and weren't brutally murdered.

Life is paramount to my Christian faith. God loved us so much that he sacrificed his Son's live for our sins. Life was given for me; pathetic, worthless, sinful me. And because of that Life, I'm redeemed in Him and forever grateful to my Lord and Savior. If He gave his Life for me, the least I could do is stand for life for Him.

What it sounds like you're saying here is that our concern for others should end once they leave the womb. That's my point. If you're going to be concerned about life, it's a little hypocritical to totally disregard it until after the person dies of old age or natural causes or whatever.

Yes, Jesus did die for our sins, but He also came to give us abundant life. That would include all the years between the womb and the grave, not just those few months in the womb.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wordsnpic

This year was a little problemsome in voting for pro-life. Obama, certainly, is pro-abortion, but McCain proposes states' rights for abortion, which, in my opinion, pushes us even farther away from being able to ever appeal Roe vs. Wade, as surely a number of states would jump on this opportunity to legalize. I actually think McCain's "states rights" positioning is far more damaging in the long-term than Obama's plan to leave Roe vs. Wade as it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Im4Decency
I've had several late term miscarriages. I know through personal experience as well as scientific fact that the "health of the mother" clause is pure unadulterated deceit. Late term abortions are just as, if not actually riskier to any mother's health, as birth.

When "pro-choice" aka pro-abortion "christians" claim that pro-life christians don't care about the born, it's a red herring. There's absolutely no evidence for this claim. There is only evidence for the quite obvious fact that pro-abortion supporters care less for the unborn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LabGuy
But Obama's plan is not to leave the situation as is. He promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which will make Roe v. Wade a Federal law. Thus doing nationwide exactly what you fear some states would do. That is significantly worse, and comes as close to total defeat of the pro-life cause as you can get.

-Robb

quote:

Should abortion and pro-life be all we focus on?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Im4Decency

History will eventually reveal Bush's legacy--interesting that a whole lot more than mere "political energy" got spent on those two exact diseases in Africa--but Dan here apparently hasn't heard about it lol-Dan, you must be a mainstream media fan. Clinton merely talked about Aids in Africa--Bush actually changed U.S. governmental policy, and spent hundreds upon hundreds of millions combating malaria, Aids-- oh, and building infrastructure, including water....and encouraging transparency and honesty within the governments being handed our tax dollars.

quote:

While I'm not trying to undermine the seriousness of the issue, I don't believe that politicians take it seriously at all. Time after time, its brought up at election time, and then all but forgotten about the rest of the year. Only Christians on both the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life sides of the issue ever seem to keep it going, and Congress never seems to address them. Its my personal belief that both Republicans and Democrats would just as soon selfishly keep the issue alive by keeping abortion legal (if it ever becomes illegal, it will be gone for good) so they can sway voters at election time

quote:

ORIGINAL: Evangel70
Those of you who believe abortion is the most important issue, what exactly do you expect a president to do to prevent abortions? I thought republicans were for less government intrusion in the personal lives of individuals yet it seems that many would like the government to take away the rights of individuals to make bad decision (i.e. get abortions). Should the government send agents to neighborhoods to make sure unmarried people are not having sex? Perhaps shut down college fraternities and sororities that promote promiscuity? Would you like the government to insert tracking devises in all it's citizens so it can monitor behavior and immediately arrest anyone who violates biblical behavior (anyone smoking, drinking, gambling, watching porn, cheating on their spouse, etc.)

My point is, should government criminalize abortions and put women considering abortions in jail until they have their babies and then put the babies in the foster system?

quote:


ORIGINAL: Evangel70

Those of you who believe abortion is the most important issue, what exactly do you expect a president to do to prevent abortions? I thought republicans were for less government intrusion in the personal lives of individuals yet it seems that many would like the government to take away the rights of individuals to make bad decision (i.e. get abortions).

quote:


My point is, should government criminalize abortions and put women considering abortions in jail until they have their babies and then put the babies in the foster system?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Acts29

For me it tells me the value they place on a human life. Since abortions were made legal the value of life has decreased. People shooting people for tennis shoes, little children killing other little children, etc.... Life whether inside the womb or outside the womb needs a president who values each and every life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar
People have been killing people over stupid things since the beginning of time; it did not start with the legalization of abortion. It didn't even start in this country with the legalization of abortion. Armed duels were once considered a gentlemanly way of settling arguments. Criminals were executed for stealing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar
I'd say, if anything, our society has become more conscious of and more sensitive to life in the last few decades. We're certainly more sensitive to such things as the impact of our environmental, economic, and trade policies on the lives of workers in other countries. Nations are less prone to going to war. Militaries are incorporating higher-precision munitions to minimize civilian casualties. Police forces are making greater use of non-lethal weaponry. Unfortunately, the majority has not been convinced of the validity of unborn life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga

I recognize that the following is pretty sappy, but just think about it with me for a moment: You were an "unborn" at one time; a fetus; a silent, voteless, minute person in your mother's womb. So was Soccrates. So was Mary, the mother of our L-rd. So was Lincoln. So was Einstein. So was our Messiah. Think about the implications, should any of these have been aborted. Did they have value while they were in the womb? Were they . . . valid?

quote:

ORIGINAL: writerchick

quote:

ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
I recognize that the following is pretty sappy, but just think about it with me for a moment: You were an "unborn" at one time; a fetus; a silent, voteless, minute person in your mother's womb. So was Soccrates. So was Mary, the mother of our L-rd. So was Lincoln. So was Einstein. So was our Messiah. Think about the implications, should any of these have been aborted. Did they have value while they were in the womb? Were they . . . valid?

This line of reasoning goes against the face of God's sovereignty. Do you really think He's surprised by any abortion that happens? To answer your question, if any of those people had been aborted, God would've just put their contributions to mankind in another.